For whom? All the sorts of things that you have become used to doing, and become used to doing in theology courses and exegesis courses. Do that, he said.
Logos 8 Messianic Jewish Platinum
Then he said, having done that, compare one biblical text to others to see where the Bible agrees and disagrees. So that you're already going to see that Gabler believed that the Bible was not always consistent with itself, which would separate him, of course, from people like Luther and Calvin and the English reformers and the radical reformation and all of the rest. So, he said, put biblical theology first.
Do the historical analysis of text. Compare the text, one another to see where they agree and disagree and then he said, find out what the universal abiding principles are. And, when you read what he says about the Old Testament, it's hard to tell how much would be left.
That mostly moral commands — particularly the Ten Commandments — but find the abiding principles and, typically, unless an Old Testament principle was repeated in the New, it could not be an abiding principle and, even then, Gabler would filter others out. So, this was his method. Gabler also found many historical inaccuracies in the text. His opinion was that the, the scripture was often [inherent][Phonetic] and historical and even theological statements.
Gabler's philosophical viewpoint was out of rationalism, and I would say he is a liberal rationalist. So, Gabler was saying we have lots of contradiction in scripture. We have many difficult passages. We would like to get the true separated from the untrue, and then find abiding principles.
Messianic Systematic Theology of the Old Testament – Scofield Prophecy Studies
So, Gabler's a mixed bag in my opinion. I think he is correct to say that systematic theology needs to be built on biblical theology. There would also be other elements, in my opinion. But, I think biblical theology should be the foundation. I agree the historical analysis ought to be done on a passage. It does make a difference who wrote it and to whom if we're to understand it correctly. I agree that we should compare one text to the next to make our  theological summaries.
But, I would disagree with many of his conclusions particularly about the disagreements of scripture. But, Gabler is indeed a pioneer.
Systematic Theology I
The second person G. Bauer, wrote an Old Testament theology, really the first that there was, in He also found many aspects of the Bible to be unscientific and incorrect. Particularly, miracles, because they are unverifiable, in his opinion. He also looked for universal moral principles from the Old Testament.
- Children of the Fog?
- The Jews: And The Founding of America.
- Logos 8 Messianic Jewish Silver | Logos Bible Software.
Repeated in the New that would be relevant for today. It is also important to notice how he set up his study. In other words, how he presented his material in his book. Bauer discussed his method and then he divided all of the material he was going to cover on Old Testament theology into three categories. Theology, Anthropology, Christology.
Standard, systematic theology categories. God, human beings, Christ. And I say that, and only to continue to wet your appetite for George Lauren's Bauer's work. Because, after all, how many liberal rationalists can you read in one week. I say this because it is never easy to write an Old Testament theology for many reasons, but one of the reasons is there is so much material, how do you present it in a coherent way? He will not be the last to do so, and I don't find that an illegitimate way of approaching it, but approaching the difficulty of the subject, but I do find it less attractive than allowing the scriptures to unfold as they As you'll, as you'll see.
Now, these two pioneers pretty much set the early stage for Old Testament theology. Now, then, the next name, diVita, who wrote his Old Testament theology in , and then a third edition by , diVita shifted the ground from liberal rationalism to a brand of liberal romanticism. His main influence was Immanuel Kant. You remember dear old Kant from categorical imperative. And though he deserves a better treatment than what I am about to give him, you know, there's, there's, he, he argued that within the human soul there's a sense of ought.
I ought to do certain things.
And diVita argued, we shouldn't so much try to separate the true from the untrue the way a liberal rationalist would. But, we need to understand that in the ancient world myths and legends are standard literary faire and that those myths and legends — and he would include the miraculous pretty much in those — the myths and the legends carry religious feelings and universal spirit to them so that diVita would be one of the early persons who would say things like, well it doesn't matter so much if it's factually accurate. Does it heighten your consciousness of God?
Does it inspire in you religious feelings? And, of course, his view of scripture was to treat it as an inspired book, but probably inspired in the same way that I find a great deal of literature inspired, goes something like this: By inspired we mean a higher ability to move human emotions or wills. So that I've written a poem or two, but I cannot move the human will and emotions say the way Shakespeare, Chauncer, Milton, on down to your favorites to the poets of high quality Robert Penn Warren that you would find can move your emotions and your will.
Old Testament theology is not so much about truth and error, but it is about universal principles. More than that, about a universal spirit that encourages you toward higher living. That human beings desire to do what they ought. So, that's the standpoint He's the father of the D-source.
So, that's kind The fourth, Vodke. Wilhelm Vatke. Arrived in You remember Hegel. He says that history is a series of collisions between thesis —. If you've ever had a discussion, some of you said you were married, there was [inaudible] and finally, a synthesis.
This happens on a daily basis in some homes. Though in some homes, it's more like thesis, antithesis, thesis, antithesis, it is a long time getting the synthesis. So, we know that what Vatke said This was his view. Also in Hegel, there is this sense that there is through this series of collisions of thesis, antithesis, synthesis, there is constant development upward, forward in human existence.
In other words, before there was Darwinian evolution, there was a sense of Hegelian evolution. And Vatke believed that the way history works is that you start with something primative and you move to something more involved. Darwinism, in not even a nutshell, but in a speck of a nutshell, is the movement from something simple to something complex. If you move from one cell to us, you have mo He believed since the complicated materials should come last.
All right, we are going to go from simple to complex. Complex liturgical text, like Leviticus, must come later, right? Must come last.
Related Messianic Systematic Theology of the Old Testament
Copyright 2019 - All Right Reserved