"Biblical theology" is in fact a historical discipline popularized by guys like Geerhardus Vos, and deals with "the history of redemption". So, when someone starts talking about (for example) "covenant theology", they are generally referring to a particular view of "Biblical theology", with an overarching view of the covenant as the structure of Scripture. As might be evident, this "imposes" as much on Scripture as systematic theology because it comes to Scripture with (in this case) the view of the covenant as being the structuring phenomenon.

But, what you are calling "biblical theology" and what I called "literary theology" are essentially the same.

-Rob

Make sense? I think in the end we are talking about the same thing. I mean, all of the approaches are helpful to understanding God's Word. We all just choose to approach it at a different angle.

Just to be mildly contentious, albeit in an amicable way… I thought I might mention that one of the fathers of modern Biblical theology, Geerhardus Vos, points out that Biblical theology is no more (or less) "Biblical" than systematic theology. Both "transform" Scripture by applying a framework to it: topical in the case of of systematic theology, historical in the case of Biblical theology.

I've become quite interested in literary theology, which approaches the books of Scripture by considering original author, original audience, original purpose/concerns. Yet, at the same time, I have to agree somewhat with Dr. Frame that ultimately, the type of theology that is most involved in day-to-day life is systematic theology–because, in theory, it deals with topics/situations, which frankly is how we naturally approach everyday life.

I think, however, that good literary and Biblical theology help us improve how we develop our "systematic" theology, that is, how we figure out how God's revelation should impact our day-to-day lives.

As an aside, you might want to check out some of Dr. Frame's stuff… visit http://www.frame-poythress.org … Although a PCA pastor and thus Westminster subscriptionist, he nonetheless has fairly open views on things like how worship ought to be conducted, the role of preaching/teaching and highly educated clergy, etc.

-Rob

Well thought out answer…thanks for your two cents. I would've paid a whole dollar for that

I agree with you that generally people don't need to know the terms "pneumatology" and "ecclesiology"…I lean more towards Biblical theology than systematic theology. They should be taught the Bible and learn these "-ologies" more inductively in my opinion.

Your summary of RTS approach to theology is a good one. Always helpful to keep in mind our approach and I especially like the personal interp. + communal interp. + historical interp. (my own wording of your 3 points). Today, I think people are tending more towards one or the other and aren't willing to include all 3 to inform their theology.

Thanks for your contribution to this blog.

I do think the somewhat "holistic" approach to which you've alluded is useful, and I'm reminded of some teaching by Drs. Richard Pratt and John Frame of Reformed Theological Seminary.

In figuring out an appropriate Biblical approach to any of our "-ologies" (including ecclesiology and missiology), they might suggest a three-pronged approach:

(1) Private interpretation of Scripture
(2) Interaction in community with present believers
(3) Historical continuity with past believers

Striving to keep these balanced will hopefully be at least somewhat useful in avoiding three negative things:

(1) exaltation of ourselves and our own opinions
(2) casting the church to the winds of cultural change
(3) stagnating into "dead orthodoxy"

while also striving for three positive things:

(1) Acknowledging the Spirit's work in individual believers
(2) Keeping the church relevant to the modern situation
(3) Building on the Spirit's work in our forebears

My two cents (you get a lot of words for the two cents, but I can't claim they're actually any more valuable!)

-Rob

Thanks again for your contribution.