DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

Introduction to Theology
ST101-OL

Instructor: Dr. Glenn Kreider, Ph.D.

Definitions of Theology and Systematic Theology

STUDENT DATA:

Travis Matt-Bond Epstein Reems

travismreems@lionmail.sagu.edu

(314) 960-1322

Summer 2015

5/20/2015
 Theology

Simply stated, theology is the research or study of God1—the word theology coming

from the combination of the Greek word theos, meaning “god,”2 and the suffix –ology,

meaning “to study.” That direct and simple definition, though, only treats the subject of

theology as grammatical subject. What of the active, the sense of studying or

conducting theology, however? That, then, requires speaking of process. The process

of conducting theology, insofar as the Christian practice thereof is concerned, begins

with exegesis of scripture,3 which presupposes a high view of scripture as the infallible,

inspired word of God.4 Examining scripture for the human authors’ intent—that which

the original audience would have understood as its meaning—utilizing proper methods

of hermeneutics, gives way to the conducting of Biblical Theology5—examining

scriptures in their immediate context.6 Studying Historical Theology—that which has

1 George Eldon Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 21; William W Klein, Craig L Blomberg, and Robert L Hubbard Jr.,
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004), 456.

2 Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 456; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology

(Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994), 234; Mark Driscoll and Gerry Breshears, Doctrine: What
Christians Should Believe (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 165.

3 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 108-9; See also Klein, who writes that “valid theologians must
follow the sound exegesis of the appropriate biblical texts” as a stipulation of conducting theology. Klein,
Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 462.

4 The ontological gap between God and humanity necessitates divine revelation as the ultimate

source for knowledge of God, which for Christians comes through the intermediate source of the Bible,
among others (e.g. the Wesleyan Quadrilateral).

5 “Biblical Theology (the discipline) should not be confused with “biblical Theology” (the discipline
of theology with the Bible as its basis. Additionally, Grudem states that “…biblical (sic) theology traces the
historical development of a doctrine and the way in which one’s place at some point in that historical
development affects one’s understanding and application of that particular doctrine. Biblical theology also
focuses on the understanding of each doctrine that the biblical authors and their original hearers or
readers possessed.” Grudem, Systematic Theology, 23.

6Grudem, Systematic Theology, 22; Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 461; Ladd, A
Theology of the New Testament, 20.

1
been understood of the scriptures by the church and its predecessor throughout the

ages of humanity7—then not only informs one’s Systematic Theology in general, but

also gives ecumenical context to building a Systematic Theology on any given subject in

order to dissuade error of interpretation.8

Systematic Theology

It is then forming of Systematic Theologies—systematized understandings of the

revelations from God of Himself (His ontology and character), His relationship with

humanity, and His will for humanity9—which is the chief end of the study of Theology

proper, all the rest having been intermediary steps in the process.10 Having arrived at a

Systematic Theology11 on any given subject, one is properly positioned then to apply his

7 Grudem, Systematic Theology, 21.

8 On this subject, Klein writes “[The Church’s] understanding of theology has established the

boundaries of orthodoxy.” Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 457; To which he adds, “…modern
theologians cannot do their work as if in a vacuum, as if no Christians have ever considered these issues
prior to their own time.” Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 465; Grudem contributes that
“…historical [theology] informs as of the insights gained and the mistakes made by others previously in
understanding Scripture….” Grudem, Systematic Theology, 21.

9 Ladd summarizes the purpose of revelation in stating, “What God reveals is not only information

about himself and human destiny; he reveals himself….” Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 21.

10Ladd offers on the subject that “[Biblical theology] is not concerned with the final meaning of the
teachings of the Bible or their relevance for today. This is the task of systematic theology.” Ladd, A
Theology of the New Testament, 20.

11 Grudem offers in way of a definition of systematic theology the following: “…systematic

theology involves the collecting and understanding of all the relevant passages in the Bible on various
topics and then summarizing their teachings clearly so that we know what to believe about each topic.
…Furthermore systematic theology focuses on summarizing each doctrine as it should be
understood by present-day Christians. This will sometimes involve the use of terms and even concepts
that were not themselves used by any individual biblical author, but that are the proper result of

2
or her understanding of God’s will to contemporary situation.12 It cannot be supposed

that there is a Systematic Theology in the singular, but rather Systematic Theologies of

individual subject matters,13 as there cannot be one grand unifying understanding of

God outside of Himself for all other definitions fall short of capturing the glory of the

infinite and eternal, to wit as soon as one proposes a complete understanding of God,

His boundlessness dictates there be something beyond that understanding which has

yet to be grasped.14

combining the teachings of two or more biblical authors on a particular subject.” Grudem, Systematic
Theology, 21, 23; Cf. Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 458.

12 Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 18-21; Grudem, Systematic Theology, 464.

13 Ladd summarizing James D.G. Dunn states, “[Dunn] sees the canon of scripture as defining
both the center and the circumference of Christian belief…. But although there are limits to Christian
diversity, Dunn is clear that there is no such thing as ‘one orthodoxy’ or a single ‘theology’ of the New
Testament. We should speak rather of different ‘theologies’ (as we have been forcefully reminded by
redaction criticism).
This unavoidable conclusion means that some of what has been done with scripture is
illegitimate, namely: (1) using verses and passages of scripture as prooftexts, as though the Bible
presented a homogenous body of doctrine, (2) much of the harmonizing of biblical passages and ideas
that has been done, since it represents a failure to appreciate the diversity of scripture, and (3)
interpreting biblical texts in terms of later Christian orthodoxy, since so-called Christian orthodoxy
represents only one of several theological viewpoints represented in the New Testament and since it is a
mistake to read later orthodoxy into the early texts.” Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 686; Cf.
Klein, Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, 457.

14 God is therefor also metaGod.

3
 Bibliography

Driscoll, Mark, and Gerry Breshears. Doctrine: What Christians Should Believe.
Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology. Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1994.

Klein, William W, Craig L Blomberg, and Robert L Hubbard Jr. Introduction to Biblical
Interpretation. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2004.

Ladd, George Eldon. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993.