Biblical Theology and Other Theological Methods
Theological methods can be divided into biblical, systematic, historical, and dogmatic theology. As a method, biblical theology studies the Bible as literature, focusing on a particular section of the Bible, whether it be a specific biblical author, period, genre, or such. Systematic theology divides doctrines into categories and considers all that the Bible says about these categories, historical theology studies the development of doctrine through the ages, and dogmatic theology studies schools of thought in theology. The logical procession would begin with biblical theology—the study of the Bible itself—before moving on to systematic and, finally, historical and dogmatic. An error in biblical theology can result in a faulty understanding of the proof texts for systematic theology, which will affect a tradition and is often copied through history.
The approach of biblical theology is distinct from the exegetical method of bible study. Exegesis is the detailed analysis of the biblical text, a process that should be used in every approach of study. When doing biblical theology, the student of the Word should analyze the section at hand for the very words, syntax, and broad context in which the passage occurs. The exegetical process should be unaffected by theological presuppositions and the student of the Word should be honest with the text and allow the Bible to speak for itself.
How a Robust Biblical Theology Contributes to Positive Dogmatic Theology
Certain non-negotiable components must be present for a Christian to move from a basic biblical theology to a robust biblical theology. A robust biblical theology is sufficient to build a robust systematic theology that puts the Christian’s worldview into a proper dogmatic theology with an appropriate relationship to historical theology.
The most biblically robust dogmatic theology is dispensationalism, which has a threefold sine qua non: that the church and Israel are kept distinct, that this distinction comes from literal interpretation, and that God’s underlying purpose that unifies history is the manifestation of His own glory. The second of the sine qua non relates to hermeneutics, which is the driving force behind dispensational theology, and the first and third issues relate to biblical theology as they deal with how the overall scheme of the biblical metanarrative works.
Biblical Theology and the Free Grace Departure
The tendency away from robust biblical theology has recently taken a toll on the free grace movement. The modern free grace movement came to prominence in the 1980s, especially with the influence of some seminary professors at Dallas Theological Seminary, such as Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodges. The classroom discussions on biblical hermeneutics and Greek exegesis instilled a robust biblical theology for a generation of pastors who saw a clear vision of Johannine soteriology of salvation through belief in Jesus, not self. Unfortunately, this emphasis on hermeneutics and exegesis was not passed along to the third generation.
Free grace theology began to solidify as a dogmatic theology in the late 20th century, but then it became less of a theology and more of a movement. It was in this movement era that the third generation of free gracers emerged. Meanwhile, several from the second generation watched as some key seminaries began drifting toward liberalism and other foreign ideas, and for many, the solution was to stop sending men to seminary altogether.
Without a background in Bible study methodology, several leaders in the third generation of free grace advocates did not develop a robust biblical theology as their predecessors had and the interface between biblical and systematic theology fell by the wayside. Rather than accepting the sine qua non of dispensationalism, it became normal for new free grace advocates to see the kingdom of heaven (and likewise a so-called kingdom of hell) as a current spiritual reality. Rather than seeing the Bible as complete, it became normal for new free grace advocates to go to self-proclaimed prophets for new revelation. Rather than seeing the Apostle John as a champion of trinitarianism, it became normal for new free grace advocates to deny that John was trinitarian, insisting instead that the Eastern Orthodox Church invented the Trinity. Rather than seeing the Bible as the Word of God, it became normal for new free grace advocates to deny the inspiration of Scripture.
Moving Forward
Advocating a robust biblical theology may have avoided the recent fall from orthodoxy that the free grace movement has experienced. Moving forward, we must renew our commitment to the Bible. Recognizing that recent converts are still babes in Christ, we should help them grow into a position where they know the overall narrative of the Bible with its major sections. To get to this point, a student of the Word needs to be equipped to do the task of verse-by-verse exegesis, which presupposes a proper understanding of the nature of the Bible. Free grace theologians must be conservative theologians first and foremost. Only then can we get back on track to advancing free grace theology.
“The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim. 2:2)