There Must be a Method

I grew up with systematic theology. Really, I'm a baptist. At least I was a baptist. I am, was, I'm not sure. Anyways the Southern Baptist Convention is systematic about everything, practice and theology. I suppose theology is what brings about practice. I'm just not sure I buy it. Here's the thing: I think that each Biblical book could stand alone, perhaps. I know that was not a very clear statement. Perhaps its not a very clear thought. And, perhaps there are some exceptions. Perhaps the Pentateuch is an exception. And then there are the authors who were clearly dependent on each other's writings. And perhaps that is all of them. Have I walked myself in a complete circle? Ok, so maybe I don't think each book stands alone. No, I don't think that. However I am aware that there are redactional layers and varying voices even in individual books. I think what I'm trying to figure is, how can we say that what Luke says is dependent on what John says? I would say Luke is independent of John. John wrote later than Luke. It seems irrational that we should consider what John says when reading Luke. Additionally, how can we read the Torah, Tanakh, Old Testament through the lens of the New Testament? It seems silly to me. I'm not certain that the Trinity is in the Torah. (I'm not even convinced its in the New Testament. I'm actually pretty sure its not.)

Are you still with me? So, I believe that the Bible is inspired. I don't think that means that God was whispering in John's ear that everything he writes must be congruent with what was already written by Luke, (to use my earlier example.) The systematic reading of the Bible I was brought up with says that we must harmonize all of the inconsistencies within the Bible. I think maybe we were afraid that admitting there are things that don't jive with each other is equivalent to saying that the Bible has mistakes. It's a lot like throwing out the baby with the bath water. None of it could be "wrong" or all of it might be. Did I really believe this at one time?Isn't it extremely dependent on what one thinks "wrong" is? I think maybe apologetics might have something to do with this reading. I know I was taught to defend God and prove God, (like He needs my help with that).

Also, I think we Baptists really like concordances. I have an exhaustive one on my bookshelf. You could literally follow along with many of the Baptist preachers I've heard if you have one. To the outsider it may appear that he is bouncing along aimlessly through the Bible, but a fellow concordance owner knows what's up.

So, let me try to focus some. Let me use the idea of the Trinity, the personage of God. Alright, so systematic theology consists of lists so let me make one, (this list is Strong's):

1. The Father is God

2. The Son is God

3. The Spirit is God

4. There is but one God

Alright. I believe all four statements but what I'm not sure about is how all three of these are strung together. Biblicaly, its a hard case. A thousand people could make or break it a thousand ways. Rambling, rambling, rambling...
Ok, so here is my final thinking on this endless subject. (You see what I did there?)
1. It starts with faith
2. It includes Biblical study
3. It ends with faith
Look, its a list. How systematic of me...