Comments on: Systematic Theology http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/03/16/systematic-theology/ Theology you can eat and drink Fri, 10 Aug 2018 15:01:57 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=3.8.41 By: Mike Bull http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/03/16/systematic-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-2836 Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:22:08 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=4726#comment-2836 Perhaps I should have stuck with the frog analogy. ; )

]]> By: Robert Murphy http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/03/16/systematic-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-2835 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 23:00:53 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=4726#comment-2835 I know, and I agree with you for the most part. Any scientist who dissects a frog and then tells you he understands it (as opposed to watching a live frog) doesn’t really understand frogs.

]]> By: Mike Bull http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/03/16/systematic-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-2834 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:49:05 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=4726#comment-2834 Hi Robert

This is “literary” autism. And I was just making a point about how most Bible teachers present the Bible.

Deconstruction is fine, but if that’s all we do the car ain’t going nowhere! Most people we teach don’t get caught up in the drama and beauty of a parts catalogue…

]]> By: Robert Murphy http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/2010/03/16/systematic-theology/comment-page-1/#comment-2831 Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:27:56 +0000 http://www.bullartistry.com.au/wp/?p=4726#comment-2831 1) As someone with autism, I don’t think you’re quite stereotyping it correctly and 2) You are proving perfectly what I always say about the FV: “It is general correct in its critique of Reformed Theology, but it goes too far. It is a pendulum swing in the opposite direction.”

]]>