True understanding - something that needs repeating

I'm going to repeat myself here because I sense something has been communicated in recent threads that is off-the-mark. And I am referring to myself here because I introduced the whole commentary thing.

It is through *systematic theology* that we get overall - parts in relation to the whole - understanding of the Bible and the doctrinal plan of God.

When we do the foundational work of complete readings of the word of God itself; downloading the raw material. The living language.

Commentaries don't give you the deep meaning and understanding. They don't give you the mysteries. You, for instance, won't read of the Covenant of Redemption in a commentary because the Bible doesn't refer to it blatantly by that term or any other term. The same goes for a term such a Trinity, the example usually cited.

Just as the Work is impractical and not serious until you get a systematic understanding of the language, and the practice, the Bible is the same way. You can read all through Nicoll's commentaries, for instance, and not get a systematic understanding of the Work. For the systematic understanding you have to take the parts (while practicing it all) and see them in relation to the whole. You sort it out. What has more weight? What is the goal. What controls what? What is the foundation?

So something as obvious as the fact that False Personality is *defined* by its *features* is not known until you put two and two together. When you don't define it by its features - like most Work people don't - you have an amorphous non-concrete notion of 'false personality' that people just 'talk' about and import whatever they want to import into the term.

I'm slightly afraid a Bible commentary can give a false sense of having understanding of the Bible, the type of understanding that is necessary, parts in relation to the whole understanding, deep understanding, seeing inner meanings and connections and scale and relativity type of understanding. Pole-to-pole understanding. Large arc understanding. Deep oceanic understanding. Vision type understanding.

Seeing idol worship in *vision* via the history books of the Old Testament is a very different type of understanding than reading about idols and so forth the way a commentary talks of them as it highlights such things passage by passage.

Don't get me wrong, all help is good. But the *raw material* directly engaged and taken in, along with on-the-mark biblical doctrine from various works of systematic theology and similar works, deriving from or inspired by the Reformation era, the most pure spring school, are the elements of potential true, deep understanding.