The following quote is written by a Biblical theologian and it shows. Honestly, I think this is not well thought out.
“Biblical theologians differ from dogmaticians in three ways. First, Biblical theologians primarily think as exegetes. not as logicians.”
(So exegesis is done non logically?)
“Secondly, they derive their organizational principles from the Biblical blocks of writings themselves rather than factors external to the text.”
(This is the old “we just let the text speak for itself saw.”)
“Third, their thinking is diachronic — that is, they track the development of theological themes in various blocks of writings. Systematic theologians think more synchronically — that is, they invest their energies on the church’s doctrines, not on the development of religious ideas within the Bible.”
(“We’re more Biblical than you are .. nah nah nah nah nah.”)
Bruce K. Waltke
An OT Theology — pg. 64
I’m not sure many Biblical theologians realize how dependent they are on systematic categories before they even come to the text.
Biblical theologians would not seem to be able to be presuppositionalists. They seem to contend that they just observe the unfolding facts of redemptive history while then allowing a philosophy of fact to emerge. However, Van til was right when he offered that there is no fact without a philosophy of fact. We need to reiterate again that “Biblical theology” still uses presuppositions and constructs to order their study just like systematic or dogmatic theologians.