1 HOW TO DO THEOLOGY: A study into the process of doing theology “Systematic Theology may be defined as the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing,

1

HOW TO DO THEOLOGY:A study into the process of doing theology

“Systematic Theology may be defined as the collecting, scientifically arranging,

comparing, exhibiting, and defending of all facts from any and every source

concerning God and His works.”

Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer,

Systematic Theology, 1:6.

2

Introduction to Theological Method:Lecture 6b

I. The Nature of Theological Method.

II. Why Harmonize/Systematize Theology?

III. Theological Methodology.

IV. How Should We Then Live?

IV. Appendix 1: Is Systematizing/harmonization a social construction of Western thought?

3

Part I.

The Nature of Theological Method

4

What is relation between theology and logic?

• Basic logic tells us to demand three things:

– Clear definition of terms;– True data (true premises);– And logical arguments (proofs).

The rules of logic do not change when we insert Biblical claims or theology into the content.

5

What method should we use?

• Though the laws of logic must apply to theological method, what about the laws of other, more specific methods, such as the scientific method?

• While there is nothing wrong with the scientific method, to say we should only believe what is proved by the scientific method is contradictory, for the principle itself, namely, that we should believe only what can be proved by the scientific method, cannot be proved by the scientific method.

6


• What about using Descartes “Universal Methodic Doubt?”

• This method does not begin with unquestioned assumptions, but with doubt. Subject everything to questioning. If it can be doubted, throw it out.

7


• Universal Methodic doubt is not appropriate for theology if theology is more like getting to know another person than like getting to know a concept or a material thing.

– You can’t get to know people if you assume that everything states is false until it is proven to be true.

– Best method for understanding people is not methodic doubt but methodic faith: Assume that the other person is telling the truth until you have good reason for believing that he or she is ignorant or lying. So if theology is like friendship with another person than it is like chemistry, then the appropriate method will be methodic faith rather than methodic doubt.

8


• Should we use Ockham’s Razor?

– William of Ockham, a 13th British philosopher, claims:

“hypotheses should not be multiplied without necessity”- in other words, you should always prefer the simpler explanation.

9


• Should we use Ockham’s Razor?

– William of Ockham, a 13th British philosopher, claims:

“hypotheses should not be multiplied without necessity”- in other words, you should always prefer the simpler explanation.

10

I. The Nature of Theological Method:

A. Theological methodology involves both truth & ideas:

1. Systematic Theology is primarily based upon truths derived from special and natural revelation.

2. Theological method engages exegetical, biblical, theological, & philosophical claims of truths.

3. Theological method accepts those claims of truths that harmonizes with already established facts.

11


As Dr. Charles Hodge states in Systematic Theology, 1:1:

“If, therefore, theology be a science, it must include something more than a mere knowledge of facts. It must embrace an exhibition of the internal relation of those facts, one to another, and each to all. It must be able to show that if one be admitted, others cannot be denied. “

12

I. The Nature of Theological Method:Definition of coherence:

Critical to theological method is coherence. Coherence is an epistemological test for validity by examining the harmony, unity, and consistency of an idea to an already established system or harmonization of beliefs. If the propositional statement does not harmonize with the system of beliefs, then either the idea is wrong, needs refinement, etc. or the settled doctrines as we know them are wrong.

13

I. The Nature of Theological Method:Definition of coherence:

However, the chances that the settled doctrines are invalid are very unlikely if we have consistently followed a plain, normal, grammatical-historical-literary method of interpretation.

14


B. Justification for this system is two-fold:

1. External witness: The witness of harmony, symmetry, and unity of nature, personhood, physical laws, and social well-being; first principles of logic, and other investigative disciplines of study which seek to harmonize ideas with established facts.

15


B. Justification for this system is two-fold:

2. Internal witness: The witness of Jesus use of Scripture, the fulfillment of prophecy, both the biblical, logical, and philosophical basis of and results of using a plain, normal, literal-grammatical, historical, literary method of interpretation, and correlative evidence to what we already know to be true in Scripture: archeology, history, etc.

16

The Nature of Theological Method:

C. Since the Bible is special revelation, a collection of divine propositional truths within literary context (s), the theologian does the following:

1. collect,

2. authenticate,

3. arrange, and

4. exhibit divine truths in their internal relation to each other (coherence):

17


D. Critical to theological methodology is an examination into one’s spiritual life before the process is to begin for you don’t want to hinder the illuminating ministry of the Holy Spirit. Stated differently, since we are dealing with divine truth, seeking to accurately represent His interests, we must be dependent upon the Holy Spirit. To study and “do” theology “according to the flesh” is disrespectful, dishonoring, short-sighted, and even hypocritical.

18


1. Are you rightly related to God?

2. Have you confessed all known sins (1 John 1:9)?

3. Are you grieving the Holy Spirit?

4. Are you quenching any aspect of the Holy Spirit in your life?

5. Are their areas in your life whereby you are unwilling to submit over to God?

6. Are you yielded to God?

19

I. The Nature of Theological Method:An overview of the process:

E. An overview of the six-step theological method:

20


1st Step: Inductively arrive at an exegetical proposition that accurately reflects the intended meaning of the Author/author that harmonizes with first principles of logic (e.g., Law of Non-Contradiction). For example: Man is totally depraved (Romans 3:23).

21


2nd Step: Propositional statement is then tested for coherence by a synchronic application both biblically (letting Scripture interpret Scripture) and already settled doctrinal beliefs. In other words, does the propositional statement cohere with what the Bible teaches elsewhere and what we already know to be true doctrinally?

22


3rd Step: The statement then is comprehensively formulated from exegesis, authorial intent, and within the boundaries of settled doctrinal beliefs. Then cogent justifications are offered and appropriate illustrations are made; we need to know why we believe what we believe.

23


4th Step: The propositional doctrine is then examined under the lens of general revelation and natural law to see potential doctrine successfully coheres with these foundational prescriptive beliefs (Romans 2:12-15). If the doctrine violates general revelation and prescriptive natural law, it is suspect.

24


5th Step: Then one examines the propositional statement under the lens of historical theology for correlative insight. Historical theology is valuable because many doctrinal mistakes, debates, creeds, & formulations have already been discussed in past eras of theological discourse & development.

25


6th Step: Finally, personal and community life-applications are made in order to test livability. The doctrine is suspect if we can’t apply it in our love-relationship with God, seeking only to do that which will give God the most glory.

26


Summary:

My method of theological coherence implores you to appropriately, carefully, meditatively, purposefully, prayerfully, microscopically, reflectively, repeatedly, & comprehensively examine to see if your exegetical propositional statement coheres and harmonizes with first principles of logic, Bible (concentric: author, sentence, paragraph, book, author’s writings, testament, and Bible) , settled doctrinal beliefs (dogmatic theology), & natural law. Then one proceeds to examine historical theology for correlative insight and conclude by establishing appropriate life application.

27


Let’s take a deeper look into the

six-fold method of

theological coherence:

28


1. Inductive Approach: Ascertain and state the truths of Scripture:

a. diachronically,

b. exegetically,

c. Inductively,

d. Logically, i.e., First Principles of Logic (e.g., law of non-contradiction).

29


2. Cohere the propositional statement to the following (synchronic approach):

a. Passage, unit of thought, book, biblical theology, & the

whole Bible.

b. The proposition to other doctrinal statements or settled beliefs.

Look for consistency, harmony, symmetry & unity.

30

Synchronic Approach:Begin with the “Word” and progress towards “Bible”

BIBLE

TESTAMENT

AUTHOR’S WRITINGS

BOOK

PARAGRAPH

SENTENCE

WORD

31


3. Formulate comprehensive doctrine:

a. Formulate & offer biblical, logical, theological, & philosophical

justification; answer the question “why.”

b. Present illustrations (illustrations shed light on the cogency of your proposition).

32


C. Remember, any systematization that you do must be made with diligence, attention to detail, care, and reverence. I would argue that many differences of opinion or poor statements in theological discourse are due to hermeneutical mistakes and un-tested assumptions which unfortunately have been incorporated into a poor theological system or belief paradigm.

33


D. Any systematization must also be thoroughly comprehensive and if possible, exhaustive; every detail must be examined and correlated. Consider the following quotations from Dr. Charles Hodge regarding those who were not comprehensive in their harmonization of God’s Word [Systematic Theology, 1:11].

34


“An imperfect induction of facts led men for ages to believe that the sun moved round the earth, and that the earth was an extended plain. In theology a partial induction of particulars has led to like serious errors. It is a fact that the Scriptures attribute omniscience to Christ. From this it was inferred that He could not have had a finite intelligence, but that the Logos was clothed in Him with a human body with its animal life. But it is also a Scriptural fact that ignorance and intellectual progress, as well as omniscience, are ascribed to our Lord. Both facts, therefore, must be included in our doctrine of his person. We must admit that He had a human, as well as a divine intelligence.”

35


“It is a fact that everything that can be predicated of a sinless man, is in the Bible, predicated of Christ; and it is also a fact that everything that is predicated of God is predicated of our Lord; hence it has been inferred that there were two Christ's,—two persons,—the one human, the other divine, and that they dwelt together very much as the Spirit dwells in the believer; or, as evil spirits dwelt in demoniacs. But this theory overlooked the numerous facts which prove the individual personality of Christ. It was the same person who said, ‘I thirst;’ who said, ‘Before Abraham was I am.’”

36


“The Scriptures teach that Christ’s death was designed to reveal the love of God, and to secure the reformation of men. Hence Socinus denied that his death was an expiation for sin, or satisfaction of justice. The latter fact, however, is as clearly revealed as the former; and therefore both must be taken into account in-our statement of the doctrine concerning the design of Christ’s death.”

37


4. We need to evaluate our propositional statement against first principles of moral belief, ie., what we know to be universally true and self-evident such as those prescriptive moral commands inscribed upon the human heart (Romans 2:12-15). For example:

38


A. Since we sow what we reap and reap what we sow, does our theological proposition harmonize with the witness of godly & noble virtues & consequences (Galatians 5:22-23; Colossians 3:1-17)?

B. Since we are designed by God, does it harmonize with the witness of our human

design (Genesis 1:26-27; Psalm 139; Romans 1-2)?

39


C. Since we inherently know what is right from wrong, does it harmonize with the witness of our conscience (Romans 1-

2)?

40


D. Does our theological proposition harmonize with the invisible attributes

of God as revealed in creation (Romans 1-2)?

E. Does our theological proposition affirm the “golden rule” of “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?”

41


5. Test the coherence of your potential proposition once more, but this time, looking for harmony and consistency in historical theology:

42


a. Historical theology may offer additional justification.

b. Historical theology may have already debated a similar doctrinal belief.

c. Historical theology may even shed light on how this proposition may impact communities of belief and the society (s) around them, positively and/or negatively.

43


“The student of nature having this ground on which to stand, and these tools wherewith to work, proceeds to perceive, gather, and combine his facts. These he does not pretend to manufacture, nor presume to modify. He must take them as they are. He is only careful to be sure that they are real, and that he has them all, or, at least all that are necessary to justify any inference which he may draw from them, or any theory which he may build upon them.”

~ Dr. Charles Hodge, Systematic theology, 1:9.

44


6. Lastly, Test its livability by application:

a. Yourself;

b. Family;

c. Community;

d. Society.

45


E. Before we move onto consider why we should seek theological coherence (harmony, unity, and consistency), let’s review two other complementary theological methods by two outstanding theologians:

Theological Method proposed by Dr. Norman Geisler &

Theological Method proposed by Dr Mike Stallard.

46

Exegesis: inductive logical Approach:

Synchronic Approach: biblically & doctrinally:

Historical Theology offers Correlative Insight:

2.

3.

4.

5.

1.

Harmonize doctrine, offer justification, & illustrate:

Harmonizes with General Revelation and Natural Law:

Appropriate Applications: Test of Livability:6.

47

I. The Nature of Theological Method:Consider Dr. Norman Geisler’s Approach from

Systematic Theology, v.1.

Step 1: Inductive Basis in Scripture.

Step 2: Deduction of Truths from Scripture.

Step 3: Use of Analogies (illustrative support by good analogies).

Step 4: Use of General Revelation and Natural Law.

Step 5: Retroductive Method (use of all information to refine, nuance, and fill out our understanding of what is meant in previous steps).

48

I. The Nature of Theological Method:Consider Dr. Norman Geisler’s Approach:

Step 6: Systematic Correlation (of all information into a fully orbed doctrine through the use of the laws of logic that insist all truth must be non-contradictory).

Step 7: Each doctrine is correlated with all other doctrines.

Step 8: Each doctrine is expressed in view of the orthodox teachings of the Church Fathers.

Step 9: Livability is the final test for Systematic Theology (Christianity is not merely metaphysics or theoretical; it is also ethical and practical).

49

I. The Nature of Theological Method:Consider Dr. Mike Stallard’s Approach:

Level 1: Biblical Theology (restricted to authors & history).

Level 2: Integration or synthesis across authors and history (has been called “Intermediate biblical theology”).

Level 3: Categorization or systematization of the results of integration.

Level 4: Validation or invalidation of truth claims from outside the Bible.

Level 5: Application to Life.

50

I. The Nature of Theological Method:Consider Dr. Mike Stallard’s Approach:

Now having considered a theological method, let’s proceed to examine why we should seek harmony,

unity, and consistency:

Part II

51

II. Why Harmonize, Seek Unity, & Consistency?

1. Natural Purpose: We have a natural tendency to collect and harmonize those things of which we observe; it is part of

our God-given human design, a constitutive aspect of our humanity.

2. Cognitive/Psychological Purpose: Rarely in any discipline of study are we satisfied with fragmentation, tension, & mass of

uncollected ideas or facts:

a. Ecology (complementary aspects of unity within diversity of life)

b. Geography (facts and collections).c. Philosophy (critical thinking)d. Hard sciences (e.g., chemistry, physics)e. Music (e.g., tension/resolution).f . Aesthetics (e.g., Monroe Beardsley)

52

II. Why Harmonize?

3. Pedagogical Purpose:

“If we would discharge our duty as teachers and defenders of the truth, we must endeavor to bring all the facts of revelation into systematic order and mutual relation. It is only thus that we can satisfactorily exhibit their truth, vindicate them from objections, or bring them to bear in their full force on the minds of men” Hodge, Systematic Theology, 1:2.

53

II. Why Harmonize?

4. Discovery Purpose:

a. The truths of the Bible are all related and determined by the nature of God who is the One and Only Triune God,

absolutely logical, coherent, and harmonious. Thus, His creation reflects those aspects.

b. Just as He has purposed us with a mind and ability to study His creation and discover the inorganic and organic relation and harmonious combination, we should study Scripture and discover the harmony, symmetry, and unity of God’s revelation.

54

III. Why Theological Method?

Part III:

Why is theological method necessary:

55

III. Why is Theological Method Necessary?

A. Since the Holy Spirit inspired the Scripture (verbal, plenary), there is continuity of thought from Genesis 1:1-Revelation 22:20

B. Since God is logical, coherent, and consistent, His Word is going to be logical, coherent, and consistent even within literary, historical contexts.

56


C. He created humanity in the image of God which is holistic: content, authority, community, & representation. Thus, we are designed with a predisposition to analyze, arrange, categorize, collect, and correlate; it is part of our teleological, prescriptive design.

57


D. We are purposefully designed to analyze, arrange, categorize, collect, and correlate; it is one purpose of our God-given teleological design.

E. The use of the mind is critical in seeking, learning, & loving God as opposed to anti-intellectualism, existentialism, experientialism, and mysticism.

58


F. We are inherently aesthetically pleased with consistency, harmony, and unity in architecture, art, music, etc.

G. We are purposefully designed to assume the trustworthiness of our God-given sense perceptions (five senses).

59


H. We are purposefully designed to trust our cognitive faculties.

I. We are purposefully designed to take for granted that we perceive, compare, combine, remember, and infer.

J. We are purposefully designed safely rely upon these mental faculties when used appropriately (vision for seeing).

60


K. We are designed to believe with assurance of those truths which are not learned from experience, but which are given in view of the teleological design of our human nature.

L. We also recognize in God’s design of creation that every effect must have a cause; that the same cause under like circumstances, will produce like effects; that a cause is not a mere uniform antecedent, but that which contains within itself the reason why the effect occurs.

61


Therefore, in the words of Dr. Charles Hodge:

The student of nature having this ground on which to stand, and these tools wherewith to work, proceeds to perceive, gather, and combine his facts. These he does not pretend to manufacture, nor presume to modify. He must take them as they are. He is only careful to be sure that they are real, and that he has them all, or, at least all that are necessary to justify any inference which he may draw from them, or any theory which he may build upon them.

Systematic theology, 1:9.

62

III. Why is Theological Method Necessary?The bottom line…

The goal of having a coherent biblical-theological method is to

(1) expose inadequate justifications for belief and (2)

provide a solid basis for validating or invalidating truth

claims.

63


A. Appreciate the Author of our theology: The one and only Triune God; if God said it, we need to know it.

B. Learning theology is pleasurable for there is no greater pursuit than that of the study of God.

64


C. Correct theology is crucial for appropriate and godly behavior.

D. Resist all forms of anti-intellectualism because we are commanded to know, practice, and defend the truth (2 John; Jude).

65


E. Resist continental theory because it is self-defeating, anti-authoritative, and cynical; it is vacuous for it only offers a critique of modernism based upon an unbiblical mindset and a rejection of metaphysics. And though their critique against modernism is insightful at times, their assumptions are self-defeating.

66


F. Teach people how to do theology for themselves. It is not merely enough to assist them, we need to enable them. It is not merely enough to teach them what they believe, they need to know why. Finally, we need to pro-actively equip ourselves so we can equip others in proclaiming, practicing, & protecting the biblical doctrines of the Christian faith (Jude 3).

67


G. Take ownership regarding why you believe what you believe.

H. Sound theology protects us from erroneous exegetical claims and proper exegesis informs our theology.

I. Remember: What we believe in one area of theology tends to directly or indirectly impact all other areas of theology.

68


J. Don’t neglect, overlook, or reject certain facts in Scripture that are uncomfortable or unpopular.

k. Don’t distort or pervert claims of Scripture because they don’t cohere to your theological worldview. Rather, evaluate and adjust accordingly even if it means that you will be humiliated for what you believe. It is by far to be teachable than arrogant, esp. since you are representing God’s interests.

69


As Dr. Charles Hodge says:

“He [theologian] should remember that his business is not to set forth his system of truth (that is of no account), but to ascertain and exhibit what is God’s system, which is a matter of the greatest moment. If he cannot believe what the facts of the Bible assume to be true, let him say so…long, however, as the binding authority of Scripture is acknowledged, the temptation is very strong to press the facts of the Bible into accordance with our preconceived theories.”

Systematic Theology, 1:14.

70

Appendix 1: Why Systematize or Harmonize Doctrine?

A. Continental critical, structural theorists and even postmodern evangelicals contend that systematizing theology needs to be rejected because it is a biased, modern mindset that is actually imposing a social construction upon theological methodology:

1. Systematization/harmonization is a product of modernism.

2. Systematization contends for an Archimedean point of view.

71

Appendix 1: Why Systematize or Harmonize Doctrine?

3. Systematization/harmonization contends for objective truth that transcends time, space, and culture.

4. Systematization ignores context; how can we be able to even see objectively if we are “inside” and not “beyond” culture?

72

Appendix 1: Why Harmonize?

b. Response to critical, continental theorists:

1.To systematize, harmonize, categorize, and arrange is not a modern construction for it has always been a natural tendency in our God-given mindset to systematize; it is expressed in every era of both church and secular history (e.g., Plato’s Republic; Aristotle’s Metaphysics).

2.To not harmonize/systematize is not pragmatically workable for one can’t live without arrangement, identification, categorization, prescription, or systematization.

73


3. To not harmonize/systematize is counter-intuitive; we instantly & negatively react to fragmentation and discord.

4. Continental perspective is self-defeating- for how can they claim that there is no objective truth, an Archimedean point of view that transcends time, culture, and geography; their view is self-defeating.

74


5. To not harmonize/systematize is rebellious to the harmony, symmetry, and consistency in the teleological design of creation, human design, community, and the inherent need to depend upon others for mutual protection, economic development & trade, procreation, aesthetics, & entertainment.

75


6. To not harmonize/systematize is even rebellious towards the teleological design of the local and universal church whereby we are created and gifted to compliment each other as the body of Christ.

7. To not harmonize/systematize is rebellious against first principles of logic, teleological design of language (see the writings of Leon Chomsky), and mathematics.

8. To not harmonize/systematize goes against the harmony, unity, consistency of God Himself, the one and only Triune God.

76


As Charles Hodge states:

“We cannot know what God has revealed in his Word unless we understand, at least in some good measure, the relation in which the separate truths therein contained stand to each other. It cost the Church centuries of study and controversy to solve the problem concerning the person of Christ; that is, to adjust and bring into harmonious arrangement all the facts which the Bible teaches on that subject. [Systematic theology, 1:2].”

Documents

1 HOW TO DO THEOLOGY: A study into the process of doing theology “Systematic Theology may be defined as the collecting, scientifically arranging, comparing,