Grace Institute: Systematic Theology: Introduction: The Theological Method

Introduction to Systematic Theology Grace Institute for Biblical Leadership Winter 2006

[Previous: Need for Theology][Table of Contents][Next: Bibliography]

IV. The Theological Method

A. Where Do We Start? [1]

Throughout the history of Christian theology, there have been two primary starting points for the study of theology. One begins with theology proper (the study of God). The other begins with Bibliology (the study of the Bible). The first begins with the rational, the second with the revelational.

1. Rational

This approach is the most logically consistent. If God does not exist, then the rest of theology is irrelevant. Therefore proving the existence of God extra biblically is a ration starting point.

Thomas Aquinas was the first theologian to take the rational approach to theology. According to Aquinas, the existence of God could be demonstrated through pure reason without God's special revelation (i.e. the bible). Therefore he began his theology with a five-point proof of the existence of God. Once he had proven the existence of God, then he showed that God had revealed himself through the scriptures, and therefore the scriptures should then be studied for further understanding.

There are a few difficulties with this approach, however:

• While one may prove the existence of God, extra-biblical rationality cannot demonstrate that this is the Christian God.
• Having proven God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has specially revealed himself in any way, let alone in the Christian bible.

Many theologians have attempted to address these weaknesses to various degrees of success. However, such arguments often strain rationality or are difficult to follow.

2. Revelational

The alternative starting point is with God's revelation. This was the approach taken by the 20 th century theologian, Karl Barth. Barth saw the Word of God the crucial beginning point to all theology. Because the nature of God is so far beyond human understanding, then all we can know about Him is what He has revealed to us. Therefore the natural staring place is to define and understand God's revelation to us.

However, it is difficult to study the revelation of God without some preconceived idea of what the revealing God is like. Furthermore, if God doesn't exist, then what we presume to be revelation is merely myth or human superstition and not worthy of study.

3. Experiential

A more contemporary approach to theology begins not with God or His revelation, but with the human experience. This approach has its roots in the behavioral sciences and is focused more on the impact of religion on the human condition. This study begins with human problems and then asks how traditional religious beliefs might illuminate a situation or resolve a problem. This is the focus of most secular studies in theology [2].

Unfortunately, the experiential approach is often the most common starting point for many Christians. Too many believers today base their understanding on their own experience with God and do not consider the rational or revelational aspects of theology. For many Christians today, we let our circumstances affect our understanding of God rather than letting God affect our understanding of our circumstances.

4. The Solution?

There is no simple solution to the question of where to start. Both the rational and revelational approaches must make some assumptions as to the nature of God or as to the nature of his revelation. If we start with God's revelation, we must assume the existence of God. If we start with a rational proof of God's existence, we must assume he has provided some special revelation.

For this class, we will begin with the revelational approach to theology. I am presuming that those who are taking this class already believe in the Christian God, and have a basic understanding of God's nature. Therefore, proving the existence of God is better left for our apologetics course. Instead, we will begin by studying the nature of God's revelation, demonstrating the bible as God's Word. From there, we will use the scriptures as the basis of authority for the rest of our theological studies.

B. The Basis of Authority

Once we have our starting point, we must determine what we will use as the basis of authority in our theological studies. Since God cannot be measured and tested in the modern scientific sense, what sources do we use to determine truth about Him? There are three primary authorities used in theology.

1. The Church

In Roman Catholic theology, the church is the primary authority for determining doctrine. While scripture is used as a basis for Roman Catholic theology, only the church has the authority to make a definitive interpretation of that scripture. Where the church has spoken, the matter is settled and no debate is necessary.

There is tremendous advantage to having the church as the basis of authority. By doing so, there is no disunity within the church. You either agree or you are not part of the church. It prevents people from developing their own false interpretations. It is a tremendous tool to prevent false teaching.

In Roman Catholic thought, the church's authority comes through the doctrine of apostolic succession. Even Protestants recognize the authority of the original apostles, for most of the New Testament is written by the apostles. When those apostles appointed bishops and overseers, the power to speak authoritatively was passed on as well. The authority has continued to this present day, so that when the church speaks, it carries the same weight as if an apostle were speaking today.

The sacrament of ordination is the method by which apostolic authority is passed on. When a priest is ordained, they are receiving supernaturally a measure of that authority. As priests move up in the church hierarchy, more apostolic authority is invested. The ultimate authority, then comes to the pope, who, when speaking ex cathedra , is speaking as infallibly as scripture itself.

2. Scripture

The problem comes when the church begins teaching doctrines that are contrary to the scripture. By the 16 th century the church had created a theology of salvation that focused required participation in the sacraments of the church rather than the grace of God. Martin Luther recognized the disparity between the church's teaching and the teaching of scripture. At first he sought to reform the church from within. However, as he more and more boldly spoke against the teaching of the church, he was excommunicated. Thus began the Protestant Reformation.

The Reformation led to a change in the basis of theological authority. The battle cry of the reformers was sola scriptura (i.e. scripture alone). From this point on, only scripture itself could be authoritative in theological study.

The positive aspect of sola scriptura is its requirement that theology be grounded in an objective source of God's special revelation. The disadvantage is that each person's interpretation has created numerous denominations and cults.

However, sola scriptura was never intended to allow for people to have their own private interpretation of the bible. There is a proper method for biblical hermeneutics, which we have explored in the Bible Study Methods class.

3. Experience

Increasingly, people are relying more on their own personal experience as the basis of authority for their theology. The experience may be special or general, private or public, but ultimately the experience is self-attesting and verifies truth. Experientialism is very broad because everything boils down to experience. The natural world provides physical experiences, reasoning is a mental experience, and mysticism is a supernatural experience.

There is a place for experience in the development of theology. Experience is the "stuff' out of which all religious truth must be built. Knowledge grows out of awareness, and expressions grow out of experience, not the reverse.

However, an experience cannot be used to support or prove the truth itself. The only truth you can claim is that you actually had the experience. An experience can be interpreted differently depending upon context. As humans we have limited ability to see the full context. Scripture, however, allows us to see a larger context and should therefore take priority over experience.

C. Our Assumptions

It is important, as we develop our systematic theology, to clarify up front our assumptions and doctrinal biases. As we look at various scriptures and doctrines, there are four basic assumptions on which this class is based.

1. Inspiration, and Inerrancy of Scripture

We will assume that all scripture is inspired by God and is inerrant in its original manuscripts. While we will discuss this in detail next week, it is important to state this assumption up front as we define the Bible as our only authority and source in the development of our theology.

2. Proper Interpretation

The proper objective, historical-cultural interpretation of the scriptures is crucial for an authoritative bible to have any relevance.

3. Objectivity

We will approach all theological topics with an open mind. We do not use hypothesis to be proven, but be willing to let the scriptures speak for themselves rather than superimpose a preconceived notion onto the scriptures.

4. Role of the Holy Spirit and Human Limitations

We recognize the limitations of our human reasoning to understand and study subjects that transcend us. We cannot fully understand God, eternity, and other spiritual issues because of our finite mind. Furthermore, we recognize that we are fallen people, with a perspective clouded by our own tendency to be self-serving.

As we develop our theology, we must recognize not only our limitations, but also the role of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit teaches us and guides us into truth [3]. We must trust the Holy Spirit to do this for us. We must be filled with the Spirit, listening to His voice as he reveals God's truths to us.

Therefore, systematic theology must by studied while being bathed in prayer. To do less would place our own humanity above God.

D. Goals of Systematic Theology

We must keep in mind five distinctions of good systematic theology as we develop our personal statements of faith: [4]

1. Biblical

The primary source and basis for authority comes the Bible. While we may use other sources to clarify and test our theology, the ultimate standard is the scriptures.

2. Systematic

By definition, systematic theology must draw from all scripture and correlate and organize the various passages with each other. It must be well thought out and laid out in a consistent orderly manner.

3. Relevant

While our theology must remain true to the authoritative scriptures, it must be communicated in a contemporary way. To be relevant we must address the philosophies and prominent worldviews of our day. Sometimes this means we use outside source to corroborate our point or use reason and experience to confirm the scriptures. The fundamental doctrine should not change significantly over time, but the method and presentation will need to.

4. Practical

Theology can easily become a mere academic exercise. Theologians are notorious for debating fine points of doctrine, which have no practical application in the day-to-day living of the Christian life. Good theology must give us insight that changes the way we think and live.

E. The Process of Systematic Theology [5]

1. Collection of Biblical Materials

We begin the process by gathering all the relevant biblical passages pertaining to the doctrine being taught. This is not “proof-texting,” which is finding individual verses which support a particular position, but instead pulling all relevant passages, and bearing in mind the historical, grammatical and textual context.

2. Unification of Biblical Materials

We begin with the assumption that the bible presents a unified message and is not self-contradictory. Thus we use the scripture to interpret other scriptures, looking for consistent themes, giving preference to the broad unified message of scripture to obscure, unclear passages as we look for the unified message.

3. Analysis of the Meaning of Biblical Teaching

Next, we boil down the meaning into a summary statement which answers the question, what does the bible really say about the particular issue or topic.

4. Examination of Historical and Cultural Treatments

We research other sources to determine how have others viewed this doctrine throughout history or from the basis of other cultures.

5. Identify the Timeless Essence of the Doctrine

Having researched how theologians in other times and cultures have viewed the passage, we then look to see how our understanding of the doctrine may have been colored by our own cultural baggage. Then we strip away our cultural understanding to identify the timeless essence of the doctrine.

6. Illumination from Extra-Biblical Sources

Having determined the timeless, non-cultural, pure biblical essence of the doctrine, we now begin the process of communicating this doctrine in a manner relevant to our current culture. This begins with gaining an understanding of how contemporary culture thinks about the issue today. Therefore, we research what current science, economics, anthropology, and history say about the topic at hand.

7. Contemporary Expression of the Doctrine

We now seek to communicate the timeless truth of scripture in a format that is relevant and easily understood, taking into account the current issues and thinking of the day.

8. Development of a Central Interpretive Motif

The great theologians all have had an over-riding motif that gives a unique perspective to their theology. This is what makes each individual theologian's scholarship a valuable addition to the body of theological thought. For example, Luther's over-riding motif was “salvation by faith alone;” Calvin, “the sovereignty of God;” Barth's, “the Word of God.” This doesn't mean conforming the doctrine to meet a pre-determined message, but is a development of a theme or framework that makes each theologian's work unique.

Footnotes

1. Erickson, 31-34.
2. Encarta.
3. John 16:13
4. Enns, 147.
5. Erickson, 71-82.

[Previous: Need for Theology][Table of Contents][Next: Bibliography]