Systematic Theology Study Notes 1-5
Current lecture study notes are posted below. For a printable/downloadable version for each lecture, click on the link provided next to each lecture title/date. New notes will be posted after the lecture is presented. Scroll down for the lectures in sequence.
This page was last modified on Sunday, June 06, 2010
Lecture 1 – August 25, 2009 (downloadable/printable notes)
1. It is my opinion that everyone does theology of some sorts. Meaning that if we ever think about God, if nothing else we consider the pros and cons of His existence—we do theology. In fact, I don’t see how a Christian cannot be a theologian of sorts. I’ve heard some people say that “they don’t believe in all that theology stuff, all they want to do is believe what the Bible says.”
2. Such a statement itself is very naïve and reveals that the person doing the talking doesn’t understand the nature of theology or for that matter the nature of the Bible. The Bible is a book of theology.
3. When you read, think, and talk about what the Bible says you do theology. The only question is what kind of theology you do? Good, sound, biblically based theology or something that shows ignorance and lack appreciation for what the Bible teaches about God and His kingdom.
4. This class is about teaching in a systematic and logical way what we know about God, His Kingdom, and His will for mankind. Such an endeavor will strive to be as Biblically and reality based as we possibly can, and be done hopefully in a logical and systematic way. It will also seek to identify outside influences that ultimately affect how we do theology.
5. First, let’s define some terms: What is theology? I suppose the broadest definition is simply the study of God or “the science” of God. In fact, theology has been called “the queen of all sciences.” Why is that? Erickson offers the following definition as to what this study or science wants to do: “(Theology) strives to give a coherent statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith, based primarily on the Scriptures, placed in the context of culture in general, worded in a contemporary idiom, and related to issues in life” (page, 23).
6. Howard Stone and James Duke, in their book, “How to Think Theologically” also offers a good definition of theology by saying “Theology is (faith) seeking after understanding—a process of thinking about life in the light of faith that Christians engage in because of their calling” (page 2). As theologians, we seek to understand what we believe about God and His message, and then try to determine how we should live in light of that understanding.
7. This process of faith seeking understanding is not only about studying Holy Scriptures, but listening to one another, and not being afraid of entering into dialogue with God (even if it means questioning God) and the world around us.
8. To me personally this process means confessing the mystery of God and the limitations of human reason, and at the same time appreciating the vast array of human experiences and reasoning, in determining the truths of our faith. Therefore, a search for theological truth should shroud us in a state of wonder and humility and a strong tolerance for the opinions of others.
9. Definition of systematic theology (see Westminster Dictionary of Theological Terms by Donald K. McKim, page 275)! Systematic theology is the attempt to understand theology of our faith from a holistic point of view in which our doctrines might be presented in an orderly and coherent way. According the Erickson, the systematic theologian’s job is becoming increasing difficult for a number of reasons (see page 66-67 of Erickson).
10. The result of all this is that even seminary trained Pastors are not teaching the Bible from a systematic and holistic point of view. To me, too much preaching and teaching of the Bible is done in a helter-skelter point of view, as if the Holy Spirit cannot speak to our people in a coherent and orderly way. I would suggest that you might organize your preaching and teaching in a way that presents the great truths of the Bible in a systematic way. If nothing else, just to make learning easier for your people.
Fashioning Theology
11. Many people won’t understand the following statement because they see theology as stating the obvious. Simply, reading the Bible and then stating what is written in the scriptures. But while all good theology is Biblically based, theology is more than simply reading and then stating the obvious in the Bible. Stone and Duke in “How to Think Theologically” see theology as comparable to a time-honored practice of a craft (like that of garment makers, weavers, stone carvers or cabinetmakers) in which the fashioning of materials into an end product comes through the exercise of skills that can be learned and perfected (page 27).
12. According to Stone and Duke, theologians work and rework raw materials (the Bible, reason, tradition, and experiences) until they fashion a satisfactory theological understanding. This understanding comes from: 1) interpreting the meaning of faith and scripture; 2) correlating those interpretations with other interpretations; and 3) assessing the adequacy of the interpretation and their correlations (page 27).
13. Everyone interprets what they experience in life. Everything from life-changing events to carelessly spoken words are interpreted and sometimes interpreted completely different by different people. Interpretation means that we are finders and givers of meaning in every aspect of our lives. These interpretations on various aspects of life, including the Bible, then become our world view on how we see reality (see Erickson, page 57).
14. Christian theological reflection interprets the meaning of things from the perspective of faith in the person of Jesus Christ (And really if we want to be technical from the perspective of the risen and ascended Jesus Christ). As Christians we are supposed to see things differently than someone who does not share our Christian world view. So our interpretation of how we see God, the Holy Trinity, the person and message of Jesus Christ and even the nature of faith itself are paramount to our world view and, of course, our theology.
15. However, disagreements of interpretation within Christianity can also make profound differences in the end product of our theology as well. Several years ago I was discussing the theology of sin and sinner with another minister. He was adamant about his belief that God hated not only sin but also the sinner. He took that viewpoint from an interpretation of Romans 9: 13 and Malachi 1: 2-3 in which he chose to take hating Esau literally. He also chose to apply God’s hatred of Esau to all sinners. Such an example shows how important it is to compare and correlate not only a multitude of scriptures inside the Bible (like John 3:16; Roman 5:8) but also questions raised by sources outside the Bible.
16. Bible students cannot avoid correlating interpretations even if they believe they don’t do so. For the most part, theological views are overlaid upon others that are non-theological (page 31). For example, what an environmentalist calls “caring for the ecosystem” can be compared and contrasted with the Christian view of good stewardship of God’s creation.
17. A negative correlation that most evangelical Christians take with the secular world is the understanding of a woman’s right to control her body at the expense of an unborn fetus—the abortion issue. For every Christian, correlating and comparing is at the basis of relating and applying theology to the circumstances of their lives, and vice versa. You might say that the whole point of theology is to understand what the existence of God and His message of hope means for our world today.
Lecture 2 - September 1, 2009 (downloadable/printable notes)
1. Every theology that claims to speak to the concerns of a lost world needs to be assessed by a criterion of meaningfulness. One suggested by Stone and Duke is: Christian appropriateness, intelligibility, moral integrity, and validity.
2. Quickly, Christian appropriateness is whether an idea is worthy of Christian commitment. Is there anything that is “Christian” about the theology that is being expressed?
3. Intelligibility—The language of faith is so diverse, paradoxical, and even at times mystical, that it defies standard logical assumptions but that does not mean that it can be illogical or nonsensical. It must have certain degree of cohesiveness that follows some logical pattern of reasoning in order to communicate to the world around it. A theology that cannot be communicated is no theology at all.
4. Moral integrity is also an important aspect of any sound theology. A Christian theology without some moral rudder guiding its logic and reasoning is essentially bankrupt. Moral values, as well as sound doctrine, are at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.
5. Validity speaks to the credibility and truth of the claims that the Christian faith makes. When Christians set forth their theology, they do so out of the belief that their convictions are true to life, and they expression God’s intentions and will. Certainly no craftsman of worth takes pleasure in creating something that is a lie and worthless to anyone. Theologians while crafting their understanding of God and the truths that God represents must believe in the validity and truthfulness of what they are fashioning.
6. Explaining why one’s theological view is valid is perhaps the most difficult task that a Pastor and theologian can attempt in an unbelieving world. There will always be “Nay Sayers” in and out of the church who seeks to disprove and discredit what the theologian is trying to say.
Resources for Theology
7. What resources do you believe that goes into doing theology? Traditionally there are four sources that effect and form our theology. They are called theology’s sources or authorities—scripture, tradition, reason, and experiences.
8. Christianity has been called “a religion of the book.” It is hard to overestimate the importance of the Bible for Christians, especially conservative evangelical Christians. Christianity is also a history based religion that speaks of a history that is directly guided and influence by God. Scripture, among other things, is also a written legacy of the early church that most importantly proclaims the Word of God that has called forth the faith of Israel, the early church, and really every person and generation since. According to Stone and Duke, for many Christians the Bible is the norm that judges every other norm but is not itself judged by any other (page 47). Yet, for others this goes too far and they point to human and historical limitations that they feel constrains how we are view the Bible. More will be said later about this later.
9. Tradition is another consideration for our theology. One way to guard against getting caught up in the endless merry-go-round of the latest wind of doctrine is to take seriously the traditions of the church. Churches throughout the history of Christendom have sought to preserve the basic truths of faith and pass them down from generation to generation. You might think of tradition of the sum total of what the church has passed down over time (page 50, Stone and Duke). This process of passing down doctrine has a long history of discussion, debate, and controversy (see handout of the History of Theology Timeline).
10. The difference between scripture and tradition might be seen as “Scripture is of divine origin, traditions are human and fallible and hence reformable” (Stone and Duke, page 51) and therefore highly debatable as you might think.
11. The next resource of theology is reason. It is very popular to declare that “my theology is not bound by human reason but is built on the word of God.” That may be true to a certain extent because there are always things that we don’t understand about God and His word, but theology without reason is shapeless and cannot be communicated to lost world. Theology needs to be as clear, coherent, and as well informed as possible by human reasoning.
12. Last but not least, experience plays a significant role in theological reflection. Experiences of individuals as well as communities of faith play an important part in how we form our theology. In fact, our experiences often color every aspect of what we believe for better or for worse.
13. Together, scripture, reason, tradition, and our personal experiences create a template, a pattern, or one might say a colored lens by which we see reality. Christians see things differently than the rest of the world. Consequently, our views and values cannot be properly understood by the rest of the world. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 1: 18: “For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.” Stone and Duke suggest that we form a template by the way we use our resources to identify, compare, correlate, and assess our beliefs. A template is the way in which we organize information into a useful and manageable whole (Stone and Duke, page 42). Everyone sees reality from a template of some sort or the other, it just differs on the information, how it is organized, and the conclusions that are drawn.
14. Our job as Pastors is to help our people to develop a template or a worldview that is built upon the right information that they can organize and apply to their lives (see Erickson’s discussion on worldview. Page 56-57). Hopefully, from there they draw conclusions that will help them make right choices.
15. I know people that Christians, especially evangelical Christians, choose to believe that they are influenced only by scripture, but that is seldom true. I believe that all of us are influenced by more factors than we care to admit. Our world view is often ideals that we are not aware of. What other sources might be forming today’s theology for better or for worse (see handout)? Being aware of our thinking, the sources of influence in thinking, and our corresponding worldview is necessary in our search for theological truth.
Methodology of Theology
16. However, just being aware of what is going on in our minds is not enough for theological enlightenment. There also must be openness to the truth and a willingness to change in light of new things that God is trying to teach us.
17. The problem with theological changes in our thinking is that unless there are unanswered questions and a sense of unease or incompleteness about our current theological positions then learning and overcoming resistance to enlightenment is hard. Chiefly because no one thinks they currently believes they believe lies. If we are comfortable with our thinking then each one of us looks for reasons to support and bolster our current beliefs. And unless the Holy Spirit gives us openness to truths that further our Christian understanding and growth then we are spinning our theological wheels.
18. Assuming the Holy Spirit is leading us and giving us openness to learning and growing in appreciation of the truths of God, where do we begin?
19. It could be argued that it doesn’t matter where we begin, but that’s not true. Often where we begin dictates where we will end up and that is especially true in theology. For example, I have found that financially conservative Christians who operate their personal finances with tight reigns also want their church to be operated in a similar fashion. They were raised that way by their parents and they also want their church finances to be conducted that way. Another example is taken from Stone and Duke (read page 62 and discuss).
20. Christian theology is reflection on the faith in person and message of God in Jesus Christ. The connection between faith and these two aspects of our faith is an invitation to reflect either on the human side of the connection (faith) or the divine side (God’s message). These two tracks have given a rise to distinction between a human starting point and a divine starting point (see the Hymnal illustration for examples of each).
21. Anthropological starting point leads theologians to look first at Christian faith in the context of human living and then seek to understand the meaning of God’s message to the world. A revelatory starting point typically begins by focusing on the message or revelation of God as revealed through the scriptures or traditions of the church and then moves on to explore its human implications.
22. Erickson points out another starting point in theology (see page 31 and see definitions in McKim, natural theology, revealed theology, general revelation).
23. Erickson thinks the best way of doing theology is beginning with both God and the means of knowledge, the Bible.
24. See his statement of his starting point on page 34 “There exists one Triune God…).
Lecture 3 - September 8, 2009 (downloadable/printable notes)
1. For Biblically based theologians, the first step in doing theology is to collect all relevant biblical passages on the particular doctrines that are being investigated (see Ericson page 70). However, before you can get at the meaning of text, it is important to give some thought to the exegesis of the text.
2. Exegesis (see definition of word in McKim) is the way in which we draw out our meaning from the text. You might liken exegesis to the mining of minerals from the ground. Different methods of mining yield different precious stones and minerals. Mining requires understanding of what you are trying to extract from the ground, and how to go about it.
3. Exegesis of the Word of God requires us to go about seeking the truth of God in honest and nonbiased ways if we really want the Bible to honestly speak to us. Most Pastors and theologians know that the Bible can be made to say anything that the interpreter wants it to say. The bottom line is, are we allowing it to truthfully inform us or are we trying to form it into our preconceptions and misconceptions/eisegesis (see Ericson, page 70-73 for more discussion on exegesis)?
4. We will not spend a great deal of time talking about exegesis except to say there have been many different methods of exegesis used in the history of the church, and even today there exists numerous exegetical methods (see McKim, page 98).
5. See Erickson, page 73 for information on the following methodology.
-Unification of Biblical Materials
-Analysis of the meaning of Biblical teachings
-Examination of the Historical treatments
-Consultation of other cultural perspective
-Identification of the essence of the doctrine
-Illumination from extra biblical sources
-Contemporary Expression of the Doctrine
-Development of a central interpretive motif
6. A word or two about a central theme to one’s systematic theology—there is a need to have a central theme to lend unity to the system of theology. What is Erickson’s C.I.M.? The magnificence of God (page, 82)!
-Stratification of the topics
Theology and Philosophy
7. I’d like to spend some time on Theology and Philosophy. Primarily because I believe that it is almost impossible to do theology without some kind of philosophical base. Philosophy and religion have had a unique relationship with each other down through the centuries and, as Ericson states, both have considerable commonality between them. In other words, they deal with much of the same subject matter (page 40).
8. The relationship of early Christian theology to philosophy—The church today lives in a tension between being true to their biblical roots and relevant to their culture. The temptation of the early church was also a similar tension between their early Jewish roots and the attraction of a kind of “high spirituality” associated with ancient philosophy, primarily Greeks and Stoics.
9. Ancient philosophy was a very spiritual business. It was very religious in nature, not anti-religious like most philosophical systems of our day. In fact, according to Phillip Cary in his lectures in the Teaching Company presentation of “The History of Christian Theology,” when ancient philosophers were critical of Christianity, it was because they felt Christians and Jews were too carnal. To them, carnality was being caught up in the material world, denying the ultimate reality of the pure spiritual world.
10. In fact according to Cary, the real danger for Christianity was getting too attracted to philosophy and ending up being a Gnostic (review the Gnostics—Marcion as an example).
11. In addition, philosophy’s place in the mind of educated men and women is similar to that of science today. No educated person today thinks that science has no redeeming value. They might not always agree with all its conclusions and value statements, especially concerning religion, but seldom do you hear of an educated person rejecting science altogether.
12. So it was in the ancient world, if you were an educated person, you did not reject philosophy altogether. In fact, the Christian intellectuals, the kind of Christians that would later on write books, cared about philosophy and were attracted to it spirituality.
13. According to Cary, ancient philosophy was concerned about wisdom and happiness. Not happiness in the sense of feeling happy but happiness in the sense of being truly being successful. According to them, true success in life means a life of wisdom, of knowledge, and understanding. The true goal of life was becoming a person whose life was personified by wisdom.
14. The writer of Ecclesiastes asks similar questions about the meaning and purpose of life—to which I tell our congregation that Jesus supplies the answers.
15. Christians, you might say, came along and ended up giving biblical answers to philosophical questions. For example, what is happiness, what is the true meaning of life? It was everlasting life. Happiness is everlasting life and it consists of a certain kind of wisdom, which is the Wisdom of God in Christ Jesus.
16. Another use for philosophy that Christians used was that of the Stoics. They were the most influential moral philosophers of that day and time. Again, they thought that happiness consisted of wisdom, but they also thought the road of wisdom was a life free of passion. Hence, they believed that a person of virtue was one that was not driven by passions. The only way to deal with passion was to get rid of them.
17. So Stoics warned us against passion, and Christians tended to agree (See Ecclesiastes 1:3:18-21). Ecclesiastes was very stoic in thought, except that the writer rejected the supremacy of wisdom, [Ecclesiastes 1:16-18 on one hand/and the not on another, Ecclesiastes 9:13-18].
18. Not everything about the Stoics influenced Christians because the Stoics were materialists. They believed that everything in the world was made of stuff or material things. The material world was made of earth, water, air, and fire. Even God was thought to be made of the stuff of fire and light. So to them God was literally a material being made of light and fire. Even the soul was thought to be made of stuff, a fiery breath, a kind of warm air in which when we die goes back to the fiery being called God who rules over His material world.
19. Early Christians conceived of God as being non-material stuff and the soul was a non-material stuff that went back to God when we died.
20. The people who believed that God and the soul were non-material were the followers of a Greek gentleman, named Plato. Plato and his followers had a non-material way of looking at the universe. In fact, they gave you a very contrasting picture of the non-material world and the material world. The most obvious is the human body and soul. They spoke of the body as being a prison for the soul; that somehow the soul originated apart from the body. Plato tells a myth about souls descending from heaven into bodies, falling from heaven into our bodies on earth. He calls it the fall of the soul. According to Plato, such a fall results in an imprisonment on earth in which death results in the freeing of the person to go back to heaven.
21. According to Cary, you never see anywhere in the Bible where the soul goes to heaven (that might be a so far reaching statement, ask the class). Instead, the ideal in the Bible is of heaven coming to us (Revelation 21, 2 Corinthians 5:1-10). Cary argues not that we won’t be in heaven…instead heaven is where Christ is and Christ is coming to us. Likewise, the picture is not of us leaving our bodies behind, but of our mortal bodies being clothed with immortality and everlasting life (1 Corinthians 15).
22. Also, can God suffer? Stoics believe that God couldn’t suffer because if He did He could be influenced by human beings and if He could be influence by human beings He could be changed. But yet that is not the picture we see of Christ on the cross. God is not impassionate, he suffers.
Lecture 4 - September 15, 2009 (downloadable/printable notes)
Philosophy and Theology (continued)
1. According to Cary, Platonism did something very important in its picture of the nonmaterial being. Platonism gave us the concept of eternity outside of time; eternity that was not temporal; eternity that was more than just everlasting.
2. Some folks use the term everlasting in a different way than eternity. It could be argued that if a soul has everlasting life they could live forever in time. Time just continues on and on and the soul lives everlastingly in the framework of that time.
3. According to Platonism, eternity is a different concept. It is a concept that is not influenced by time. Anything that comes into being comes into to time. God is outside of time; therefore he has never come into being. He will never cease to be. He will never change. He is not temporal in the sense of not being a part of time. He is eternal. A Platonist conceived of God as an eternal mind filled with ideas which were all eternal like the Pythagorean triangle or love. They believed that God was eternal ideas in an eternal mind. Consequently, because these ideas are perfect and eternal they cannot change. To them something outside time cannot change. By the way, most Christian thinkers accepted the Platonist notion of divine eternity, God being eternal, changeless, outside of time. But yet that wasn’t necessarily what was found in Jewish scriptures is it?
4. So can God suffer or can God have passions? Platonist and Stoics believed that God couldn’t suffer or have passion because if He did He could be influenced by human beings and if He could be influence by human being He could be changed (hence not eternal, not perfect). Don’t we believe in the unchangeable personhood of God? The ability to suffer or to become angry makes someone vulnerable, and God by their understanding is not vulnerable to His creation. But this is not the picture we see of Christ on the cross. God is not impassionate, he suffers. Does He then change? How about the issue of the Trinity?
5. In addition, most Christian thinkers down through antiquity have said that God doesn’t get really angry. That His anger or wrath is an allegorical or symbolic way of talking about His justice which is not passionate or emotion but a way of punishing the wicked and rewarding the good. His compassion, in other words, is just another way of talking about his actions of rewarding or punishing His people, but not in an emotional angry sort of way. How do most people think of God’s anger today?
6. Christians did adopt a great deal of Platonism, because they were attracted to a non-materialist view of reality. For example, we take for granted the immortality of the soul which, according to Cary, is not one of the teachings of the New Testament, but has combined and grafted on to the teachings of the New Testament. By this I mean that the soul on its own and by itself is not naturally immortal, only God is, look at 1Timothy 6:16. Some of the earliest Christian writers explicitly rejected the immortality of the soul because they said that eternality is a gift of God. It is not natural to any of us. But according to Cary, most Christian writers eventually accepted the immortality of the soul because to them the soul was a totally different kind of being from the body.
7. The idea of the fall of the soul is another matter. Keep in mind I am not talking about the doctrine of the Fall of Adam and Eve, this is different. It is the idea that souls fell into bodies like the myth of creation that the Platonist taught. This view was eventually rejected because it made the physical world into a prison, which rejected the goodness of God’s creation.
Lecture 5 - September 22, 2009 (downloadable/printable notes)
The Doctrine of God / Holy Scripture
1. Before we can talk about God, we’ve got to discuss how we can know God. The study of God’s revelation of himself to humanity has been classified in two ways: general revelation and special revelation.
2. General Revelation can be seen in three different and controversial ways: nature, history, and humanity. Erickson calls general revelation as God’s communication of himself to all persons at all times and in all places.
3. Nature—Scripture, itself, says there is a knowledge of God available through the created physical universe (Psalm 19:1). In addition, Paul says: “Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse” (Romans 1:20). Folks who look at the universe and the world we live in and are as Erickson says “exposed to the indications of God’s greatness” (page 179).
4. History—the evidence of history is less convincing than the argument for nature mainly because as Ericson says: “history is less accessible than is nature. One must consult the historical record.” The understanding here is that historical records can often be conflicting and sometimes dependent on obscure secondhand information.
5. Yet, an example often cited of God’s revelation in history is the preservation of the people of Israel. Israel has survived hostility for hundreds of generations and anyone who investigates Israel’s history cannot help being impressed. Most evangelical Christians believe that God isn’t through with Israel and will continue to reveal His love for this tiny nation.
6. The third expression of general revelation is God’s highest earthly creation—mankind. Not so much as man’s physical and mental capacity but his moral and spiritual qualities that some feel are best reflective of God’s character. The moral law argument for the existence of God used by C.S. Lewis and others like him is an excellent argument for God’s being and continuing rule.
7. Natural theology’s position is that not only is there a valid objective revelation of God in such areas as nature, history, and human personality but that it is actually possible to gain some true knowledge of God from these spheres—in other words, to construct a natural theology apart from the Bible itself (Erickson, page 181).
8. Turn to pages 181-199 of Erickson to gleam some assumptions and implications of natural theology and general revelation. Look at Erickson’s conclusions of general revelation pages 196-199, especially discussion pencil notes on page 199.
9. If general revelation is God revealing himself to all people at all times and all places, then Special Revelation involves “God’s particular communications and manifestations of himself to particular persons at particular times” (Erickson, page 178) by the reading of Biblical writings (See Erickson page 191).
10. Look at Erickson’s conclusions of general revelation, pages 196-199.
11. Special Revelation – Start by reviewing Erickson, page 200.
Characteristics of Special Revelation
· It is personal. God reveals Himself to persons. It is the personal revealing Himself to persons (see Erickson page 203).
· Scripture presents God and His truths in anthropic form, revelation coming in human language and human categories of thought and action.
· There is also what Erickson calls the analogical nature of scripture in which God has revealed himself in terms that is univocal in his being and ours (Erickson, page 205). So, God loves as human beings love only more so. He is powerful as human beings are powerful but much more so.
12. The means or mode of special revelation is three fold according to Erickson (page 207): historical events, divine speech, and the incarnation. See pages 207-221.
Inspiration of Scripture
13. One thing that is highly debated is to the degree that Scripture is inspired by God. By inspiration of Scripture, we mean the influence of the Holy Spirit on the writers which cause their writings to be accurate.
14. See Erickson pages 231-33 for theories of inspiration.
15. Page 235 for the extent of inspiration.
16. Page 240 for a model of Inspiration.
Dependability of God’s Word: Inerrancy
17. See page 248 for different degrees or conceptions of inerrancy. Which one of these best represents your understanding of God’s word and why?