Introduction
In the previous article, literary genre and method typical of theological works were discussed. The scholastic genre and questions-disputation and commonplaces methods were considered the primary ones used in this series. After a discussion of literary purposes, the discussion flows to a consideration of different methods of theological study. Six methods will be explained: philosophical, historical, biblical, apologetical, systematic, and polemical theology. Following the definition, purpose, and use of these methods, the one taken will be declared and defended against various objections.
Philosophical Theology
Philosophical theology seeks to use the tools of philosophical reasoning to explain major theological doctrines. This method mainly relies upon our ability to reason which is a God-given gift. Moreover, it applies the concepts of various philosophers to theological concepts. Echoing St. Anselm’s motto of “Faith seeking understanding,” Christian philosophical theology accepts the truths of the Christian religion on the basis of faith; however, it treats the doctrine with logical consistency and rational processes. Two important theologians who applied the philosophy of non-Christians are Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. Augustine appropriated Plato’s philosophical works to explain various topics in Christian theology. Furthermore, Aquinas did the same, but to an even higher degree, by synchronizing Christianity with Aristotelianism. These two great theologians took the language and reasoning of pagan philosophers and showed the consistency between the two, resulting in a greater explication and defense of Christian doctrine. The use of philosophical theology avoids ambiguous language, uses careful distinctions to describe different views, and shows the logical consistency of the whole body of doctrine. Additionally, it aids in our understanding of doctrine thereby allowing one to intelligibly communicate his views with others. This method is beneficial among the anti-intellectualism growing in Evangelicalism. In this series, philosophical theology will be used more as a handmaid rather than the main method which will be discussed further along in the prolegomena.
Historical Theology
Historical theology seeks to examine Church history for the purpose of understanding how the generations of Christianity understood each doctrine. Doing historical theology shows the development of doctrine over certain time periods, such as the patristic era and the Post-Reformation era. Understanding how great theologians of history accepted certain doctrines aids in our study of theology in today’s world. Historical theology removes much of the biases we have today since our own cultural settings blindfold us to various things mentioned in Scripture. Studying those closer to the New Testament allows one to read people who knew the language spoken, cultural practices, and patterns of thinking. Moreover, it shows that new doctrine is not being invented, but rather developed. We must be wary of new doctrine infiltrating the church which has not been taught for over a millennium of church history. If particular doctrines were historically not taught (i.e. dispensationalism), we must stop to think if centuries of Christians illumined by the Holy Spirit were consistently wrong on many things. Yet again, this method will be used, not as the primary examination of the series (I am not writing Augustine’s teaching on fill-in-the-blank), but as support for the dogma.
Biblical Theology
Biblical theology is a specific study concerned with various themes, certain authors, or periods of Scripture throughout the Bible. It seeks to show the redemptive-historical progression of revelation in each author. It treats the Bible primarily as a story with elements developing in the historical context of the author. For example, by doing biblical theology, one would trace the theme of sacrifices from different periods in redemptive history, starting with the first sacrifice in the Garden of Eden (God clothing Adam and Eve), to the consummate sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross. Thus, biblical theology done right tracks the story of redemption by exegeting Scripture in light of the complete revelation we have. This method unifies the biblical text and shows how each book relates to the other in line with the redemptive-historical context.
Apologetical Theology
Apologetical theology concerns itself with the defense of Christianity. The Greek word apologia means “to give a defense.” Within this method, one is focused on outsiders to the Christian faith rather than intra-Christian disputes. Three main methods have been proposed for giving a well-reasoned defense of the faith as Peter commands us (1 Pet. 3:15): classicalism, presuppositionalism, and evidentialism. Classicalism follows a more philosophical argumentation to prove monotheism as the only rational position and then moves into concrete evidence to show Christianity is the only true religion contrary to Judaism and Islam (bottom-up approach). Presuppositionalism argues that one must presuppose the triune Christian God to have any coherent worldview (top-down approach). Finally, evidentialism points to historical facts to prove the resurrection of Christ which in turn validates the Christian religion. I take the Classical approach for various reasons; however, this series is not primarily an apologetic against other religions, and thus I will not dive deeply into each one. Non-monotheistic religions will be briefly argued against in the polemic section in theology proper using the five classical proofs of God’s existence, namely Aquinas’ “The Five Ways.”
Systematic Theology
Systematic theology seeks to provide a summary of major doctrines as taught across the entirety of Scripture. This method arranges the truths of Christianity into a coherent whole establishing the dogma of the church. It can be called synonymously positive theology since it consists of positive reasons and statements for a given doctrine. By synthesizing facts gathered from biblical theology and exegesis, this method concisely states doctrine found throughout Scripture. Thus, systematic theology provides us with an organized positive confession and defense of Christian doctrine as taught in divine revelation.
Polemical Theology
Finally, polemical theology treats intra-Christian disputes along with heresies that arose in the church. Polemics is defined as a controversial argument in verbal or written form against a certain person or teaching. Polemical writings take an explicit opinion against other teachings. The ultimate goal of polemics is to show why the opposing view is false in the form of argumentation. Also, polemical theology can be called elenctic theology which means it serves to refute an argument. Compared to systematic theology (positivize), polemics give negative reasons in response to opposing viewpoints. So, polemics serve as a wonderful companion to systematic theology as it defends the positive statement against contrary teachings thereby giving negative reasons for the doctrine (i.e. not these positions, therefore this position).
Systematic-Elenctic Method Taken
In this series, the systematic-elenctic method will be used, meaning I will give a summary of the Reformed statement on any given doctrine with positive reasons for it and then follow that with a polemical section where dissensions arise. Here is the first section that follows this pattern. Argumentation for the method used will be presented and then followed by argumentation against those who oppose the method.
A systematic method must be taken for many Scriptural passages presents systematic methods such as the Decalogue and Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. The whole of Scripture presents a methodical ordering of the covenants in redemptive history (biblical theology). (2) Historically, the church has been quick to combat heresies by providing systems of doctrine such as the creeds (Nicene, Athanasian, Chalcedonian), the works of the patristics (Origen’s On First Principles, Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine), medieval works (Lombard’s Sentences, Aquinas’ Summa Theologiae), reformational works (Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion), post-reformation works (Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology), the conservative Princeton dynasty (Hodge’s Systematic Theology), and more recent times (Beeke’s and Smalley’s Reformed Systematic Theology) (historical theology). (3) Our rationality demands it, for we are reasonable creatures who think categorically and topically (philosophical theology). (4) The nature of God proves the same since he is not a God of confusion but of order (1 Cor. 14:33, 40). (5) The nature of doctrine teaches it because in order to have teachings one must summarize the Scriptural text on a given topic which is spread throughout the canon.
Enthusiasts and fanatics deny the need for order or method for the following reasons. (1) A systematic method ought not be taken, for theology is supernatural and thus surpasses our capacity of reason. I respond that reason illuminated by the Spirit of God can understand and judge spiritual things and thus order them (1 Cor. 2:10-16). Secondly, one will have either organized or disorganized theology, I prefer organized. Thirdly, theology does indeed transcend the mind, yet it does not contradict our rationality, for God created us with the capacity to systematize and reason about doctrinal truths. (2) Systems of theology take away from the simplicity of the gospel. I respond that systematization does not change the material but rather forms it into a reasonable order that promotes the glory of theology, not diminishes it. (3) Systematic theology removes Scriptural texts from its context. This argues against an accidental defect rather than a substantial property. Systematic theology done rightly synthesizes the teaching of Scripture, not contradicting it.
A polemical method must be taken for inspired authors of the Scriptures and Christ himself engaged in polemics (Col. 2:16-19, 2 Cor. 10:5, Acts 17:16ff, Lk. 11:37-52). (2) Determining the truth of any given thing requires it to stand the test of objections. Without hearing the other side, one engages in an echo chamber rather than actual discussion. (3) Anytime dissensions or heresies arose, the church fathers were quick to make polemical works defending the orthodox doctrine.
The progressives deny the use of polemics in theology. (1) It lacks in Christian love. I respond that, firstly, a loving act is bringing others into the understanding and discovery of truth which is the ultimate end of polemical theology. Secondly, Jesus, who displayed perfect love, engaged in disputing with the false doctrine of the Pharisees (Mt. 23:1-35). (2) It causes needless division. I respond with J.C. Ryle saying, “Never let us be guilty of sacrificing any portion of truth on the altar of peace.” We must maintain unity but never at the cost of truth.
Conclusion
With many theological methods being defined, the method used will take a systematic-polemic approach. However, as shown, the other methods are useful in determining dogma. From this method, I will prove doctrine from the Scriptures, confirm it by reasons, and explicate it in light of these. This dogma being demonstrated, it will further be polemically established against opponents. In doing so, the Reformed orthodox teachings will be clearly presented and defended.