Introduction
Following discussion on the theological method employed, we need to further define some important methodology. Method provides a way through a subject; and therefore, it is necessary to understand how we are to “walk” through this body of knowledge. In this article, I will explain synthetic and analytic method and also note some important distinctions of how I will use other tools in aid of the method taken, including exegesis, catholicity, creedalism, and confessionalism. These methods will be contrasted with their counterparts to show why they will better help a system of theology.
Synthetic and Analytic
All method can be reduced to these two categories (or at least a mix thereof): synthetic and analytic methods. Regarding the synthetic method, it takes an a priori approach. A priori refers to moving from cause to effect, which typically means moving from general principles to particular conclusions. It is a form of deductive reasoning from universal to particular through logical demonstration. By way of example, here is a syllogism:
(P1): All humans are mortal.
(P2): Socrates is a human.
(C1): Therefore, Socrates is mortal
In this syllogism, we take a general principle of all humans being mortal and conclude particularly that Socrates is mortal. Put differently, this is a top down approach, from principles to derived points. This method is mostly used for theoretical, rather than practical disciplines. On the contrary, the analytic approach takes an a posteriori method. A posteriori refers to moving from effect to cause, and thus is a form of inductive reasoning, moving from phenomenological particulars to abstract universals. For example, I would be doing inductive reasoning if I observed my hand burns when I touch the stove, and then concluded that the stove causes my hand to burn. I reasonably moved from effect (burned hand) to cause (stove). The analytic method is used for practical disciplines. In this series, I will be using synthetic method in the ordering of loci (topics), and the analytic method in developing of loci. Thus, the system will move from two principia to the ultimate end. The two principia are Scripture (foundation of epistemology or knowledge) and God (foundation of ontology or being) with the ultimate end being the beatific vision. However, each explanation of the topics are not deduced from forced conclusions in pure logical demonstration, but rather explained using the analytic method. Each loci is developed from examining Scripture, not through pure rational deductions from set principles as the Cartesian rationalists would have it.
Overview of Synthetic Ordering in the System
Right now, we are in the prolegomena section of the system which is only stating definition, presuppositions, and methodology of the work to come. Following the prolegomena, the focus will shift to bibliology or the doctrine of Scripture. This is the foundation of all our knowing, so it is proper to place this section at the beginning, for if we did not know, then there would be nothing to discuss. All our doctrine is analytically derived from Scripture (explicitly or implicitly) so we must understand what Scripture actually is. In this section, the necessity, authority, versions, canon, attributes, and interpretation of Scripture will be discussed. Following the foundation of our knowledge, we will move to theology proper or the doctrine of God who is the foundation of all actuality. Without God, nothing would exist, so we must understand who God is. In this section, the names, properties, and triunity of God will be discussed. The attributes of God are prior to the discussion on the Holy Trinity since we must understand who God is in order to say the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. The ad intra decree of God follows in the system. Here, we will understand God’s predetermination of all things which particularly focuses on predestination of man to eternal blessedness or damnation. God executes his decrees in the ad extra works of creation and providence, so it is fitting these two topics come after the decrees of God. In creation, the rational beings are of importance which is twofold: incorporeal beings (angelology) and corporeal beings (anthropology). Under anthropology, coming after angelology (angels were created before man), the estate of man before the fall is discussed. Taking man out of this estate was sin; and therefore, the discussion moves to hamartiology or the doctrine of sin. After sin, we will need to understand the estate of man after the fall. In light of humanity’s corrupt nature after the fall, the discussion proceeds to the law of God which shows how humanity must be. The plan of all redemptive history unfolds under the covenant of grace in the Old and New Testaments which is how the fall is reversed and we are restored to God (covenant theology). However, like all covenants, there is a mediator, namely Christ. So, the discussion moves to Christology. Understanding the covenant and mediator thereof, soteriology or the doctrine of salvation proceeds it. God uses means to achieve salvation for his people which is done through the church (ecclesiology) who administers the sacraments (sacramentology). Finally, the ultimate end of the world and our lives will be touched upon with the ultimate culmination being the beatific vision (eschatology). At the end, we have a complete system of theology moving from first principles to ultimate end.
Exegetical
The etymology of exegesis comes from the Greek language indicating to take or lead out of; it was used in reference to interpreting or explaining something. Thus, when I exegete Scripture, I am explaining the text by drawing out of the text itself. On the other hand, eisegesis stems from the Greek language indicating to lead into. So, contrary to exegesis, when I eisegete Scripture, I import my own understanding and reading into the text. One can quickly see the problem with an eisegetical approach to Scripture over an exegetical approach. We must let God and his human authors speak for themselves, not impose what we think the text should mean. This not only applies to Scripture, but to all texts one wishes to interpret correctly. The author is the one who has the ultimate say on what is intended, not the audience. In this series, I seek to draw out from Scripture doctrine which is then organized, not the other way around.
Catholic, Creedal, Confessional
People typically associate the word catholic with Roman Catholicism; however, the word itself denotes universal. In the Apostle’s and Nicene Creeds, we affirm the belief in one catholic church. In doing so, we do not submit to the papacy, but rather affirm a universal church under Christ. We confess the one true faith with the church at large, not just our local church we attend on Sundays. Being catholic, I will draw from all ages of church history to show continuity in doctrine.
Being creedal means subscribing to the historic creeds of the church, namely the Apostle’s, Nicene, Chalcedonian, and Athanasian creeds. The English word creed comes from the Latin word credo meaning to trust in. By affirming various creeds, we are formally confessing who and what we trust in. These creeds are not inspired; however, they provide a concise statement on Christian orthodox drawn from the Scriptures. Thus, I confess with the church writ large that God is three persons: the Father who is unbegotten, the Son who is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son. I confess that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man, two natures united in one person who for our salvation was incarnate by the blessed virgin Mary and conceived by the Holy Spirit, lived a perfect life, died, and rose again on the third day. Finally, I confess with the creeds the one true catholic and apostolic church.
On top of being catholic and creedal, I am also confessional. Confessions act as a more comprehensive statement of belief than that of the creeds. I subscribe to the Westminster Standards (WCF 1646, WLC, WSC), placing me in the boundaries of the Reformed tradition. So, the system of theology presented will be within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy laid out for us in the creeds and within the bounds of the Reformed tradition laid out for us by the Westminster Standards. Finally, I confess the one true faith with the catholic church across the centuries of history. From these suppositions, I do not seek to provide any new doctrine but rather explain doctrine already taught throughout church history.
Conclusion
Methodolgy is important; it provides a way through knowledge. In laying out the differences between synthetic and analytic method, I clarified that the ordering of topics will follow the synthetic approach, while the development of those loci will more closely follow the analytic method. The way of developing the system follows exegesis Scripture to understand doctrine within the bounds of creedal catholicity specifically in the confessionally Reformed tradition. So far in the series we have learned the purpose and importance of prolegomena, established the theological genre and method, stated the theological methodology with more technical explication of synthetic and analytic models, and determined the boundaries wherein the system is developed. In the next article, I will briefly touch on how one ought to study theology.