A New Way to "Do Theology"

The real issue is if there will be a hermeneutic change. But i love the idea of studying antecedent revelation first, and building on it. I fear however it will leave student without the time to study the more intricate questions of systematic theology while getting their questions and struggle answered. After all, if the last 3 weeks of the course are the NT, is that really enough time? I hope they really help their student grapple with things, and not just give a merely biblical theology theology (I know that sounds horrible) masquerading as a systematic theology.

There is obviously some discomfort with the traditional approach here, but to say, “We [now] want our systematic theology to draw its content from Scripture itself” is to imply they have been doing less than that in the past.

Any graduates out there who know if this true?

I don’t really get it. Need to talk to some guys over there I guess.
If the problem w/systematic theology is, as the post states, verses incorrectly used as proof texts, then the solution is to more carefully select and interpret the verses involved.
Plus the new arrangement of subjects appears to be the same old set of topics arranged in different groupings with somewhat unfamiliar language.
So what’s really wrong the old “-ologies”?

I don’t think it’s a big deal either way as long as students are still well trained in the classical categories of systematic theology so they are able to interact skillfully with the rich body of study our forbears have been cranking out for centuries.
But if you’re going to go to that much trouble, why not just stick with the tried and true paradigm and refine it?

Amen to Ted Bigelow. I hope it is not true but this sounds very much like they are replacing Systematic Theology with Biblical Theology (“Biblical Theology” as a specific label not to be confused with “theology that is biblical”). BT has already ruined good preaching in some Reformed circles and is becoming popular in some biblical counseling circles. Fundamentalists should be on guard.

Great questions, Ted and Aaron. Part of the struggle over the last 8 years of teaching the traditional systematic courses has been convincing students that theology really was directly related to what they were learning in biblical studies classes (Old and New Testament exegesis courses). For many students there seemed to be a disconnect. This change is part of an attempt to integrate all our courses so that students see the direct connection between exegesis, theology and preaching, for example.

What we were hearing from students were questions such as, “Why don’t we spend more time exegeting Scripture in our theology classes?” and “Why are we not required to follow the exegetical process for our preaching classes?” These are all great questions and it made us realize that our curriculum should be more integrated, or “holistic” as George Coon has written in this essay.

Also as he states, we were trying to emphasize our dispensational distinctives by more directly tying progressive revelation with systematic theology. This is something I learned at Westminster Seminary. Their covenant theology is the major thread that runs through all their courses. I began to realize how isolated our Dispensationalism class was; it was almost totally sequestered from the other systematic theology courses. If we truly believe that our dispensational hermeneutic is correct, then our hermeneutic ought to drive our systematics.

Aaron is correct that the content does not change tremendously in most of these classes, but the logical development and connection to the unfolding of the biblical narrative should make a major difference in the understanding of students. Problems with the old “-ologies” have been lamented for years, if not centuries. They developed as a result of modern tendencies to isolate doctrines from their organic position in the biblical narrative using a scientific method. We are trying to bring it back to a more intentional connection to biblical theology.

Ted, each of these courses is an entire semester, so we don’t give the NT just 3 weeks, but two entire semesters. I think you may have misunderstood the layout. And yes, we are trying to be “more biblical,” building on previous generations who attempted to do the same, while at the same time recognizing our fallibility and limitations. I think that’s why George appropriately included the word “hopefully”!

I’m trying to understand exactly what is being done here. If I read it correctly, each class covers a particular section of Scripture along with certain doctrinal loci. So, “God, Revelation, and Creation” would cover what portion of Scripture?

I actually like the change, but that is because I don’t absorb things as well in systematic categories like I do in narrative form. It wasn’t until I began viewing the doctrines of the faith through the meta-narrative of progressive revelation, did I really understand the Bible and all of the fundamentals of the faith.

A staunch a priori commttment to covenant theology or dispensationalism defeats the purpose of studying the development of theological themes as they surface and blossom in the progress of revelation. Hopefully, whatever system one tentatively starts with will undergo revision so that it categories and definitions reflect the language of Scripture.

It is not too surprising that I agree with Aaron, I guess, since I usually do!

I can understand the desire to connect the study of systematic theology more directly with the way the Scriptures have progressively unfolded the various doctrines, but it seems to me this would be done much better simply by approaching each systematic category in this fashion so that the whole reason for doing systematic theology in the first place won’t potentially be lost. So, for example, when studying the doctrine of the Trinity, one could study how the doctrine is progressively revealed in Scripture. Along the way, one could focus on the exegetical details of key texts so that the students can see clearly how such a doctrine really does come directly from Scripture. This was the approach to the study of systematic theology I experienced while at Covenant Theological Seminary under Robert Peterson, and I am profoundly grateful for it. It stressed the indispensable importance of Biblical and exegetical theology as the basis for systematic theology while not losing sight of the importance if systematic theology itself.

Edit: Pastork.. looks like I may be flip flopping on you here!

the content does not change tremendously in most of these classes, but the logical development and connection to the unfolding of the biblical narrative should make a major difference in the understanding of students.

I’m glad to hear this. So my understanding now is that the aim is to shape the study of these doctrines in such a way that it all connects better to the rest of the curriculum. I do think that’s a commendable goal.
As for a priori commitments, it all depends on what your overall sequence is. At some point, you do the study that is aimed at discovering how you will interpret Scripture as a whole. Then you’re going to use conclusions from that to drive how you study doctrine systematically. But I do think we all agree that you have to hang on to some humility at all stages so that your interaction with the only thing that is inerrant can correct and refine your prior understandings.
Naturally, we’re going to have different notions of how strong an a priori commitment to CT or Disp. ought to be… how strong is too strong, etc.

As a concept I love the idea of making the hermeneutic a more unifying principle for the whole curriculum. I’m sure the execution will continue to be challenging.

We both still want to see a solid and Biblical approach to the study of theology while not losing the stress on systematic study. But, while there is more that one way to skin a cat (as the old saying goes), I still prefer the one
I outlined above.

[Donn R Arms] BT has already ruined good preaching in some Reformed circles and is becoming popular in some biblical counseling circles. Fundamentalists should be on guard.

I agree that it sounds more like BT than ST, but please explain your caution.

I still am having trouble wrapping my mind around this idea - especially wondering how all of the doctrines will be properly covered, but overall the idea seems good. One problem I have had with the idea of “Systematic Theology” is that many (most?) times it means, Here’s how I fit the Bible into my System, rather than I am studying theology in a systematic way. It seems the second “systematic” is what they are trying to do at Calvary.

[Pastork] I can understand the desire to connect the study of systematic theology more directly with the way the Scriptures have progressively unfolded the various doctrines, but it seems to me this would be done much better simply by approaching each systematic category in this fashion so that the whole reason for doing systematic theology in the first place won’t potentially be lost. So, for example, when studying the doctrine of the Trinity, one could study how the doctrine is progressively revealed in Scripture. Along the way, one could focus on the exegetical details of key texts so that the students can see clearly how such a doctrine really does come directly from Scripture. This was the approach to the study of systematic theology I experienced while at Covenant Theological Seminary under Robert Peterson, and I am profoundly grateful for it. It stressed the indispensable importance of Biblical and exegetical theology as the basis for systematic theology while not losing sight of the importance if systematic theology itself.

Pastor K is touching on a major issue. I studied systematic theology with Dr. Myron Houghton at FBTS, and most of our class time was spent listening to him exegete key texts — based on his belief (received, I believe, through Dr. Charles Ryrie) that every Bible doctrine stands on one major prototypical passage. What I left with was not the feeling of, “Here’s what I believe, let me see how the Bible fits;” but, rather, “I need to learn every verse of every Book and could spend the rest of my life doing systematic theology!”
As Dr. Houghton taught us, systematic theology — as a discipline — involves more than the result of exegesis. It also involves “stretching” theology vertically (across the centuries) and horizontally (across the various denominational traditions) and learning what options have been presented so that you can (a) be informed and (b) pick the best option on any given question. Thus, ST courses are supposed to be radically different from Bible exposition courses.
Also, the first semester of theology began with an extensive review of background to studying theology, discussing history, various approaches and textbooks and what distinguishes systematic theology from Biblical theology, etc.
Having said all of that, I am not opposed to innovation — but I think something would be lacking if the students were not at least exposed to the traditional approach so they can interact with it.
I am also encouraged by the effort to introduce dispensationalism more fully here — assuming it is classical and not progressive dispensationalism (which is not really dispensationalism at all ;) ).

How does teaching theology the way Calvary is going to do it rid theology of proof-texting? I assume with the time allowed, and the texts to touch upon concerning a subject like “God” that one is going to still going to have to give a survey of Biblical texts that deal with any particular sub-category under a topic like “God.” I do like the idea of teaching theology using the Christian metanarrative. There are still some things I’m fuzzy on like the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the O.T. age. Maybe such a linear approach would help a student see such things better.

[Mark Farnham] Ted, each of these courses is an entire semester, so we don’t give the NT just 3 weeks, but two entire semesters. I think you may have misunderstood the layout. And yes, we are trying to be “more biblical,” building on previous generations who attempted to do the same, while at the same time recognizing our fallibility and limitations. I think that’s why George appropriately included the word “hopefully”!

Hi Mark,

Sorry - I misunderstood the format of the present discussion - thinking it was a single semester, and not several.

The plan sounds promising to me - similar to what Biblical Seminary has done, if I understand correctly. I am all for developing sound dispensationalists, and the plan looks promising. I hope you can write on it someday and let us know how it goes.

I went to Master’s Seminary. One of the early professors in the school’s history was sharing why they didn’t approach the teaching of theology from more of an antecedent revelation/progressive revelation approach. His comment was that they didn’t want to keep the students, while still in their first year of seminary, from partaking of some of the fruits of systematic theology. Sort of in the same idea as not waiting to teach the men systematics until they have Greek and Hebrew under their belts.