Systematic Theology 1 Quiz 1 Flashcards
The Subject-matter of EST
“about God and His relations to the created universe”
The Sources of EST
“primarily from Scripture (i.e., theology’s only final and ultimately authoritative source) and secondarily from any and all other relevant sources”
The Structure of EST
““Evangelical Systematic Theology is the comprehensive study and coherent organization of what can be known,”
The Setting of EST
-“in a manner that is understandable and applicable to contemporary audiences,”
The Satisfaction of EST
“to the end that God’s people are strengthened and satisfied in Him, to the praise and glory of His name”
Why Study EST?
- Comprehensive Scriptural Vantage Point
- Interpretive Guide
- Religious Pluralism
- Head, Heart, Hands, Habitat
Comprehensive Scriptural Vantage Point
- looking at the big subjects - pulling together what the Bible teaches us about all of these attributes
- in looking at the big picture
Interpretive Guide
a guide/ frame work not a straight jacket
Religious Pluralism
- we live in a world that has lots of religions like Acts 17 in ancient Athens // Paul time
- the difference though: in western culture we have that there is no legitamate truth claim that can be made by any one religion that in fact all religions must be seen as =
- if you have an exsclusive view then you are intolerant and unacceptable
Religious Pluralism - we must do..
- stand firm in what you believe
2. have a depth of conviction about truth of the Bible
4 things to think about here with theology
Head, Heart, Hands, Habitat-
Head
theology to dwell in and retrain the way we think, our heads are mean to be full of theology
Heart
- take truth into our hearts & see it as glorious
- we prize it our affections are retrained according to scripture so that we love more and more what God loves and we hate more of what God hates..
Hands
the way we live shows what we care about
Habitat
our minds, affections, and behaviors affect the environment that we live in
EST in Relation to other Theological Disciplines
- Hermeneutics
- Biblical Studies
- Biblical Theology
- Systematic Theology
- Church History/Historical Theology
- Apologetics
- Missions/Evangelism
- Ethics
- Practice of Ministry
Hermeneutics
- try to understand scripture rightly
- emphasis on different kinds of genres
- this is the base
Biblical Studies
- OT/NT studies
- looking at particular books of the bible, seeking to understand the author, context, grammar, seeing what the author intends for us to know
- commentary = walk you through v1 to the last verse.. what the author was trying to communicate with you
- analytical
- adds to hermeneutics
Biblical Theology
- what are the primary themes in a book of the Bible
- synthetic
- adds to hermeneutics and biblical studies
Systematic Theology
- biblical theology is more narrow, stay as it was in the era it was written (exegesis)
- systematic theology attempts to show the current purpose for the current era that we are in
- comprehensive, directed to more contemporary application
- Hermeneutics, Biblical Studies, Biblical Theology gives rise to
Church History/Historical Theology
- assisting in understanding every area
- helps us understand how things are done better
- providing insight, warring against dangers
- church history = history of the church
- historical theology = theology developed historically
- assists systematic theology the most
Apologetics
- implications that come
- comes from systematic theology
- theology attempts to answer the question what do we believe
- apologetic attempts to answer why do we believe this
- Happens two different ways
- come as questions of objections
- seeks to answer WHY we believe this
Missions/Evangelism
- closely related to apologetics
- obligation to pass on the christian faith to others
Ethics
- impact from theology going public
- encounters questions in the culture.. ex. sexuality, abortion, economics, politics
Practice of Ministry
- all theology is practical
- theologically driven
- how do we lean the church forward
- preaching, worship
- theology drives these beliefs
- you can only council as it flows out of systematic theology
theology is the spring board to
apologetics, missions, ethics, practice of ministry
The Method of Evangelical Systematic Theology
- theological methods is how u go about constructing the doctrines
- the study of theological method it is to theology what hermeneutics is to biblical studies
- -herm. is how you go about interpreting the bible.
an approach to subject matter that attempts to take note of and observe the specific features true of it.. specific aspects of the subject matter that you are investigating/tallies your findings/ records what you have seen
Induction
Theory Construction in Theological Method
Deduction and Retroduction
first step in taking the facts and putting them together in a way that drives conclusion
Deduction
Induction
Deduction
Retroduction
Example
I - Bible teaches that there is ONE God.
- Father is God - who Jesus is praying to, who sent Jesus into the world
- Jesus Christ - early theologians found different texts that indicate that Jesus is God
- Holy Spirit is God - found this truth throughout scripture
D = God must be 1 & 3.
R - God is one in his essence & in his nature, three in persons
what must be the case in light of these things?
-looking for particular conclusion insight of scripture
Deduction
How can this be? How can we make this meaningful?
Retroduction
how do we make sense of this?
getting all the pieces together
Retroduction
provides the information
Induction
ask the question in this theological formulation are all the data accountable for / am i rightly in my theological understanding accounting for all of the relevant passages
Quantitative Criterion
have we treated those data correctly / have we interpreted passages of scripture as the author intended for us to read them
Qualitative Criterion
God is consistent, there is no errors in it / is there consistency / lack of logical consistency shows that there are problems that have to be worked on and solved
-God is good not evil, light not darkness
Consistency Criterion
asthetic criteria / look for the beauty, the symmetry, the grander, the greatness, the simplicity and beauty of this truth when it is put together the right, communicates a wholeness / a beauty
Coherence Criterion
Criteria for Assessing Theological Formulations
- Quantitative Criterion
- Qualitative Criterion
- Consistency Criterion
- Coherence Criterion
Conclusion from Assessing Theological Formulations
Theology as Science, Art and Faith
theology is science
-bringing together accurate data
theology is art as well
see these hard subjects and the beauty of it all.. relates it all together to best express it
theology is faith as well
-only the Spirit can lead us into
given this particular culture how do we present theology that fits that context / shape theology to
Cultural Contextualization
normativty that which is the norm / which is always the case - a truth that is transcultural.. does not change - cultural normativity
Transcultural Normativity
same across culture
Transcultural Normative
tailored and shaped for a particular culture
Cultural Contextualization
Issue with Cultural Contextualization & Transcultural Normative
- major theological issues of our day.. it concerns the extent to which a given culture values, beliefs, insitutions, ethics, life setting, felt needs, or world view affects and should affect how theology is down within and for a culture
- is there a place for cultural input for theology..
Two Extremes to be Avoided in an Evangelical Theology
“Cultural Christianity”
“Non-cultural Christianity”
- the notion that cultures like it or not are necessary of what theology produces
- directed by the conviction and beliefs of the culture
- there is no such thing as transcultural normative truths.. is what this is saying
- there should be no absolute truth… what is happening now
- different faiths/theologies/christianities that exist = different understandings of theology
“Cultural Christianity”
Ex. of “Cultural Christianity”
Hitler, KKK
hen we do theology is this other culture we bring theology to this setting that has no culture ad mixture…. just pure christian faith as the bible speaks of it and there is nothing in our culture
“Non-cultural Christianity”
Ex. “Non-cultural Christianity”
o to a tribal people and tell them there is one God, we are sinners before God, Christ has come, by faith in Christ we can be set free form the guilt of our sin because Christ has paid for it…… and as Christians we always where white churches on sunday, our churches look like this, and sing these hymns….. these are our cultures… let them have their own culture
An Evangelical Position:
“Contextualized Normativity”
Dominate Term =
Normativity
Qualified by =
Contextualized
Explain “Contextualized Normativity”
- normative truth = abiding truth of God that provides for us our base of what we have learned about God and his relationship to the created universe// truth be truth
- modified by contextualization = how do you express it, what language do you barrow
Calvinism and Arminianism Background and Precursors
prelimenary development that lead up to the debate in the 16th & 17th century.. goes all the way back to the early church this debate) revived in the reformation
Four Ideas Pelagius Proposed
- God’s law is righteous.
- God is always just in judging people.
- Freedom is the only way that God can hold us accountable .. we must have freedom to obey God or not for God to be just & for us to be responsible for our actions
- God has granted us this by our nature this libertarian freedom. We have freedom by nature to by holy or not. We are morally accountable for what we do & God can judge us
(354-430) - most prominent theologian of the early church, influenced reformers later, advocating his views, many followers, wrote against pelagius
Augustine
Four Points Augustine Had
- Agreed that the law is righteous.
- Agreed that God is just.
- Differ dramatically! Pelagius says we have freedom. Augustine says because of Adams sin we are born into this world sinful by nature. We cannot help but go against the will of God. Be violators of that good and perfect law.
- How can we obey? ONLY BY GRACE
- We all inherent Adam’s sin, but grace gives us the ability to please God and obey him.
The Debate between Nature & Grace
- we can obey by nature - P
* we can obey by grace - A
A - grace is neccesary for any to obey - unconditional election - God must
choose whom grace was given because they are freed up to believe
(418) tried to judicature between P vs. A. P called a heretic. Not affected by the sin of Adam, accept he was just a bad influence. Augustine view was upheld.
Election did not sit well with them.
Council of Carthage
- grace and nature view
- called this in the Lutheran conduct, middle of the road position that argued that A is partly right and P is partly right, -subject to sin (A), (P) we have the ability to obey in our nature.. sin weakens our ability to do good, difficult to obey, grace comes to assist a weak will
- became a dominant view
- middle position
Semi-Pelagian Alternative
(1483-1546) - never intended to become the radical reformer that he was, when he encountered so much opposition from the catholic church, he presented his own views, his views from scripture, Luther separated from catholicism, and a number of catholic positions
- justification by faith alone by grace alone
- how are we able to obey God?
Martin Luther
freedom of the will, close to P, we can by nature with some assistance of grace and nature do what we need to do
-you are capable if you just do it, hear and obey what God has said
Arasmus
- Lutheran heard Aramus’s crap theology and got so upset. because he is due the glory alone
- we in our sin can do nothing but sin in our own ability
-the bondage of the will
-Luther reaffirmed
Augustine
1509-1564) - primary reformation figure, be called the Augustinian view, Calvin followers countinuted to teach this,
-because of sin that came to us through Adam, we are born sinners
John Calvin
-we are sinners because we sin -
Pleagius
we sin because were sinners
Augustine
Calvin says.. understand unconditional election and irresistible grace.. connected to
total depravity.
Calvin saw the need for these 4 doctrines
- Total Depravity
- Unconditional Election
- Irresistible Grace
- Perserverance of the Saints
- all flow from total depravity
Where does Jacob Arminius (1560-1609) differ from Calvin.. though he studied under Calvin’s friend (Basea in Genevea)
differed: whether we all (all people) have the ability to believe/ be saved or is this only for the elect
the next decade Arminius’ followers - they remonstrated against the calvinist
became called Remonstrance
Arminius proposed that
the grace that God gives to sinners that enables them to believe in Christ is prevenient grace - latin term that refer to grace that comes before or arrises before hand/ a grace that comes before saving faith that makes it possible to believe in Christ or not… all people were given prevenient grace…
possible to believe or not, to trust in Christ or not
prevenient grace
Calvinism (TULIP - 5 Points)
Total Depravity Unconditional Election Limited Atonement Irresistible Grace Perseverance of the Saints
all people because of the sin of Adam are rendered unable to do what is pleasing to God / all people are under bondage to sin / no matter what they do they sin in the matter.. although you being evil give good gifts to your children.. good things are different than pleasing to God. every act we do before God is sinful (ex. hit an old lady vs. help an old lady.. if the motive is off.. if the motive is not for God to get all the glory then it is a sin) we are sinners by nature and cannot do anything other than that
Total Depravity
God looks at this mass of people and see them as sinner and chooses some that he will save; Eph 1:4, God elects people unconditionally
Unconditional Election
just as God elected for some to be saved Jesus paid for the elect only (5 pointers.. believe this.. if you are a 4 pointer you do not believe in limited atonement) John 10, Ephesians 5, Calvinists have differed on this.
Limited Atonement
those whom God elected, they cannot resist God’s grace
-not kicking an screaming, they can only come because they were chosen
Irresistible Grace
saving faith is a living faith - faith that continues in the life and heart of a truly saved person.. a mark of a truly saved person perseverance.. only because God’s perseveres do we
Perseverance of the Saints
Remonstrance (Arminians) 5 Points
- Total Depravity- agrees with point number 1.. a 1 point calvinist
- Conditional Election - elects those whom God knows will in the future accept him
- Unlimited Atonement- God died for the sins of the world
- Re-sistable Grace - grace in which the affects of sin are rendered nullified to the exstint that we can believe or not believe // you can choose.. rendered all able to believe in God or not … all have this grace.. still sovereign.. prevenient grace is not in scripture. Irresistible Grace is taught in scripture.. the arminian view not script
- Perseverance yes, but you can loose your salvation… possible for a person to be a true believer and yet forfeit the salvation that he or she had early, you can loose your salvation
Covenant Theology
- Covenant of Works with Adam
2. Covenant of Grace (Gen 3-Rev 22) logical, not plan a & b
Covenant Hermeneutic
same purpose of God with the same people of God - God intends to save His elect, bring in His Kingdom, exhibit his power over sin and do so on behalf of his people -spans OT & NT… continuity between the testaments.. hand and hand. same thing, same purpose.. Plan and design versions of the same thing. continuity
Israel and the Church in Covenant Theology
continuity seen - see the differences between here and dispensationalism
- one purpose. one God. one plan. one covenant of grace that brings continuity between testaments
- see Israel as the people of God.. two different names of the same thing..
- Israel = the early church, the called out people of God
- The Church = the new Israel
Dispensationalism
he revelation of God in scripture that it is being taken int progressive installments (Adam, Abraham) // we ought to see the Bible as all of the revelations God has given throughout time.. revelation comes in a progressive form that new revelation is coming and can change what has happened in past revelations // trying to understand God’s working in different period of time // God works at different ways at different times with his people because different revelations are shared at different times // bit by bit getting of information and you can get more info in the future that could change what we have now..
-continuity is a no go for dispensationalism
God works in different ways at different times because new revelation has been give
dispensationalism ex.
no more goat and bull sacrifices
reconize what time period of revelation you are in when you are reading the Bible under dispensationalism
Dispensational Hermeneutic
dispensationalism - Israel and the Church - hard difference between these two, not the same thing
-complete opposite of covenantal theology
Progressional Dispensationalism
-some level of continuity and some level of disunity both and
Differ over that future of israel .
Progressional Dispensationalism & Covenant
the enlightenment period of time was a big deal for intellectually & theologically
Liberalism here we go..
wanted to leave a legacy of certainty but what he did was leave a legacy of doubt
- we should doubt things is what people believe so this moved people to begin doubting everything
- moved from rationalism to imperialism
Renea Descartes - french philosophy/scientist 1596-1650
radical imperiliasm, only believe those things with which that we see
-causation = hit the q ball and it hits aonther ball that goes in the pocket, one might think the -Must doubt everything that is not testable
David Hume
part of what Decartes argued for is correct (reason/ function/rationalist/determine with my mind what is right) but in part Hume is right as well (since data/experience that shapes the way we think about things, causation is a category in our mind
-Imeanuel Kant 1723-1804 -
Kant’s Realms
- Noumenla Realm - the realm in the thing in its itself, that it is
- Phenomenul Realm - our experiences, intuitions of space and time are in our mind / all we can know is the phenomenal experience in what we see, we can not fully know the noumenal realm (what the thing in itself is)
- father of modern liberalism, gave rise in theology to liberalism
- studied under Kant
- adopted the noumela view with theology
- we can know that it is (there is a God… religion experience - phenomenal)
- what can we know about God objectively.. nothing he says - nominal-we can only know God as we experience Him
- this becomes our own since of what God must be
Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834)
the theological imagination constructing the concept of God
- must use our imagination to come up with God is, all we can do is work with our imagination to see how we would prefer God to be
- Shleiermacher turned theology on his head
- previously theology was about knowing God for who he is
- we know God as he is
- theology become anthropology = humans discovering making God whoever they want him to be
Gordon Kaufaam
- absolute dependence on God
- ark o typo man - shows us what man should be like
- talked of the moral things Christ taught and put away the miracles
- extending Shleiemacher’s beliefs and expanding it
- applying it to history
Albrecht Ritschl (1822-1889)
primary church historian, raised in a home of a orthodox lutheran scholar, yet influence by albret ritschl, emphasis on the moral teachings of jesus,
we have to dismiss all the parts of it are ancient ways of thinking because now we are enlightened
Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930)
genuine revival of certain key orthodoxy beliefs, return to a belief in God, to belief in Jesus - the God man, not a full return
Neo-Orthodoxy
Neo-Orthodoxy- what gave rise to this retrieving?
-to know God, inherit goodness of human beings, fundamentally good people they say we are, the inherent goodness that is ours by god (optimistic view of human nature in liberalism)
the enormousy of the talk of sin, a much clearer diagnosis of human life and experience than what is provided in liberalism
problem : did not understand the Bible to be the record of God … only saw Christ as the Word of God, preaching is the broken expression of that
Karl Barth (1886-1968)
friend of Karl Barth, colleages, divides over general revelation (creation) was a means by which God made his way known
- parted company because of this disagreement
- argued that the Bible becomes revelation when the Spirit speaks through it
- whether general revelation (creation) a means by which god made himself known - brunner yes, barth said no.. departed company over this questions
- brunner saw revelation happening as was reading the Bible
Emil Brunner (1889-1966) -
- against this.. liberalism optimism absolutely wrong, inherent goodness will be known. the core of our being , -paradoxial - sinners, saints - tension of human life -just educated people, -doctrine of sin - the core of our beings
Reinhold Niebuhr (1892-1971)
who we are, part of the southern baptist convention, baptists, we are part of the broader evangelical movement
Evangelicalism
offeneded doctrine over liberalism.. Charles Darwin came about.. gave the idea of not needing God
- fundamentalism / christians = fear that it was loosing the battle with liberalism, tended to remove from intellectual engagement, isolate its self, fortress to protect it from liberalism
- bible schools
1. did so from faith - removed themselves from engagement in intellectual culture, from social activism
- problem isn’t sin, but that we do not have enough education
- gospel of liberalism = helping people help themselves, give them resources, help them bring the good that is within them = social gospel = liberalism
- fundamentalism wanted nothing to do with liberalism -liberals were very committed to the social gospel
- we want to remove ourselves form social engagements to remove ourselves from liberalism
- fundamentalism stopped spreading… RETREAT.. maintain our own having nothing to do with the broader culture
Fackground: Fundamentalism and Rise of Evangelicalism -
represented the heart of the new evaneglicalism in north america
- classic orthodox theology, intellectual viable as possible
- conservative christians have nothing to be scared of with liberalism…
- we can show the truths of the bible
Edward John Carnell (1919-1967)
-fundamentalism had errored on both fronts by retreated intellectualy from liberalism and the broader culture life and error from not being socially engaged that had happend.. the needs of the world around them
- wanted to advance social work with the gospel
- social work goes hand and hand w the gospel
Carl F. H. Henry (1913-2004) -
chief values of the evangelical movement
-committed to the truth of the gospel and fundamentalism was, but the gospel needs to go out, we need to penetrate the culture with the gospel
Billy Graham (1918- )
Fundamentalism vs Evangelicalism
F- tend by their culture to be more separate from the world (a physical separation)
- second degree separation.. separation from liberalism and wordiness and some from christians who get to close to the world
- we need to hold what we have and ensure that it is guarded
- E- be more an aggressive implamentor into the culture
- E - hold same core doctrine of F.. inspiration of Bible, virgin Mary, trinity, resurrection, final judgement.. affirm key doctrines.. but F has other doctrines that are seen as unquestionable and of such importance
- ex. 6 day creation 24 hr day view just as important as the inspiration of the Bible or diety of Christ
- E stay focused on doctrine that matters.. on the major issues
- F focus too much on minor issues (larger necklace where you can’t take the pearl out of )
Early Church Competitors
Augustine vs. Plegeuis
Luther vs. Arasmus
Calvin vs. Arminius
Liberalism People
Descartes Hume Kant Schleiermacher Kaufaam Ritschl Harnack
Neo-Orthodoxy People
Barth
Brunner
Neibuhr
Evangelical People
Carnell
Henry
Graham
The Synod of Dort was the occasion for the followers of Arminius (the Remonstrants) to rebut the five points given by John Calvin.
False
The ‘U’ of Calvinism’s ‘TULIP’ (i.e., the so-called five points of Calvinism) refers to “unlimited atonement.”
False
According to Kant, we can only know “the thing as it appears” but not “the thing in itself.”
True
The normative and trans-cultural nature of revealed truth requires that we should never consider cultural factors in the formulation of theology within and for a particular culture.
False
“Culture Christianity” was used in class to refer to the attempt to understand and apply normative Christian truth within a given cultural setting.
False
Dispensationalism stresses discontinuity between the testaments, whereas covenant theology stresses continuity.
True
Adolf von Harnack is widely regarded as the “father of modern liberalism.”
False
Arminius argued for what has been called “prevenient grace,” that is, God’s overcoming of the effects of total depravity sufficiently so that people are able to put faith in Christ or not.
True
According to the elaboration on the definition given of Evangelical Systematic Theology, the main subject-matter for theology is “Scripture and all other relevant sources.”
False
Pelagius held that the command of God necessarily entails that we are free, such that we are able, by nature, to obey what it asks of us.
True
“Progressive revelation” is an important explanatory concept for covenant theology in particular.
False
Carl F. H. Henry criticized fundamentalism for its lack of intellectual engagement with and social involvement in the broader secular culture.
True
““Progressive dispensationalism” differs with traditional dispensationalism by understanding some legitimate continuity between Israel and the Church.
True
On the Augustinian-Pelagian debate, Calvin sided clearly with Augustine, but Luther tended toward a more Pelagian understanding.
False
Arminius and Pelagius both agreed that because God commanded people to trust him and to obey him, that it must be the case that people can by nature trust and obey God.
False
Evangelical systematic theology works from certain fundamental convictions, among which are: Choose 1.
the Bible has primacy over all other avenues into truth
Covenant theology holds:
there are two broad covenants, the covenant of works and the covenant of grace
Retroduction may rightly be understood as the
creative ordering of relevant data into a conceptual whole showing more fully what those data are and showing how they relate together
Evangelical systematic theology differs from biblical theology in this way:
Biblical theology develops individual theologies of various authors or genres, whereas systematic theology develops theology from the whole of the Bible
Arminius, and the Remonstrants after his death:
agreed with Calvinism that humans are totally depraved due to Adam’s sin
Followed the Enlightenment shift from revelation to human reason and experience
Liberalism
The Bible is a witness to God’s real revelation, but it is not infallible or inerrant:
Neo-orthodoxy
Karl Barth was the most prominent leader of
Neo-orthodoxy
Intentionally re-engaged the broader culture, both intellectually and socially while upholding orthodoxy and full biblical authority
Evangelicalism
Strong emphasis on the social gospel
Liberalism
