Latest / Reformed Thinking / What Is Theology?

Transcript

What Is Theology? · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to the Deep Dive. We take a stack of sources,
• 0:03
  articles, research notes, and plot the core insights to help
• 0:06
  you really get a handle on some fascinating subjects.
• 0:09
  Think of it as you know, your shortcut to being genuinely well
• 0:12
  informed, hopefully with some interesting facts and maybe a
• 0:15
  little bit of humor along the way.
• 0:17
  Today, we're actually diving deep into Christian theology
• 0:20
  itself. It's a word, a praise.
• 0:22
  Lots of us here. But what is it really?
• 0:25
  And maybe more importantly, why does it matter for you, for your
• 0:28
  daily life as a believer, for your whole understanding of God?
• 0:32
  We're going to unpack the different sides of this
• 0:35
  essential discipline using insights from Millard Erickson's
• 0:38
  work. Our goal today really is to sort
• 0:40
  of unravel this puzzle why theology, which can seem dense,
• 0:44
  maybe abstract, is actually incredibly practical and vital
• 0:47
  for every Christian. That's exactly right.
• 0:49
  This deep dive, we hope, will give you a clearer picture of
• 0:53
  theology, scope, It's different forms, and yeah, it's genuine
• 0:56
  relevance, especially in a world is just full of questions and
• 0:59
  competing ideas. The source material we're using
• 1:02
  gives us a really solid framework for understanding the
• 1:05
  careful study of God and, crucially, his interactions with
• 1:08
  creation. We'll see how this discipline
• 1:10
  isn't just for academics and seminaries.
• 1:12
  It's something every Christian actually engages with, whether
• 1:15
  you realize it or not. OK, so where do we start?
• 1:17
  Maybe stepping back a bit, understanding the basic idea of
• 1:20
  religion itself, our sources suggest something interesting
• 1:24
  that human beings are incurably religious.
• 1:27
  What does that actually mean and do we see common threads across
• 1:30
  different faiths that point to this?
• 1:32
  Yeah, that phrase, incurably religious, really highlight
• 1:36
  something striking. It means that wherever you find
• 1:38
  humans, you know, across all cultures throughout history,
• 1:42
  religion is there. It seems to be just an intrinsic
• 1:45
  part of being human. Now, religion itself is
• 1:48
  incredibly complex, multifaceted.
• 1:50
  It's hard to pin down with just one simple phrase, but our
• 1:54
  sources point out several common features that seem to pop up
• 1:57
  again and again when people try to describe what religion is.
• 2:01
  OK. Like what sort of features are
• 2:02
  we talking about? Well, think about it first.
• 2:04
  There's almost always a belief in something higher than us as
• 2:07
  individuals. Now, this isn't always a
• 2:09
  personal God like in Christianity.
• 2:11
  It could be supernatural beings, maybe a force in nature, a set
• 2:14
  of abstract values, or even, you know, humanity itself is the
• 2:17
  highest thing. But it's something beyond the
• 2:20
  everyday, the mundane. Something transcendent.
• 2:22
  Exactly. Second, there's usually a
• 2:25
  distinction made between what's considered sacred and what's
• 2:28
  secular or profane. This gets applied to all sorts
• 2:31
  of things, people, objects, places, specific practices.
• 2:34
  Think of a holy book, a consecrated church building, or
• 2:38
  a special day like Sunday. Or, for many Christians, these
• 2:40
  are set apart. OK.
• 2:41
  Sacred versus ordinary. Got it. 3rd, the intensity, the
• 2:45
  strength with which a religion is held.
• 2:47
  It varies a lot. Not everyone in a given faith
• 2:51
  believes or practices with the same level of commitment, and
• 2:55
  this differs across different faiths too.
• 2:56
  Right, you see that spectrum everywhere. 4th Religion
• 2:59
  typically provides a kind of world in life view.
• 3:02
  It's a perspective on reality, a way of understanding how
• 3:05
  everything fits together. It guides how individuals see
• 3:07
  themselves, the world, their place in it.
• 3:09
  It's almost like a comprehensive map for making sense of
• 3:12
  existence. So it gives meaning to things.
• 3:14
  Precisely 5th. They're usually practices
• 3:17
  involved. These might be rituals, specific
• 3:19
  prayers, ceremonies, maybe communal gatherings, or they
• 3:22
  could be ethical behaviors how you're supposed to live.
• 3:25
  Often it's a mix of both. It's about how you actually live
• 3:29
  out your beliefs. The doing part.
• 3:31
  The doing part yeah. 6th religion often involves certain
• 3:34
  attitudes or feelings. Think about awe or reverence,
• 3:38
  maybe a sense of mystery or even feelings like guilt or
• 3:41
  dependence. These deep emotional responses
• 3:44
  are pretty common across many faiths.
• 3:46
  So it engages the emotions too. Definitely 7th, there's usually
• 3:50
  some form of relationship or response to that higher object
• 3:53
  or reality. This could be prayer, worship,
• 3:56
  meditation, or just a deep sense of connection or purpose tied to
• 3:59
  that ultimate thing. Yeah.
• 4:01
  And finally, number or 8. Often, though not always, there
• 4:05
  are social dimensions. Groups frequently form around
• 4:08
  shared religious beliefs and practices.
• 4:10
  This creates communities, traditions, collective
• 4:12
  identities. Think of the local church, for
• 4:14
  example. That's fascinating, how those
• 4:16
  elements seem to pop up everywhere.
• 4:17
  It makes you wonder, you know, even in our pretty secular world
• 4:21
  today, maybe people are still fulfilling some of those innate
• 4:24
  needs, just in different ways, like finding sacred spaces in
• 4:27
  nature or adopting a big world in life view through, say, a
• 4:30
  political ideology, or finding ritual and daily habits.
• 4:35
  Does that sort of fit with what the sources suggest, that these
• 4:38
  drives are just part of us? Absolutely.
• 4:40
  The sources definitely hint at that.
• 4:42
  Even when people say they have no religion, these fundamental
• 4:45
  human drives for meaning, for connection to something bigger,
• 4:49
  for a way to understand the world, they often find
• 4:51
  expression in other forms, that deep human desire for answers to
• 4:55
  the big questions. It doesn't just vanish because
• 4:58
  traditional religion fades for some people.
• 5:00
  OK. So we've talked about what
• 5:02
  religion generally is in these common elements.
• 5:05
  But how has the understanding of religion itself changed over
• 5:08
  time? Our sources mentioned some
• 5:10
  really big shifts in history that reshaped how people thought
• 5:13
  about faith. Oh, yeah, Historically, the
• 5:15
  perception of what's at the core of religion, its essence, it has
• 5:19
  evolved quite a bit. If you look back, say, to the
• 5:22
  Middle Ages, especially in the West, religion was largely
• 5:25
  understood as belief or dogma. What you believed the specific
• 5:30
  doctrines that teachings to May, those were seen as the main way
• 5:34
  to distinguish different faiths and even different types of
• 5:37
  Christianity. So the ideas were.
• 5:38
  Key The ideas were absolutely central, this focus on worldview
• 5:41
  and doctrine. It made a lot of sense back
• 5:43
  then, given that philosophy was a really well established
• 5:45
  discipline. It shaped how people approached
• 5:48
  understanding anything, including faith.
• 5:50
  Less attention was paid then to religion as, say, a social
• 5:54
  institution, or to its psychological effects, partly
• 5:57
  because, well, the behavioral sciences just hadn't developed
• 5:59
  yet. You see someone like Agusin, for
• 6:01
  example, talking about, say, PNC wisdom for eternal things like
• 6:04
  God as being different from and superior to sciency and
• 6:08
  knowledge for temporal earthly things.
• 6:10
  He saw theology as this higher understanding that helped
• 6:13
  organize everything else. So for a long, long time, the
• 6:16
  intellectual framework, the actual ideas you held about God,
• 6:20
  they weren't just a side thing, were they?
• 6:22
  They were seen as absolutely core.
• 6:25
  That's exactly right. The intellectual side, the
• 6:27
  rigor, was considered central to really grasping faith.
• 6:31
  But then you Fast forward to the beginning of the 19th century
• 6:34
  and things start to shift pretty dramatically.
• 6:37
  Immanuel Kant, a hugely influential philosopher, really
• 6:40
  changed the terms of the discussion about religion in his
• 6:43
  major work, The Critique of Pure Reason.
• 6:45
  He argued that we can't actually gain theoretical knowledge of
• 6:48
  transcendent things like God just through our reason alone.
• 6:51
  OK, so reason has limits. Big limits for Kant when it
• 6:55
  comes to God. So for him, religion became more
• 6:58
  a matter of practical reason, Concepts like God, moral rules,
• 7:02
  immortal life. They weren't things we could
• 7:04
  prove scientifically, but they were necessary assumptions,
• 7:07
  things we had to postulate for morality to even work properly.
• 7:10
  So this effectively position religion is being primarily
• 7:12
  about ethics, how we act, the moral judgments we make.
• 7:15
  And then a theologian named Albrecht Ritual took Khan's
• 7:18
  ideas and applied them directly to Christian theology, really
• 7:21
  cementing this view of religion as fundamentally about moral
• 7:25
  judgments. So it shifted from belief to
• 7:27
  behavior in a way. In a significant way, yes.
• 7:30
  But then came Friedrich Schleiermacher, who reacted
• 7:32
  strongly against both Kant's focus on ethics and the earlier
• 7:35
  emphasis on pure dogma or belief.
• 7:38
  In his very influential book on religion, Speeches to Its
• 7:41
  Culture Despisers, he argued the religion wasn't really about
• 7:44
  belief or ethics at its core. For him, it was rimarily about
• 7:47
  feeling. Yes, secifically what he called
• 7:49
  the feeling of absolute dependence.
• 7:51
  A deep, intuitive awareness of our reliance on something
• 7:54
  ultimate, something beyond ourselves.
• 7:57
  This focus on feeling, on religious experience, became
• 8:00
  really prominent in 20th century religious thought.
• 8:02
  It was partly a reaction against dry rationalism, you know, And
• 8:06
  you can even see echoes of this emphasis on emotion in some
• 8:09
  contemporary Christian worship styles today.
• 8:11
  Later, Rudolf Otto built on Schleiermacher's ideas with his
• 8:14
  concept of the numinous, that unique, overwhelming awareness
• 8:18
  of the holy, something that evokes feelings of awe, mystery,
• 8:21
  even fascination and dread. Wow.
• 8:24
  So history gives us this kind of tension, doesn't it?
• 8:27
  Is religion fundamentally about what we believe?
• 8:29
  Dogma or what we feel, experience or how we act?
• 8:32
  Ethics. How does our source material try
• 8:34
  to bring these different threads together?
• 8:36
  Well, the sources we're looking at argue pretty strongly that
• 8:39
  religion, especially Christianity, is actually all
• 8:42
  three. It involves belief or doctrine,
• 8:45
  yes. It involves feeling or
• 8:47
  attitudes, absolutely. And it involves a way of life, a
• 8:50
  manner of behaving. Christianity fits all these
• 8:53
  descriptions perfectly. Think about it.
• 8:55
  It's definitely a way of life, a distinctive style of living.
• 8:58
  It fosters social groups, communities.
• 9:00
  It's not just an abstract idea. It shapes how you live in the
• 9:03
  world. Right, the community aspect is
• 9:05
  huge. Huge.
• 9:06
  And it clearly involves specific feelings, dependence on God,
• 9:10
  love for him and others, a sense of purpose, fulfilment, maybe
• 9:13
  even conviction or repentance. And, crucially, it includes A
• 9:16
  robust, detailed set of teachings.
• 9:19
  This doctrinal framework provides a comprehensive
• 9:22
  worldview. It offers meaning for all of
• 9:24
  life's experiences, good and bad.
• 9:27
  To truly follow Christ means adhering to his teachings, his
• 9:30
  commands. As the theologian James Orr
• 9:32
  pointed out, this is a key insight.
• 9:34
  If you believe Jesus is the Son of God, that single belief
• 9:37
  commits you to a whole distinct view of God, of human nature, of
• 9:41
  sin, of redemption, of God's purpose in history, and of human
• 9:44
  destiny. You can't really separate the
• 9:46
  belief from the rest. So they're all interconnected.
• 9:49
  Deeply interconnected. Now the careful study, the
• 9:52
  organization, the explanation of these beliefs, that's the
• 9:55
  specific focus of Christian theology.
• 9:57
  And it's important to grasp this relationship, living out your
• 10:00
  faith, holding those beliefs, feeling those emotions.
• 10:02
  That happens on the level of what our source calls primary
• 10:05
  experience. It's the living reality.
• 10:08
  Theology, however, functions as a second level activity.
• 10:10
  It's where we step back, we reflect on, we describe, we
• 10:14
  analyze, we critique, and we organize these doctrines
• 10:16
  systematically. So it's like studying the
• 10:18
  experience itself. Exactly.
• 10:20
  Think of it like a psychologist studying human emotions or an
• 10:23
  art critic analyzing a painting. They aren't necessarily having
• 10:27
  the primary emotional or aesthetic experience at that
• 10:30
  moment, but they are carefully studying it, making sense of it,
• 10:33
  articulating it. Theology does that for the
• 10:36
  doctrines and experiences of the Christian faith.
• 10:38
  OK. That distinction between primary
• 10:40
  experience and second level reflection is helpful.
• 10:44
  Now our sources also mentions some other contemporary ways
• 10:48
  people understand theology today.
• 10:50
  How do these modern approaches differ, and what perspective
• 10:53
  does our source offer as a kind of counterpoint?
• 10:56
  That's a great point because, yeah, there are definitely
• 10:58
  different lenses people use to view theology today.
• 11:00
  For instance, you got liberation theology.
• 11:03
  This is often associated with figures like Gustavo Gutierrez.
• 11:06
  This view sees religion as highly practical, almost
• 11:09
  pragmatic, aimed specifically at addressing social injustice and
• 11:13
  oppression. For liberation theologians,
• 11:15
  theology becomes primarily critical reflection on praxis.
• 11:19
  Praxis meaning action. Action informed by theory, Yeah.
• 11:23
  So you act for justice, and then you reflect theologically on
• 11:27
  that action to guide future action.
• 11:30
  The role of doctrine in this perspective is mainly to speak
• 11:33
  to and motivate the fight against societal inequalities.
• 11:36
  OK, so focused on social change. Very much so.
• 11:40
  Then there's what you could call the subjective view, exemplified
• 11:43
  by someone like John Hick. He argues that the core of all
• 11:46
  religion is basically a universal, generic experience of
• 11:49
  a single ultimate reality, which he calls the eternal one.
• 11:54
  For Hick, all the different doctrines we find in
• 11:55
  Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etcetera are just culturally
• 11:59
  conditioned interpretations or symbols that different groups
• 12:02
  use to talk about this one underlying universal experience.
• 12:06
  This puts him clearly in that Schleiermacher tradition where
• 12:09
  inner feeling, your experience is primary.
• 12:11
  So all religions are kind of pointing to the same thing, just
• 12:13
  using different words. That's the basic idea, yeah.
• 12:16
  A third perspective is the cultural linguistic view
• 12:19
  associated with thinkers like George Lindbeck.
• 12:22
  This view actually rejects both the idea of doctrine as
• 12:25
  objective truth statements, propositional dogma, and the
• 12:29
  idea that subjective emotional experience is primary.
• 12:33
  Instead, religion in this view is seen more like a cultural
• 12:36
  system, almost like a language or a complex story.
• 12:39
  It provides a set of categories, symbols, and narratives that a
• 12:43
  community uses to interpret life and shape behavior.
• 12:46
  Doctrine, then, doesn't give you facts about God's actual being.
• 12:50
  It serves A regulative function. Regulative like rules.
• 12:53
  Kind of like grammar rules for language.
• 12:55
  Yeah, it sets the rules for how you talk about faith within that
• 12:58
  specific religious community or culture, but it doesn't claim to
• 13:01
  provide objective knowledge about ultimate reality itself.
• 13:04
  Interesting. So how does our source
• 13:05
  Ericsson's perspective respond to these?
• 13:07
  What's the alternative view presented?
• 13:09
  Well, the position our source takes is different.
• 13:12
  It maintains that Christian doctrines do consist of genuine
• 13:15
  knowledge about God and reality. It affirms that religion
• 13:18
  involves the whole person, our intellect, what we think and
• 13:22
  believe, our emotions, what we feel and our will, the choices
• 13:26
  we make, how we act. This perspective, it argues, has
• 13:29
  a couple of key advantages. First, it seems to account
• 13:32
  better for the richness and diversity we actually see in
• 13:34
  human religions, and it aligns well with how the early Church
• 13:37
  of the biblical authors themselves seem to understand
• 13:40
  faith as involving real truths about God.
• 13:44
  Second, and this might be more relevant for you listening, it
• 13:47
  fits how most average Christians typically understand and
• 13:49
  practice their faith today. For most believers, living
• 13:52
  ethically and worshipping God aren't seen as alternatives to
• 13:55
  understanding doctrine, They're seen as flowing from it.
• 13:58
  They're complementary aspects that work together.
• 14:00
  If a Christian community today accepts the Bible as its primary
• 14:03
  authority, then this view that faith engages the mind, heart,
• 14:06
  and will, It just fits the lived experience of Christianity quite
• 14:09
  naturally. It makes sense of the whole
• 14:11
  picture. So it's not picking one aspect,
• 14:13
  belief, feeling, or action, but seeing them as integrated.
• 14:17
  OK, with that broad understanding of religion mapped
• 14:20
  out, let's really zoom in now. What does theology mean
• 14:23
  specifically in a Christian context?
• 14:25
  What's its basic definition and what are the essential parts of
• 14:27
  it? Right.
• 14:28
  So at its simplest, a starting definition of theology is just
• 14:33
  the study or science of God. The word itself comes from Greek
• 14:36
  theos, God and Logos word study, reason.
• 14:41
  But because the God of Christianity isn't some abstract
• 14:44
  principle, but an active personal being who interacts
• 14:46
  with his creation, this definition quickly expands.
• 14:49
  It has to include his works, his relationship with the world,
• 14:52
  particularly with human beings, our nature, our condition, our
• 14:54
  needs, and His redemptive work for humankind.
• 14:57
  It's not just about God in isolation, it's about God in
• 14:59
  relation to us and the world. So it's broader than just
• 15:02
  studying God. Much broader, our sources offer
• 15:05
  a more comprehensive definition that really highlights 5 key
• 15:09
  aspects of what theology aims to do.
• 15:11
  The definition goes something like this.
• 15:14
  Theology is a discipline that strives to give a coherent
• 15:17
  statement of the doctrines of the Christian faith-based
• 15:20
  primarily on the Scriptures, placed in the context of culture
• 15:22
  in general, worded in a contemporary idiom, and related
• 15:26
  to issues of life. OK, that's quite packed.
• 15:29
  A coherent statement based on scripture, context of culture,
• 15:33
  contemporary language related to life.
• 15:35
  Can you break each of those five parts down for us?
• 15:38
  What does each one really mean in practice?
• 15:40
  Absolutely. Let's take them one by one.
• 15:41
  First, theology is biblical. This is foundational.
• 15:45
  It means theology takes the canonical Scriptures, the Old
• 15:48
  and New Testaments, as its primary source.
• 15:50
  It's raw data for understanding Christian doctrine.
• 15:53
  The main source material. Exactly.
• 15:56
  This isn't about just proof texting or grabbing verses out
• 15:58
  of context. It involves careful biblical
• 16:01
  study, using tools like understanding the original
• 16:04
  languages, the historical background, the literary genres
• 16:07
  to really grasp what the texts are conveying.
• 16:10
  It also means drawing insights from God's general revelation,
• 16:13
  what we can learn from nature, history, human experience.
• 16:17
  But the Bible remains the ultimate standard, the primary
• 16:20
  wellspring for Christian understanding.
• 16:22
  This emphasis on Scripture is central, particularly in a
• 16:25
  Reformed understanding of theology.
• 16:27
  OK, biblical first. What's next?
• 16:29
  2nd theology is systematic. This means it tries to draw on
• 16:33
  the entire Bible, not just focusing on isolated parts or
• 16:36
  favorite themes. Its goal is to relate the
• 16:38
  various teachings found across Scripture to one another.
• 16:41
  It aims to take diverse doctrines and teachings and show
• 16:44
  how they fit together into a harmonious, coherent whole.
• 16:47
  Think of it like putting together a complex jigsaw
• 16:49
  puzzle. You don't just stare at one
• 16:51
  piece, you try to see how all the pieces connect to form the
• 16:54
  complete picture. Seeing the big picture, the
• 16:56
  connections. Precisely this brings a sense of
• 16:59
  unity to God's revelation. It helps us avoid contradictions
• 17:03
  and build a comprehensive, interconnected understanding of
• 17:06
  our faith. Rather than just having a
• 17:08
  fragmented collection of beliefs, it helps us see the
• 17:11
  overarching story of God's plan and character.
• 17:14
  Makes sense. What's a third aspect?
• 17:16
  3rd Theology relates to culture. This means theology isn't done
• 17:20
  in a vacuum. It actively seeks to connect its
• 17:23
  understanding of Christian doctrines to the issues,
• 17:26
  questions, and insights found in the broader culture and in other
• 17:29
  fields of learning. For instance, how does a
• 17:32
  Christian view of creation relate to modern cosmology?
• 17:35
  How does the biblical understanding of human nature
• 17:37
  interact with psychology or sociology?
• 17:39
  How does the doctrine of God's Providence connect with
• 17:41
  philosophy of history? So it engages with the world
• 17:44
  around us. It has to.
• 17:45
  This makes theology relevant beyond just church discussions.
• 17:49
  It shows how Christian truth claims speak to the biggest
• 17:52
  questions people are asking in every area of life.
• 17:54
  Science, art, politics, ethics. It's not a closed off system.
• 17:57
  It's meant to interact with and speak into the world.
• 17:59
  OK. #4. 4th Theology must be contemporary.
• 18:04
  While it deals with kindness, truth, eternal realities, it has
• 18:07
  to communicate these truths using language, concepts and
• 18:10
  ways of thinking that are understandable today.
• 18:13
  It needs to address the actual questions and challenges people
• 18:16
  are facing right now. Speak the current language.
• 18:19
  Right. But there's a caution here.
• 18:22
  Our sources warned about what they called the peril of
• 18:24
  modernizing Jesus. This means we shouldn't distort
• 18:27
  the biblical message by trying too hard to make it fit neatly
• 18:30
  into current trends or contemporary ways of thinking.
• 18:33
  That can easily lead to losing the original meaning.
• 18:36
  Don't bend the truth to fit the times.
• 18:38
  Exactly. But on the other flip side,
• 18:39
  there's also the peril of arcalizing ourselves, getting
• 18:43
  stuck focusing only on outdated problems, or using language that
• 18:46
  no one understands anymore. That makes theology irrelevant
• 18:49
  pretty quickly. So it's a delicate balance,
• 18:52
  presenting timeless truth faithfully but in a fresh,
• 18:55
  accessible way. And sometimes it even means
• 18:57
  challenging the validity of some modern questions if they
• 19:00
  conflict with God's revealed truth.
• 19:02
  A balancing act and the last one number 5.
• 19:05
  And 5th, Finally, theology is practical.
• 19:08
  This is crucial. It means theology ultimately
• 19:11
  relates to living, not just a holding abstract beliefs.
• 19:14
  It should provide guidance for Christian life, for ministry,
• 19:18
  for making decisions. Now, this isn't quite the same
• 19:20
  as practical theology in the technical seminary sense, like
• 19:24
  courses on preaching techniques or counseling methods.
• 19:26
  But systematic theology absolutely helps with practical
• 19:29
  concerns. It recognizes that how we apply
• 19:32
  a doctrine in real life should flow naturally from
• 19:35
  understanding its truth. The application is a consequence
• 19:38
  of the truth, not the other way around.
• 19:40
  So doctrine should lead to action.
• 19:42
  It should shape our actions, our perspective, our hope.
• 19:45
  For instance, think about the apostle Paul talking about the
• 19:47
  second coming of Christ in First Thessalonians 4.
• 19:49
  He wasn't just giving them theological data points, He
• 19:52
  concluded by saying. Therefore, encourage one another
• 19:54
  with these words. The doctrine had a direct
• 19:56
  practical purpose, Comfort and encouragement for living.
• 20:00
  Theological truth has real life implications.
• 20:02
  That definition really lays out a comprehensive vision for
• 20:05
  theology. It's biblical, systematic,
• 20:08
  cultural, contemporary, and practical.
• 20:10
  Now, how does systematic theology specific, which seems
• 20:14
  to be our main focus, fit within the broader map of all
• 20:17
  theological studies you mentioned?
• 20:18
  There are other kinds. That's a good question.
• 20:20
  For clarity, the term theology gets used broadly and narrowly.
• 20:25
  In its broadest sense, yeah, I can cover almost everything
• 20:28
  taught in a theological school, Old Testament, New Testament,
• 20:30
  church history, pastoral care, missions, a whole lot.
• 20:34
  But in a narrower, more specific sense, theology refers to those
• 20:38
  disciplines that deal directly with the distinct doctrinal
• 20:41
  content of the Christian faith. And within that narrower feel,
• 20:44
  we usually distinguish between a few key areas.
• 20:46
  There's biblical theology, historical theology, systematic
• 20:49
  theology, our focus, and sometimes philosophical theology
• 20:52
  or apologetics. Systematic theology is the one
• 20:55
  that aims to organize and present a coherent,
• 20:58
  comprehensive statement of Christian doctrines for today.
• 21:00
  It doesn't work in oscillation, though.
• 21:02
  It relies heavily on the findings of these other related
• 21:04
  fields. OK.
• 21:05
  So systematic theology builds on the others.
• 21:08
  Let's look at those connections. How does it relate to biblical
• 21:11
  theology? You mentioned that earlier,
• 21:12
  right? Systematic theology is deeply
• 21:15
  dependent on the careful work of biblical theologians.
• 21:18
  Now the term biblical theology itself can be a bit slippery.
• 21:22
  It can mean a few different things.
• 21:23
  Sometimes it refers to a specific historical movement,
• 21:26
  mainly in the mid 20th century, that had ties to what's called
• 21:30
  Neo Orthodox theology. That movement actually faced
• 21:34
  some criticism later for, ironically, not always being as
• 21:38
  strictly biblical as its name implied.
• 21:40
  OK, so a specific movement. What else?
• 21:43
  More commonly, though, biblical theology refers to studying the
• 21:46
  actual theological content within the Bible itself.
• 21:49
  This might mean tracing a theme like Kingdom of God through the
• 21:52
  whole Bible, or summarizing the specific theology of a single
• 21:55
  author like Paul or John, or even a single book.
• 21:58
  This could be purely descriptive, just laying out
• 22:00
  what Paul taught about justification, for example.
• 22:03
  Or it can be normative, trying to identify the core, unchanging
• 22:07
  teachings within Paul's writings that are meant to be valid for
• 22:10
  all Christians in all times. So, understanding the Bible's
• 22:13
  own theology. Exactly.
• 22:14
  No. Neither of those is quite
• 22:15
  systematic theology yet, because their primary goal isn't usually
• 22:19
  to take those biblical teachings and translate them or organize
• 22:23
  them comprehensively. For today's context, that's the
• 22:25
  unique task of systematic theology.
• 22:28
  But there's a third way to use the phrase biblical theology,
• 22:30
  simply meaning theology, that is, biblical theology that is
• 22:33
  faithful to Scripture. And in that sense, a good
• 22:37
  systematic theology should be biblical theology.
• 22:41
  The goal really is to achieve a systematic biblical theology,
• 22:45
  one that takes the pure teachings discovered through
• 22:47
  biblical theology and then organizes, synthesizes, and
• 22:51
  explains them in a coherent way that makes sense and applies to
• 22:54
  our contemporary world. So you can think of biblical
• 22:56
  theology as providing the essential raw materials, the
• 22:59
  foundational building blocks. That systematic theology then
• 23:02
  carefully arranges, connects, and builds into a coherent
• 23:05
  structure. It's the indispensable first
• 23:07
  step. That makes the relationship
• 23:09
  really clear. Systematic theology needs that
• 23:12
  deep dive into the text first. OK, what about historical
• 23:17
  theology? How does studying theology from
• 23:20
  the past help the systematic task today?
• 23:23
  That connection is also vital. Historical theology is basically
• 23:26
  the study of how Christian doctrines have been understood,
• 23:29
  debated, and formulated by theologians throughout the
• 23:32
  history of the church. You can approach this in a
• 23:34
  couple of main ways. There's the synchronic approach.
• 23:37
  You study the overall theology of a specific time period, like
• 23:40
  the Reformation, or a particular major theologian like Augustine
• 23:44
  or Calvin, across several different doctrines, seeing how
• 23:47
  their whole system fit together in their context.
• 23:49
  Then there's the diachronic approach, which is often called
• 23:51
  the history of doctrines. Here you trace the development
• 23:54
  of a single specific doctrine, say the doctrine of the Trinity
• 23:57
  or the atonement, or the nature of the Church, through different
• 24:00
  periods of church history, seeing how understanding evolved
• 24:03
  or shifted over centuries. So looking at a snapshot in time
• 24:07
  or tracing a theme through time. Exactly, and the value of doing
• 24:11
  this for systematic theologians today is huge and really
• 24:14
  practical in several ways. First, it fosters self-awareness
• 24:19
  and encourages self criticism when we see how past theologians
• 24:23
  were sometimes unconsciously influenced by the philosophies
• 24:26
  or cultural assumptions of their own day, like how Greek
• 24:29
  metaphysical ideas shaped some early debates about Christ
• 24:32
  nature, it makes us more aware of our own cultural blind spots
• 24:36
  and biases. It helps us guard against
• 24:38
  unintentionally distorting the biblical message with our modern
• 24:41
  presuppositions. Makes you check your own
• 24:43
  context. It really does.
• 24:45
  Second, historical theology gives us valuable models for how
• 24:48
  to actually do theology. When we study the greats like
• 24:51
  Thomas Aquinas grappling with Aristotelian thought, or John
• 24:55
  Calvin constructing his Institute, or Carl Barth
• 24:57
  responding to liberalism, or Augustine shaping Western
• 25:00
  theology, we see examples of brilliant minds wrestling with
• 25:04
  how to articulate Christian faith faithfully within their
• 25:07
  contemporary frameworks. We don't just copy them, of
• 25:09
  course, but we learn from their methods, their insights, their
• 25:12
  struggles, their successes and even their mistakes.
• 25:15
  Learning from masters of the craft.
• 25:17
  Precisely 3rd, and this is really key, historical theology
• 25:21
  provides a way to evaluate contemporary ideas.
• 25:24
  History often serves as theologies.
• 25:26
  Laboratory ideas that seem brand new and exciting today often
• 25:30
  have precedents or parallels in earlier church history.
• 25:33
  By examining where similar concepts LED in the past, for
• 25:36
  example understanding the implications of Arianism in the
• 25:39
  4th century, which denied Christ's full divinity and why
• 25:42
  the Church rejected it, we can better assess the potential
• 25:45
  consequences and soundness of similar sounding ideas being
• 25:48
  proposed today. History repeats itself, or at
• 25:51
  least rhymes. It often does in theology.
• 25:53
  It's like that famous saying often attributed to Santiana.
• 25:56
  Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
• 25:59
  If we look carefully, many supposedly new theological
• 26:02
  formulations turned out to be variations on older themes, some
• 26:06
  of which were found wanting centuries ago.
• 26:08
  As Ecclesiastes says, there is nothing new under the sun.
• 26:11
  Historical awareness helps us discern truth from recycled
• 26:13
  error. That's a really compelling case
• 26:16
  for the value of church history. OK, one more connection.
• 26:20
  How does systematic theology interact with philosophical
• 26:23
  theology? What role does philosophy play?
• 26:25
  Philosophical theology interacts with systematic theology in a
• 26:28
  few key ways. It can potentially supply some
• 26:31
  content. It can help defend theology or
• 26:33
  argue for its truth claims. Apologetics often overlaps here.
• 26:37
  And maybe most importantly, it can help scrutinize theology's
• 26:40
  concepts and arguments for clarity and coherence.
• 26:44
  Now, some theologians, most notably Karl Barth, reacted very
• 26:48
  strongly against philosophy supplying content for theology.
• 26:51
  He feared it would inevitably lead to natural theology trying
• 26:54
  to build knowledge of God based on human reason alone, apart
• 26:58
  from God's special revelation in Christ and Scripture.
• 27:00
  Bart saw that as a dangerous path.
• 27:02
  So a suspicion of philosophy's role there.
• 27:04
  A deep suspicion for Barth. But even if you share that
• 27:08
  concern, philosophy's primary value for systematic theology
• 27:12
  arguably lies in scrutinizing theological language, making
• 27:16
  sure terms are clearly defined, analyzing the logical structure
• 27:19
  of arguments, identifying hidden assumptions, sharpening the
• 27:23
  message for precision. Philosophy is very good at that
• 27:26
  kind of conceptual analysis. Helping theology be clear and
• 27:30
  logical. Exactly.
• 27:32
  It can also play a role, perhaps a more limited one, in helping
• 27:35
  to justify theology's truth claims, contributing to the
• 27:38
  broader case for why the Christian faith is reasonable
• 27:40
  and true. And while philosophy, along with
• 27:43
  other fields, might offer some insights derived from general
• 27:46
  revelation, what God reveals through creation and conscience,
• 27:50
  these insights generally serve to illuminate or supplement
• 27:52
  special revelation in the Bible. Rather than forming the
• 27:55
  foundation itself, they're seen as secondary clues, with
• 27:59
  Scripture remaining the primary map.
• 28:01
  OK, so philosophy is more of a tool for clarity and defense
• 28:04
  rather than a primary source of content itself from this
• 28:06
  perspective. That's generally how our source
• 28:08
  material frames its most helpful role, yes.
• 28:11
  All of this paints a picture of theology as this really rigorous
• 28:14
  interconnected field. But I can still hear a listener
• 28:17
  asking maybe someone new to this, OK, but do I really need
• 28:21
  theology? Doesn't it sometimes just make
• 28:24
  faith more complicated? Doesn't it cause arguments and
• 28:27
  divisions? It's a fairpoint, isn't it?
• 28:29
  It is absolutely a fairpoint, and those concerns are real.
• 28:32
  Theology can seem complex, and sadly, theological disagreements
• 28:35
  have been factors in church divisions throughout history.
• 28:38
  That's undeniable. However, when we look closely,
• 28:41
  several key considerations really highlight why theology is
• 28:44
  fundamentally necessary and valuable for every Christian,
• 28:47
  not just academics or pastors. It's not an optional extra if we
• 28:51
  want a grounded faith. OK, so why is it necessary?
• 28:53
  Well, first, and this is perhaps the most critical point, correct
• 28:57
  doctrinal beliefs are essential for a genuine relationship with
• 29:00
  God. Think about that.
• 29:02
  To truly approach God in a way that pleases Him, you have to
• 29:05
  believe certain things about Him.
• 29:07
  The book of Hebrews has it very directly in Chapter 11, verse 6.
• 29:11
  And without faith it is impossible to please God because
• 29:14
  anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that
• 29:17
  he rewards those who earnestly seek Him.
• 29:19
  Notice the belief components. He exists and He has a certain
• 29:23
  character. He reward seekers.
• 29:25
  It's not just vague positive feelings, it involves content.
• 29:29
  Believing that he is and what he is like.
• 29:31
  Precisely. And this extends to very
• 29:33
  specific beliefs about Jesus Christ.
• 29:36
  Believing in his deity, his full divinity, and his genuine
• 29:38
  humanity is presented as crucial in the New Testament.
• 29:42
  Remember Teeter's confession in Matthew 16?
• 29:45
  You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
• 29:47
  Jesus didn't say. Well, that's a nice opinion,
• 29:49
  Peter. He affirmed it strongly.
• 29:51
  Showing the correct belief about his identity matters immensely.
• 29:54
  Similarly, the apostle John in his first letter makes
• 29:57
  acknowledging that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh a key test
• 30:00
  for discerning the Spirit of God versus deceptive spirits.
• 30:03
  This combated early heresies. Denying Jesus is true humanity.
• 30:06
  So specific beliefs are tied to spiritual reality.
• 30:10
  Directly and think about salvation itself.
• 30:12
  Romans 10 verses 9 and 10 explicitly links salvation to
• 30:16
  belief. If you confess with your mouth
• 30:19
  Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him
• 30:22
  from the dead, you will be saved.
• 30:24
  Again, specific doctrinal content.
• 30:27
  Jesus's Lordship, His resurrection, is tied to the
• 30:29
  experience of salvation. Theology is the discipline that
• 30:33
  helps us define, understand and establish these correct beliefs
• 30:36
  based on God's revelation. So it's crucial element for
• 30:39
  building genuine faith and a right relationship with God.
• 30:42
  It helps you know who it is you're trusting and worshipping.
• 30:45
  So it's not just intellectual head knowledge, it's
• 30:47
  foundational to the relationship itself.
• 30:49
  That really changes the perspective.
• 30:51
  It really should think about any human relationship.
• 30:54
  If your beliefs about a close friend are fundamentally wrong,
• 30:57
  how genuine or deep can that relationship truly be?
• 31:00
  It's similar with God. If our understanding of him is
• 31:03
  significantly flawed, our relationship will be built on
• 31:06
  shaky ground. Second point, truth and
• 31:10
  experience are deeply related. Sometimes people try to separate
• 31:14
  them. You know it doesn't matter what
• 31:15
  you believe as long as you have the experience.
• 31:17
  But our sources strongly argue that especially in the long run,
• 31:20
  truth inevitably shapes our experience.
• 31:23
  Think about a dramatic, maybe morbid example.
• 31:25
  Our source uses someone falling from a tall building.
• 31:28
  They might shout, doing fine so far as they pass each floor, and
• 31:31
  maybe even sincerely feel OK for a moment, but eventually the
• 31:34
  objective truth of gravity and impact will drastically alter
• 31:38
  their experience. Reality catches up.
• 31:40
  Reality always catches up. Or think about learning of a
• 31:43
  loved one's passing. You might live happily for
• 31:45
  hours, completely unaware, but the truth, when it arrives,
• 31:50
  brings a devastating impact on your emotional experience.
• 31:53
  In the same way, the truths of the Christian faith, about God,
• 31:56
  about ourselves, about salvation, about eternity, these
• 31:59
  truths will ultimately have bearing on our eternal
• 32:01
  experience. Therefore, grasping these truths
• 32:04
  accurately now is vital. What you believe shapes how you
• 32:07
  Live Today and your hope for the future.
• 32:09
  So truth informs experience eventually.
• 32:12
  Inescapably third reason theology is needed, and this is
• 32:15
  perhaps acutely relevant today. It's necessary because of the
• 32:19
  sheer number of alternatives and challenges confronting
• 32:21
  Christians. We are constantly bombarded by
• 32:24
  different world views. You have secular alternatives
• 32:27
  like humanism, which basically makes humanity the ultimate
• 32:30
  measure of all things, or a kind of scientism which claims the
• 32:33
  scientific method is the only path to real truth, often
• 32:36
  dismissing divine revelation from the start.
• 32:39
  Then you have other major world religions, Islam, various
• 32:42
  Eastern religions which are increasingly present and
• 32:44
  influential even in traditionally Western societies.
• 32:48
  They offer very different answers to life's big questions.
• 32:50
  Lots of competing voices. Whole chorus of them.
• 32:53
  And beyond that you have countless quasi religions,
• 32:57
  popular self help systems that function like religions for
• 33:00
  some, and various cults, some well known like Jehovah's
• 33:03
  Witnesses or Mormonism. Others may be less visible but
• 33:06
  still actively recruiting people seeking spiritual answers
• 33:09
  outside of mainstream Christianity.
• 33:11
  And let's be honest, even within the broader Christian sphere,
• 33:14
  there's a bewildering variety of teachings, many of which flatly
• 33:17
  contradict each other on important points.
• 33:19
  This can be incredibly confusing for anyone trying to figure out
• 33:22
  what authentic Christianity actually teaches.
• 33:24
  It can feel overwhelming trying to sort it all out.
• 33:27
  Exactly. And the solution to this
• 33:29
  confusion isn't just running around trying to refute every
• 33:31
  single false idea you encounter. That's exhausting and often
• 33:34
  ineffective. The real solution, our source
• 33:37
  argues, lies in getting a firm grasp on authentic Christian
• 33:40
  doctrine. First, it uses the analogy of
• 33:43
  bank tellers learning to spot counterfeit money.
• 33:46
  How do they do it? Not primarily by studying every
• 33:49
  known type of counterfeit bill. They do it by studying genuine
• 33:52
  currency so thoroughly. It's look, it's feel, it's
• 33:55
  features that when a counterfeit comes along, it just immediately
• 33:58
  looks or feels wrong. Know the real thing deeply.
• 34:01
  Know the real thing deeply. Theology equips you to
• 34:03
  understand authentic Christian truth grounded in Scripture.
• 34:06
  Once you have that solid foundation, discerning
• 34:08
  deviations, errors, or counterfeits becomes much, much
• 34:11
  easier. So theology is vital for
• 34:14
  discernment, for protecting ourselves from error in this
• 34:16
  confusing landscape. OK, that makes a strong case for
• 34:19
  why we need it. But how do you actually start
• 34:22
  building a systematic theology? Where's the starting point?
• 34:26
  Do you begin with God himself proving he exists first?
• 34:30
  Or do you start with the Bible as God's revelation?
• 34:33
  Feels a bit like a chicken and egg problem, doesn't it?
• 34:35
  Which comes first? It absolutely does feel like
• 34:38
  that, and it's a classic dilemma for systematic theologians.
• 34:41
  It actually mirrors a long running debate in philosophy.
• 34:44
  Does metaphysics, the study of reality, come before
• 34:47
  epistemology, the study of knowledge, or the other way
• 34:50
  around? You can't really investigate an
• 34:52
  object without first deciding on a method for knowing it, right?
• 34:56
  But often the method you choose depends heavily on what you
• 34:59
  think the nature of that object is.
• 35:01
  It's tricky. OK, So what are the challenges
• 35:02
  if you try to start with God first before getting to the
• 35:04
  Bible? Well, some traditional
• 35:06
  theological systems did try to start there.
• 35:09
  They might begin by assuming God's existence as a kind of
• 35:11
  self-evident first truth, something known through rational
• 35:15
  intuition like Augustus Hopkins Strong did.
• 35:18
  Or more famously, they might try to prove God's existence using
• 35:22
  arguments from reason and observation alone, independent
• 35:25
  of the Bible. This is called natural theology.
• 35:29
  Thomas Aquinas is famous. Five ways or five proofs for
• 35:32
  God's existence are prime examples of this approach.
• 35:35
  The idea is first establish that God exists, then argue that this
• 35:39
  God has revealed himself in the Bible, and then proceed to study
• 35:43
  that biblical revelation. Seems logical enough on the
• 35:46
  surface. What's the problem?
• 35:47
  The main problem is bridging the gap.
• 35:49
  Even if you succeed in proving a God exists through reason alone,
• 35:52
  and many philosophers would debate whether those proofs
• 35:54
  actually work, how do you know that the God reached through
• 35:57
  philosophical argument is the same as the specific triune God
• 36:01
  revealed in the Bible, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?
• 36:05
  Is it the same God? Exactly.
• 36:07
  Deists, for example, believed in a creator God based on reason,
• 36:11
  but they denied that this God intervened in the world or gave
• 36:14
  special revelation like the Bible.
• 36:16
  There's a logical leap required to get from a philosophical
• 36:19
  first 'cause or unmoved Mover to the personal, loving, revealing
• 36:23
  God of Christianity. And some critics even question
• 36:26
  whether Aquinas is five proofs. If valid, all necessarily point
• 36:30
  to the same being, could they point to different aspects of
• 36:32
  reality, or even different gods? So identifying the God of
• 36:36
  natural theology with the God of the Bible isn't automatic.
• 36:39
  It requires an additional step, an assumption or argument that's
• 36:42
  hard to definitively establish just from reason alone.
• 36:45
  OK, so starting with God has its hurdles.
• 36:48
  What about starting the other way around?
• 36:50
  Starting with the Bible as Revelation.
• 36:52
  This approach is favored by theologians who are more
• 36:54
  skeptical about our ability to gain true knowledge of God apart
• 36:58
  from his specific self revelation.
• 37:01
  Carl Barth is the most prominent example here.
• 37:03
  He began his massive church dogmatics with the doctrine of
• 37:06
  the Word of God, Scripture, Jesus Christ, and preaching as
• 37:09
  God's self disclosure. The main difficulty with this
• 37:12
  approach is trying to decide what divine revelation is like,
• 37:15
  or how to interpret it without having some prior conception of
• 37:18
  what God himself is like. Our understanding of God
• 37:21
  inevitably shapes how we read and understand the Bible.
• 37:24
  Our view of God effects our view of Scripture.
• 37:26
  Definitely. For example, if you start with
• 37:29
  the conception of God as absolutely sovereign and
• 37:32
  meticulously controlling everything, you might interpret
• 37:34
  biblical inspiration in a very mechanical dictation like way.
• 37:38
  But if you start with the conception of God who grants
• 37:40
  more freedom and works through human authors in their context,
• 37:43
  your view of inspiration might look quite different.
• 37:46
  Your prior idea of God influences your doctrine of
• 37:48
  Scripture. And there's a deeper potential
• 37:51
  issue too. If you start only with the
• 37:53
  Bible, without first establishing or assuming God's
• 37:56
  objective existence, can you really call the Bible revelation
• 38:01
  in a meaningful sense? What do you mean?
• 38:03
  Well, if you haven't first affirmed that God actually
• 38:05
  exists independently, then the Bible might just be seen as a
• 38:08
  collection of ancient human religious writings expressing
• 38:11
  human ideas about God, rather than God's actual self
• 38:14
  disclosure to humans. This could lead to what some
• 38:17
  have humorously but pointedly called systematic unicornology.
• 38:21
  Systematic Unicornology. Yeah, the idea is you could
• 38:25
  develop a highly detailed, internally consistent,
• 38:27
  systematic study of unicorns, their habits, their Tykes, their
• 38:31
  history, all based meticulously on fictional stories about
• 38:34
  unicorns. But if unicorns don't actually
• 38:38
  exist in reality, what's the ultimate point?
• 38:41
  Is it knowledge about anything real?
• 38:43
  So studying the Bible in detail without first affirming God's
• 38:47
  real existence could be like studying unicorns, internally
• 38:51
  coherent maybe, but potentially detached from reality.
• 38:54
  That's the concern, yes. Christian theology claims to be
• 38:57
  about objective reality, about the God who is not just about
• 39:00
  human religious ideas or literature.
• 39:02
  So we're back to the circle. Start with God and it's hard to
• 39:05
  get to the Bible. Start with the Bible, and it's
• 39:07
  hard to ground it without God. How do we get out of this loop?
• 39:10
  What solution does our source propose?
• 39:12
  The proposed solution is quite elegant, actually.
• 39:14
  Instead of trying to start with either God or the Bible in
• 39:17
  isolation and then trying to derive the other, it suggests we
• 39:20
  should presuppose both together as a single integrated starting
• 39:24
  point, a fundamental postulate. Presuppose both at the same
• 39:27
  time. Yes, frame a basic,
• 39:29
  comprehensive statement that affirms both God's existence and
• 39:33
  His revelation in Scripture from the outset.
• 39:36
  It could be worded something like this.
• 39:38
  There exists one triune, loving, all powerful, holy, all knowing
• 39:42
  God, who has revealed Himself generally in nature, history,
• 39:46
  and human personality, and especially in those acts and
• 39:49
  words that are now preserved in the canonical scriptures of the
• 39:53
  Old and New Testaments. OK, so that puts God and the
• 39:55
  Bible together in the foundation.
• 39:57
  Exactly. You start with that
• 39:58
  comprehensive postulate. Then, from that foundation, you
• 40:02
  can proceed to develop a complete theological system by
• 40:05
  carefully unfolding, organizing, and interpreting the content of
• 40:08
  the Scriptures. This resulting system, this
• 40:11
  comprehensive Christian worldview, can then be tested
• 40:14
  for its truth as a whole. You don't try to prove each
• 40:17
  piece independently beforehand. Instead, you evaluate the entire
• 40:20
  system based on criteria like its internal coherence.
• 40:24
  Do the parts contradict each other?
• 40:25
  It's explanatory power, does it make sense of reality and human
• 40:28
  experience? It's correspondence to what we
• 40:30
  observe in the world, and it's faithfulness to the foundational
• 40:33
  postulate, especially Scripture. So you test the whole model, not
• 40:36
  just individual bricks. That's a good way to put it.
• 40:39
  This approach allows us to proceed with confidence that
• 40:41
  we're studying something objectively real.
• 40:44
  God has revealed in His authoritative word the Bible,
• 40:48
  avoiding the pitfalls of trying to start with only one piece of
• 40:51
  the puzzle. It gives a solid integrated
• 40:54
  starting point for the theological task.
• 40:55
  That makes a lot of sense as a way forward.
• 40:58
  OK, so we have a starting point, but let's tackle another big
• 41:00
  question. In our modern world, the word
• 41:02
  science usually brings to mind labs, experiments, empirical
• 41:05
  data. Can theology genuinely claim to
• 41:08
  be a science in that kind of world?
• 41:10
  It seems so different. That's a really important
• 41:12
  question because, yeah, the way we understand science today is
• 41:15
  often much narrower than it used to be, and that affects how
• 41:18
  theology is perceived. The classification of theology
• 41:22
  as a science has definitely shifted.
• 41:24
  If you go back before the 13th century, someone like Augustine,
• 41:27
  as we mentioned, preferred the term sapiencia, wisdom for
• 41:30
  theology, because it dealt with eternal, ultimate matters, which
• 41:34
  he saw as higher than the sciencia, or knowledge related
• 41:37
  to temporal earthly things. But then Thomas Aquinas in the
• 41:40
  13th century famously and boldly called theology the Queen of the
• 41:44
  sciences. The Queen.
• 41:45
  Why Queen? He saw it as a derived science,
• 41:49
  meaning it builds logically on principles taken from a higher
• 41:52
  source, in this case divine revelation, just like other
• 41:55
  sciences build on their own first principles or
• 41:58
  observations. He considered it superior, the
• 42:01
  Queen for a few reasons. It had greater certainty, he
• 42:04
  argued, because it's foundational principles come
• 42:06
  from God's own knowledge which cannot be mistaken, unlike
• 42:09
  fallible human reason. It had a higher subject matter
• 42:12
  dealing with things like God himself, which transcend what
• 42:15
  human reason alone can grasp. And it had a higher goal or
• 42:19
  purpose which he saw as leading to eternal blessedness or
• 42:22
  happiness with God. So for Aquinas, theology was the
• 42:26
  highest, most noble form of discipline inquiry.
• 42:29
  So historically it had a high status as a science.
• 42:31
  What changed? What changed significantly was
• 42:34
  the rise of modern natural science.
• 42:36
  Particularly from the Enlightenment onwards, the
• 42:38
  definition of science began to narrow dramatically.
• 42:41
  It became increasingly restricted to things that could
• 42:43
  be observed through the senses, measured and verified through
• 42:46
  repeatable experiments using strict empirical methods.
• 42:49
  Scientific method, as we often think of it today.
• 42:51
  Exactly, and by that very narrow definition, theology, which
• 42:56
  deals primarily with a super sensible reality God and relies
• 43:00
  on revelation rather than just empirical observation, obviously
• 43:04
  wouldn't qualify as a science. But it's worth noting it's not
• 43:07
  just theology that gets excluded by that narrow definition.
• 43:10
  Many other respected intellectual disciplines like
• 43:12
  say, psychoanalytic theory with its concepts of the ID, ego, and
• 43:16
  superego, or even large parts of theoretical physics dealing with
• 43:19
  unobservable entities, wouldn't strictly qualify either, because
• 43:22
  their core concepts aren't directly testable in a lab in
• 43:25
  the same way. So that definition might be too
• 43:27
  narrow even for other fields. Many would argue it is.
• 43:30
  This narrow definition creates a real challenge, a dilemma for
• 43:33
  theology. Either it tries to somehow
• 43:36
  redefine itself to fit these narrow criteria, maybe by
• 43:40
  focusing only on the observable sociological or psychological
• 43:43
  aspects of religion, becoming purely descriptive.
• 43:46
  Or it has to assert its own unique nature and methodology,
• 43:49
  but risk being dismissed by some as not providing genuine
• 43:52
  objective knowledge because it doesn't fit the dominant
• 43:54
  scientific mold. A tough spot to be in.
• 43:57
  How did someone like Karl Barth handle this?
• 43:59
  You mentioned him earlier. Barth's approach was
• 44:01
  interesting. While he strongly rejected
• 44:03
  applying many of the criteria of natural science to theology,
• 44:06
  like empirical testability or the demand for complete
• 44:10
  objectivity or freedom from presuppositions, he argued faith
• 44:14
  is a necessary presupposition for theology.
• 44:16
  He still insisted on calling theology a science.
• 44:19
  Wiesenschaft in German, which has a broader meaning of
• 44:22
  discipline study. Why?
• 44:25
  He reasoned that theology is a science because it's irrational
• 44:28
  human effort directed towards understanding a definite object
• 44:31
  of knowledge, God's Word. It follows a specific, coherent,
• 44:34
  self consistent path or method appropriate to its object.
• 44:38
  And it's accountable. Accountable primarily to its
• 44:40
  object, the Word of God, and also accountable within the
• 44:43
  community of those who are capable of pursuing and judging
• 44:46
  its claims, the Church. For Barth, its scientific
• 44:49
  character came from its rigorous faithfulness to its unique
• 44:52
  object and method, not from mimicking other sciences.
• 44:54
  So a science on its own terms? What about the source?
• 44:57
  We're focusing on Erickson. How does he argue for theology
• 45:00
  being scientific? Erickson argues, similarly to
• 45:03
  Barth in some ways, but perhaps more broadly, that the modern
• 45:06
  restrictive definition of science is simply too narrow and
• 45:09
  inappropriately excludes valid forms of discipline inquiry.
• 45:13
  He argues that theology is scientific, based on more
• 45:15
  traditional and widely accepted criteria for what constitutes a
• 45:19
  body of knowledge or a field of study.
• 45:22
  He points out that theology meets these criteria.
• 45:24
  First, it has a definite subject matter, primarily God and his
• 45:28
  self revelation. It's not just random
• 45:30
  speculation. First, it is a definite subject
• 45:32
  matter. Second, it deals with objective
• 45:33
  matters. It makes claims about realities
• 45:35
  that exist independently of our minds or feelings specifically
• 45:38
  about God and his actions. It's not just subjective
• 45:41
  opinion. OK, a clear subject and
• 45:43
  objective claims. 3rd, it employs A definite methodology
• 45:46
  for an investigation. As we discussed, this involves
• 45:49
  careful biblical exegesis, historical analysis, logical
• 45:53
  reasoning, philosophical scrutiny.
• 45:54
  It has established procedures. 4th.
• 45:57
  It has a method for verifying its propositions.
• 46:00
  This isn't laboratory testing, but includes assessing internal
• 46:03
  coherence, explanatory power, how well does it make sense of
• 46:06
  Scripture and experience, correspondence with known facts
• 46:09
  from other fields were relevant, and overall faithfulness to its
• 46:12
  primary data source, the Bible. Checks and balances within the
• 46:16
  discipline. Exactly.
• 46:17
  And 5th there is coherence among its propositions.
• 46:21
  The goal is to build a system where the different doctrines
• 46:23
  fit together logically, forming A consistent and unified
• 46:26
  understanding. Erickson also notes that
• 46:29
  theology shares common ground with other sciences.
• 46:31
  It adheres to basic principles of logic, Its findings should be
• 46:35
  communicable and open to scrutiny by others in the field.
• 46:38
  It uses methods borrowed from history and philosophy and even
• 46:41
  share some subject matter like the study of humanity, allowing
• 46:44
  for dialogue and potential cross checking with fields like
• 46:47
  psychology or sociology. Yet despite these overlaps,
• 46:51
  theology maintains a unique status because it deals with
• 46:53
  unique objects like God or considers common objects like
• 46:57
  humanity in a distinct way, specifically in relation to God,
• 47:01
  based on revealed data operating within a frame of reference that
• 47:04
  other disciplines don't fully share.
• 47:06
  So the conclusion is yes, theology qualifies as a science
• 47:10
  understood in a broader, more traditional sense of a rigorous,
• 47:13
  methodical, objective seeking discipline.
• 47:15
  That's a really helpful clarification.
• 47:17
  It broadens the definition of science beyond just empirical
• 47:19
  testing. OK, last major area for today,
• 47:23
  you've emphasized that theology is biblical and relies on
• 47:26
  scripture as its primary source. But in our world today, with so
• 47:30
  many potential sources of knowledge, science, philosophy,
• 47:33
  history, personal experience, other religious traditions, why
• 47:37
  does the Bible remain the primary source, the ultimate
• 47:40
  standard for Christian theology? Why gift that unique status?
• 47:44
  That's a absolutely foundational question for Christian Identity,
• 47:48
  and the answer really goes to the heart of what Christianity
• 47:51
  is. There are several core reasons
• 47:52
  why the Bible holds this unique, authoritative place. 1st and
• 47:56
  most simply, Christianity is fundamentally about following
• 47:59
  Jesus Christ. The name itself tells you that
• 48:01
  as Christians, we look to Him, who He was, what He did, what He
• 48:04
  taught, as the ultimate guide for what we should believe and
• 48:07
  how we should live. Our starting point has to be
• 48:09
  Jesus. It's defined by him.
• 48:11
  It's defined by him. Second, if we want reliable
• 48:15
  information about Jesus's life and teachings, where do we find
• 48:18
  it? Historically speaking, outside
• 48:21
  the New Testament documents, especially the Gospels, there's
• 48:24
  remarkably little detailed, reliable information about him.
• 48:27
  Now, if we assume, and careful historical scholarship generally
• 48:30
  supports this, that the Gospels are fundamentally trustworthy
• 48:33
  historical sources transmitting authentic information about
• 48:36
  Jesus, then they become absolutely indispensable.
• 48:39
  Without them, we know very little about the founder of our
• 48:41
  fate. They're the main window we have.
• 48:43
  Through the essential window. 3rd Jesus himself consistently
• 48:48
  treated the Hebrew Scriptures, what Christians called the Old
• 48:50
  Testament, as authoritative Scripture.
• 48:53
  He quoted it, He fulfilled it. He affirmed its divine origin
• 48:56
  and enduring truth. If we follow Jesus, we should
• 48:59
  have the same high view of the Old Testament that he did.
• 49:01
  Furthermore, if Jesus also promised his apostles that the
• 49:04
  Holy Spirit would guide them into further truth after his
• 49:07
  departure, as the Gospel of John indicates, then the writings of
• 49:10
  those apostles and their close associates which make up the New
• 49:13
  Testament carry his delegated authority as well.
• 49:16
  So Jesus endorses the Old Testament and commissions the
• 49:19
  new. That's the understanding 4th and
• 49:22
  this is the theological core. If Jesus truly claimed to be God
• 49:27
  Incarnate, the Son of God, divine, and if that claim is
• 49:29
  true, which is the central belief of Christianity, then his
• 49:33
  authority is ultimate. No human opinion, no cultural
• 49:36
  trend, no later religious leader can possibly overturn or
• 49:40
  legitimately modify what he taught and established.
• 49:43
  His foundation for the movement he started is decisive.
• 49:46
  What he said, what he did, the apostles he commissioned, that
• 49:49
  forms the unshakeable basis. What others might say later,
• 49:52
  even if they call themselves Christians, has to be measured
• 49:54
  against that original authoritative standard he set.
• 49:57
  His authority is supreme. His word is final if he is who
• 50:00
  he claimed to be. Exactly. 5th The Bible is
• 50:03
  essential for maintaining the identity and continuity of the
• 50:06
  Christian faith across time and cultures.
• 50:09
  Think about any distinct movement or school of thought,
• 50:12
  whether it's followers of Plato or Marxist debating true Marxism
• 50:16
  or different branches of Lutheranism arguing after
• 50:19
  Luther. Every coherent movement has
• 50:22
  boundaries. There were limits to legitimate
• 50:24
  interpretation and development. If you go too far beyond those
• 50:27
  boundaries, you eventually forfeit the right to identify
• 50:30
  with the founder or the core principles of that movement.
• 50:33
  For Christianity, the Bible functions as that authoritative
• 50:36
  standard that constitution or charter.
• 50:39
  It defines the core beliefs and practices essential to being
• 50:41
  faithful to Christ and his original intentions.
• 50:44
  It's what helps ensure that Christianity Today remains
• 50:47
  recognizably connected to the faith Jesus established, rather
• 50:50
  than drifting into something else entirely.
• 50:52
  It preserves our identity. It anchors the faith.
• 50:55
  It anchors it now. 6th, it's really important to clarify what
• 50:58
  being biblical means here. It doesn't just mean
• 51:01
  mechanically repeating verses or proof texting.
• 51:04
  In fact, sometimes simply quoting Scripture verbatim out
• 51:07
  of context can actually make a message less truly biblical in
• 51:10
  spirit. Yeah, context is everything.
• 51:13
  Everything. A truly biblical sermon, for
• 51:15
  example, isn't just a string of Bible quotes.
• 51:18
  Being genuinely biblical involves careful work
• 51:21
  interpreting the text accurately in its original context,
• 51:24
  analyzing its meaning, synthesizing its teachings with
• 51:28
  the rest of Scripture. And then, crucially, it involves
• 51:31
  applying that synthesized truth thoughtfully and relevantly to
• 51:35
  contemporary situations, questions, and audiences in the
• 51:38
  1st century, but to understand the underlying principle and
• 51:40
  articulate what Paul, guided by the Spirit, would likely
• 51:43
  communicate today in our context, addressing our issues.
• 51:47
  Paul himself did this. He adapted his message using
• 51:50
  different nuances and arguments when writing to the churches in
• 51:52
  Rome versus Galatia. Even though he was dealing with
• 51:55
  some similar underlying issues about law and grace, he tailored
• 51:58
  the application. So being biblical means
• 52:01
  faithfully conveying the spirit and truth of the biblical
• 52:03
  message to a new audience, not just repeating the exact words.
• 52:07
  Faithful application, not just repetition.
• 52:09
  That's helpful. Finally, while the Bible is the
• 52:11
  primary. And supreme source and authority
• 52:13
  for Christian theology. Most theologians would agree
• 52:16
  it's not necessarily the only source of insight altogether.
• 52:20
  If God has also revealed himself in a general way, through the
• 52:23
  created order, through human history, through the innate
• 52:26
  moral sense or conscience within people, the theology calls
• 52:29
  general revelation, and the Bible itself seems to affirm
• 52:32
  this, like in Romans one and two or Psalm 19, then we can
• 52:35
  certainly look at these areas too.
• 52:37
  Studying nature can tell us about God's power and wisdom.
• 52:40
  Studying history might show patterns of his Providence or
• 52:43
  judgment. Understanding human nature
• 52:45
  through experience or other disciplines can illuminate our
• 52:47
  need for Him. These can offer additional clues
• 52:51
  or supporting evidence that help us understand the main message
• 52:53
  revealed in Scripture. So other sources can help, but
• 52:56
  they're secondary. Exactly.
• 52:58
  They remain secondary. And must always be interpreted
• 53:01
  and judged in light of the clearer, definitive, special
• 53:04
  revelation found in the Bible. General revelation can
• 53:07
  illuminate or confirm biblical truth, but it doesn't correct or
• 53:11
  replace it. The Bible remains the ultimate
• 53:14
  authority, the clearest and most reliable window we have into
• 53:17
  God's character, His will, and His plan of salvation through
• 53:20
  Jesus Christ. We have really covered a lot of
• 53:23
  ground today. Unpacking.
• 53:24
  What Christian theology is, where it comes from, it's
• 53:27
  different parts, and why it's so important.
• 53:29
  It's definitely clear that theology is much more than just,
• 53:31
  you know, dry, abstract ideas or something only for academics.
• 53:34
  It's a living discipline that really shapes our whole
• 53:37
  understanding of God in reality. It gives us the framework
• 53:39
  indeed, I think this deep dive has shown.
• 53:42
  That theology, when understood correctly, isn't meant to be a
• 53:45
  complicating or divisive force. Instead, it's the very
• 53:48
  discipline that helps us gain genuine knowledge about God.
• 53:51
  It equips us to discern truth from error in a world that's
• 53:54
  just saturated with competing claims.
• 53:58
  And it helps us align our own experiences, our feelings, and
• 54:01
  our actions with the foundational truths of the
• 54:03
  Christian faith revealed in Scripture.
• 54:06
  Ultimately, it helps us understand who it is we worship
• 54:08
  and why we live the way we do as Christians.
• 54:11
  It gives substance and direction to our faith.
• 54:13
  So maybe a final thought for you, our listener to.
• 54:15
  Ponder in what specific areas of your own life, your thinking, or
• 54:19
  your practice could a clearer grasp of Christian theology's
• 54:22
  purpose and framework, this idea of it being biblical,
• 54:25
  systematic, cultural, contemporary, and practical,
• 54:28
  actually help you make better sense of the world, Or perhaps
• 54:31
  ground your daily Christian living more firmly in truth?
• 54:33
  That's our deep dive for today. Thanks so much for joining.
• 54:36
  On the Dee dive.