A New Way to "Do Theology"
Calvary Baptist Seminary of Lansdale- “Here at Calvary Baptist Seminary, we are re-packaging our systematic theology courses in a way that adheres more closely to the biblical narrative, even while retaining a doctrinal focus. We want our systematic theology to draw its content from Scripture itself. To that end, we are unveiling a new sequence of systematic theology courses that will hopefully result in a more biblical approach to systematic theology. Instead of our current six-course track, we will cover the tradition doctrinal loci with four courses that treat the major doctrines as they appear in the flow of God’s progressive revelation.” HT:BW
- 2 views
[MShep2] I still am having trouble wrapping my mind around this idea - especially wondering how all of the doctrines will be properly covered, but overall the idea seems good. One problem I have had with the idea of “Systematic Theology” is that many (most?) times it means, Here’s how I fit the Bible into my System, rather than I am studying theology in a systematic way. It seems the second “systematic” is what they are trying to do at Calvary.What you mention is the struggle, is it not!!
On one hand, we are all guilty of that to one degree. On the other, we are to tremble before the text, attempting to recognize our predispositions and preferences, and thereby submit them to the text.
Yet we can’t wait for sinless hearts before we begin to study the text, so, with pride and humility inhabiting the same soul, here we go. “Open your Bibles please to….”
I bet Calvary would love it if we all signed up for a class and sat in for a semester. I’m sure it would be much easier to get a feel for how this works with some on-site.
Alas, I’m a bit more than a stone’s throw from PA.
Alas, I’m a bit more than a stone’s throw from PA.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Aaron Blumer] I bet Calvary would love it if we all signed up for a class and sat in for a semester. I’m sure it would be much easier to get a feel for how this works with some on-site.Add a hop, skip and a (lonnnggg) jump for me. ;)
Alas, I’m a bit more than a stone’s throw from PA.
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
[J. Gresham Machen, “Westminster Theological Seminary,” 1929] But biblical theology is not all the theology that will be taught at Westminster Seminary, for systematic theology will be at the very center of the seminary’s course. At this point an error should be avoided: it must not be thought that systematic theology is one whit less biblical than biblical theology is. But it differs from biblical theology in that, standing on the foundation or biblical theology, it seeks to set forth, no longer in the order of the time when it was revealed, but in the order of logical relationships, the grand sum of what God has told us in his Word. There are those who think that systematic theology on the basis of the Bible is impossible; there are those who think that the Bible contains a mere record of human seeking after God and that its teachings are a mass of contradiction which can never be resolved. But to the number of those persons we do not belong. We believe for our part that God has spoken to us in his Word, and that he has given us not merely theology, but a system of theology, a great logically consistent body of truth.http://oldlife.org/2010/07/28/machen-day-2010/ Source
That system of theology, that body of truth, which we find in the Bible is the Reformed faith, the faith commonly called Calvinistic, which is set forth so gloriously in the Confession and catechisms of the Presbyterian church. It is sometimes referred to as a “man-made creed.” but we do not regard it as such. We regard it, in accordance with our ordination pledge as ministers in the Presbyterian church, as the creed which God has taught us in his Word. If it is contrary to the Bible, it is false. But we hold that it is not contrary to the Bible, but in accordance with the Bible, and true. We rejoice in the approximations to that body of truth which other systems of theology contain; we rejoice in our Christian fellowship with other evangelical churches; we hope that members of other churches, despite our Calvinism, may be willing to enter into Westminster Seminary as students and to listen to what we may have to say. But we cannot consent to impoverish our message by setting forth less than what we find the Scripture to contain; and we believe that we shall best serve our fellow Christians, from whatever church they may come, if we set forth not some vague greatest common measure among various creeds, but that great historic faith that has come through Augustine and Calvin to our own Presbyterian church.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
[Greg Linscott][J. Gresham Machen, “Westminster Theological Seminary,” 1929]….there are those who think that the Bible contains a mere record of human seeking after God and that its teachings are a mass of contradiction which can never be resolved. But to the number of those persons we do not belong. We believe for our part that God has spoken to us in his Word, and that he has given us not merely theology, but a system of theology, a great logically consistent body of truth.On one hand, we must all agree with the venerable Machen that the time line is not everything. But he also assigns less than godly motives to those who propose to teach biblical theology. We must take Calvary’s words charitably, no?, and believe their intent to help their students to preach and learn systematic from the biblical.
Greg, is that second paragraph on Calvinism in context - did it originally follow Machen’s quote on biblical theology? Just curious, it seems a little disjointed to me.
TB,
I have not expressed any particular personal perspective on CBS’s motives.
In the specific quote, Machen was addressing issues that led to the founding of WTS, which involved Machen, John Murray, and the other Westminster Divines leaving their positions at Princeton because of its liberalism. Machen does not have Lansdale specifically in mind in this quote. I am assuming that the quote is made in context- however, I do not have access to the full document from which the quote is taken.
I saw this quote today, and thought it provided another perspective than the one offered by Lansdale explaining why they have moved away from the model Machen defends.
As far as attributing motives, I do not think Machen does much different than Lansdale does when they make statements such as:
If I am understanding them, they are saying that the standard “systematic” approach is essentially less biblical and not as faithful in drawing content from Scripture itself. However, I would expect such language (both from Machen and Lansdale) from one attempting to establish and defend a position believed to be right and proper.
I have not expressed any particular personal perspective on CBS’s motives.
In the specific quote, Machen was addressing issues that led to the founding of WTS, which involved Machen, John Murray, and the other Westminster Divines leaving their positions at Princeton because of its liberalism. Machen does not have Lansdale specifically in mind in this quote. I am assuming that the quote is made in context- however, I do not have access to the full document from which the quote is taken.
I saw this quote today, and thought it provided another perspective than the one offered by Lansdale explaining why they have moved away from the model Machen defends.
As far as attributing motives, I do not think Machen does much different than Lansdale does when they make statements such as:
We want our systematic theology to draw its content from Scripture itself. To that end, we are unveiling a new sequence of systematic theology courses that will hopefully result in a more biblical approach to systematic theology.
If I am understanding them, they are saying that the standard “systematic” approach is essentially less biblical and not as faithful in drawing content from Scripture itself. However, I would expect such language (both from Machen and Lansdale) from one attempting to establish and defend a position believed to be right and proper.
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
The question is less about right & wrong as it is how it is packaged. Having gone through CBS (graduated this past spring actually) the theology is solid and isn’t changing because of the restructuring. The structure / format in which the courses will be packaged has changed, but I personally think that this model fits well with the “flow” of Scripture conceptually as it progresses through revelation. But since no two people think alike, structure is a subjective element. I would have liked to have experienced the classes in this format instead of just missing them in my seminary experience.
Mark "Let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ" - Phil 1:27 "Credit belongs to he who spends himself for a worthy cause... never to be with those who knew neither victory nor defeat." - T. Roosevelt
Good news, Aaron and MShep2! These new theology courses and about a dozen others are offered online at Calvary: [url] http://www.cbs.edu/calendar/class-schedule.html
Our online classes are not just glorified correspondence classes, but are streaming video over iTunes U with online discussions with resident students and other online students. Check them out!
Our online classes are not just glorified correspondence classes, but are streaming video over iTunes U with online discussions with resident students and other online students. Check them out!
[Mark Farnham] Good news, Aaron and MShep2! These new theology courses and about a dozen others are offered online at Calvary: [url] http://www.cbs.edu/calendar/class-schedule.htmlSorry, Mark; no streaming video here. I am just glad to have internet.
Our online classes are not just glorified correspondence classes, but are streaming video over iTunes U with online discussions with resident students and other online students. Check them out!
MS -------------------------------- Luke 17:10
Hi All,
I’m George Coon, professor of Theology and Church History at Calvary in Lansdale. I’m new to SharperIron (in terms of posting comments), and I figured I’d chime in on this thread since I’m responsible for the article on the change in approach to teaching systematic theology at Calvary. I do appreciate the questions and comments, and I understand most of the concerns. Early on in the thread, Mark provided a good statement of explanation and clarification. I’ll briefly add my own clarifications here.
First, this is not about choosing between biblical and systematic theology. Both are legitimate approaches to doctrinal study and can be done with fidelity to Scripture, while both can be grossly unbiblical as well. We are not leaving behind systematic theology. We are trying to maximize the rigor and effectiveness of our theology courses by blending systematic and biblical theology in our class presentations. The students’ required reading will still largely consist of working through the standard systematic textbooks (Erickson, Grudem, Strong, Hodge, et al). They will be doing assignments that clearly evidence systematic theology coursework (e.g. writing confessions, catechisms, and research papers on contemporary theological debates, etc.). We want the class time to be unique and accomplish something complimentary to the textbook reading. Therefore, the lectures will employ the biblical theology approach.
Second, while we are frustrated with some of the proof-texting that goes on in systematic theology (who isn’t?!), we are not so naïve as to think we will avoid it altogether. Every theologian does this to one extent or another – this is necessary given our commitment to Scripture as the final authority for faith and practice. However, we desire to use the most appropriate texts to support our theological commitments, and we want to have stronger exegetical bases for our doctrinal convictions. We believe the biblical theology approach helps us do this. We do not anticipate jettisoning all sorts of theological commitments by insisting on legitimate exegetical evidence for our truth claims. We just want to hold our theological commitments with integrity, with deeper conviction, and with a determination to stand for God’s truth in an ever-changing world. This approach should make us more solidly committed to that which Scripture clearly affirms.
Third, some have suggested we keep the systematic theology approach but just do a better job at it. We do appreciate that perspective, and to be sure, there is much upon which we could improve! But we believe that with this shift in our approach to the class lectures, we are doing just that – improving. We are trying to unify our curriculum, gain deeper conviction concerning our theological commitments, and foster a greater understanding of and appreciation for the grand story of our great God. Does it produce more work? Certainly! But the extra work is well worth it if students are better equipped to unite theological commitments to legitimate teachings of Scripture.
I’m George Coon, professor of Theology and Church History at Calvary in Lansdale. I’m new to SharperIron (in terms of posting comments), and I figured I’d chime in on this thread since I’m responsible for the article on the change in approach to teaching systematic theology at Calvary. I do appreciate the questions and comments, and I understand most of the concerns. Early on in the thread, Mark provided a good statement of explanation and clarification. I’ll briefly add my own clarifications here.
First, this is not about choosing between biblical and systematic theology. Both are legitimate approaches to doctrinal study and can be done with fidelity to Scripture, while both can be grossly unbiblical as well. We are not leaving behind systematic theology. We are trying to maximize the rigor and effectiveness of our theology courses by blending systematic and biblical theology in our class presentations. The students’ required reading will still largely consist of working through the standard systematic textbooks (Erickson, Grudem, Strong, Hodge, et al). They will be doing assignments that clearly evidence systematic theology coursework (e.g. writing confessions, catechisms, and research papers on contemporary theological debates, etc.). We want the class time to be unique and accomplish something complimentary to the textbook reading. Therefore, the lectures will employ the biblical theology approach.
Second, while we are frustrated with some of the proof-texting that goes on in systematic theology (who isn’t?!), we are not so naïve as to think we will avoid it altogether. Every theologian does this to one extent or another – this is necessary given our commitment to Scripture as the final authority for faith and practice. However, we desire to use the most appropriate texts to support our theological commitments, and we want to have stronger exegetical bases for our doctrinal convictions. We believe the biblical theology approach helps us do this. We do not anticipate jettisoning all sorts of theological commitments by insisting on legitimate exegetical evidence for our truth claims. We just want to hold our theological commitments with integrity, with deeper conviction, and with a determination to stand for God’s truth in an ever-changing world. This approach should make us more solidly committed to that which Scripture clearly affirms.
Third, some have suggested we keep the systematic theology approach but just do a better job at it. We do appreciate that perspective, and to be sure, there is much upon which we could improve! But we believe that with this shift in our approach to the class lectures, we are doing just that – improving. We are trying to unify our curriculum, gain deeper conviction concerning our theological commitments, and foster a greater understanding of and appreciation for the grand story of our great God. Does it produce more work? Certainly! But the extra work is well worth it if students are better equipped to unite theological commitments to legitimate teachings of Scripture.
Discussion