Chapter TwelveChapter Twelve““The Methodological Precondition”The Methodological Precondition”

PowerPoint Prepared by Mark E. Hardgrove, DMin, PhD.PowerPoint Prepared by Mark E. Hardgrove, DMin, PhD.

MethodMethodThe method of doing theology is widely debated.The method of doing theology is widely debated.Methodology is of vital importance, because in a Methodology is of vital importance, because in a

very real sense methodology determines theology.very real sense methodology determines theology.HowHow theology is done will determine theology is done will determine whatwhat the the

theological conclusion will be.theological conclusion will be.If theology is done with a naturalistic method, If theology is done with a naturalistic method,

inevitably the conclusions will be naturalistic.inevitably the conclusions will be naturalistic.If one begins with a theistic God and a method If one begins with a theistic God and a method

open to the supernatural, the conclusions will not open to the supernatural, the conclusions will not be unfavorable to the supernatural.be unfavorable to the supernatural.

The The Reductio Absurdum MethodReductio Absurdum MethodChief proponent, Zeno (c. 495- c. 430 b.c.)Argued that nothing existed except one solitary

being.In this view, if time, space, or motion is composed

of real parts, we end up in hopeless contradictions—cannot get from point A to point B.

This worldview is rejected by theists, however, the application does not necessitate any view contrary to Christian belief.

It is simply an application of valid disjunctive syllogism later developed by Aristotle.

The Socratic MethodThe Socratic MethodChief proponent, Socrates (c. 470-399 b.c.)Better called the dialogical method, or method of

interrogation, for it is based on a simple technique of discovering truth by asking the right questions.

In its original form it is based on belief in reincarnation and the answers are the fruit of a previous life.

Others have extracted the reincarnation element and view it as a way to lead a mind down the path of truth by asking the right questions.

The Deductive MethodThe Deductive MethodChief proponent, Aristotle (384-322 b.c.)Also known as prior analysis, whereby a

person can validly infer one truth from other truths.

Deductions come in one of three forms: Categorical (unconditional) deduction

(syllogism)Hypothetical (conditional) deduction

(syllogism)Disjunctive syllogism (either/or)

The Inductive MethodThe Inductive MethodChief proponent, Francis Bacon (1561-1626)Popularly known as “scientific method”Two broad categories: imperfect and perfectImperfect deduction based on the

examination of a random sample. The larger the sample, the higher the degree of probability.

Perfect deduction comes from examining every one of the particulars in that class that can be examined.

The Cartesian MethodThe Cartesian MethodChief proponent, Rene’ Descartes (1596-1650)A method for discovering truth that begins with doubtThe method continues with a method of statements

based on successive truths.Example: 1) I doubt, therefore, I think1) I doubt, therefore, I think2) I think, therefore, I am2) I think, therefore, I am3) I am, therefore, God is (because I am an imperfect 3) I am, therefore, God is (because I am an imperfect

being—a doubter), the imperfect implies Perfect (God), being—a doubter), the imperfect implies Perfect (God), by which I know thatby which I know that

4) God is, and therefore the world is (for a perfect God 4) God is, and therefore the world is (for a perfect God would not deceive me about the strong, steady would not deceive me about the strong, steady impression I am getting of an external world outside impression I am getting of an external world outside myself).myself).

5) Consequently, I exist, God exists, and the world 5) Consequently, I exist, God exists, and the world exists.exists.

The Euclidian MethodThe Euclidian MethodChief proponent, Euclid (fl. 300 b.c.)/Spinoza (1632-

1677)A system of geometry that began with certain

basic definitions and axioms held to be self-evident (e.g., parallel lines never meet).

Used in modern times by great rationalist and philosopher Benedict Spinoza who developed a philosophic system, including proofs for God, as well as descriptions of the creation and nature of human beings, free will, and ethics.

He also deduced the impossibility of miracles and incipient negative higher criticism of Scripture.

The Transcendental MethodThe Transcendental MethodChief proponent, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)It is more of a reductive approach arguing back to the

necessary preconditions of something being the case.Seeks for necessary conditions of a given state of

affairs, not an actual cause of them.Evangelical thinkers have used this methodology in

both the minimal and maximal ways:Maximal category: In order to make sense of the

world, it is necessary to postulate the existence of the triune God as revealed in the Bible.

Minimal argument: Defends the law of noncontradiction, insisting that one had to posit it as an absolute condition for all thought, otherwise, no thought would be possible.

The Abductive MethodThe Abductive MethodChief proponent, Charles Sanders Pierce

(1839-1914)An abduction is like an insight or intuitive

flash that provides one with a model for doing science or theology.

It is neither deduced from prior premises nor induced from previous data; it is simply intelligent insight into the situation.

Theology, like other disciples, fruitfully uses abductions to derive models by which Scripture can be correctly interpreted.

The Retroductive MethodThe Retroductive MethodNo chief proponent listed by GeislerThis is a method of enrichment.As snowball gathers more snow on each turn

downhill, so the reduction in theology is where additional insight is gained from futher knowledge.

Sometimes movement is described as a circle, but it is a benign circle, not a vicious circle.

Sometimes called the hermeneutical circle in which one understands the whole in light of the parts and the parts in light of the whole.

The Analogical MethodThe Analogical MethodChief proponent, Joseph Butler (1692-1752)Used by Butler to defend Christianity against deismUse of probability: Butler believed probability

supports belief in a supernatural revelation from God in the Bible and in the miracles of Christ.

Objection to Deism: Nature bespeaks God’s existenceReligion judged as a whole, not simply from attacks

leveled against specific parts, as deist are prone to do.The relation of natural and supernatural revelation

are not mutually exclusive but deal with specific realms, i.e., natural with God Almighty, and supernatural with Son and Holy Spirit.

The Analogical Method (cont.)The Analogical Method (cont.)Chief proponent, Joseph Butler (1692-1752)The defense of miracles: Argues that “no

presumption lies against the general Christians scheme, whether we call it miraculous or not.”

Evaluation of Butler’s view of miraclesPositively, he made a significant defense of

Christianity against deism.Negatively, he unnecessarily weakened the

stronger cosmological argument in favor a weaker probability argument from analogy.

The Dialectical MethodThe Dialectical MethodChief proponent, Karl Marx (1818-1883)Consists in opposing a thesis with an

antithesis and making a synthesis of them.F.C. Bauer (1792-1860) attempted to use this

approach to interpret Scripture. Claimed the tension between Peter’s Judaistic

form of Christianity (thesis) and Paul’s anti-Judaistic form of Christianity (antithesis) found its reconciliation (synthesis) in the Gospel of John.

The Pragmatic MethodThe Pragmatic MethodChief proponent, Willaim James (1842-1910)In brief, according to pragmatism, we know

what is true by whether or not it works.On a popular level this method is widely

used.

The Experimental MethodThe Experimental MethodChief proponent, John Dewey (1859-1952)Is an American contribution to the discipline

of methodology.One discovers the truth by doing, and the

final vote is cast by whether or not our experimentation produces progress.

In popular language “try before you buy”Can have devastating results as evidenced in

the sexual revolution and chemical experimentation.

Methodological Category MistakesMethodological Category MistakesEtienne Gilson (1884-1978) demonstrates the

problem of taking a methodology appropriate to one discipline and applying it to another.

For example, taking insights from microevolution (small incremental changes within a species) and applying on a macro level, as well as applying the theory to sociology, ethics, and religion.

Antisupernaturalistic MethodsAntisupernaturalistic MethodsAny method that necessitates a naturalistic

conclusion should not be used in evangelical theology.

Historical uniformitarianism, for example, assumes that we should disbelieve in miracles even if they occur.

Its clearly absurd to lay down a method that refuses to believe in an event even if it occurs.

Such methods must be soundly rejected by a biblically based theology.

Incompatible MethodsIncompatible MethodsWhile some methodologies are not

antisupernatural, they are still incompatible with evangelical beliefs.

For example, pragmatism and experimentalism are incompatible with the belief in absolute truth; according to pragmatism and experimentalism, one and the same thing can work for one person but not for another.

This does not mean that theological truth is not practical or does not apply to one’s life; it simply isn’t a legitimate way to obtain truth.

Inappropriate MethodsInappropriate MethodsOther methods must be rejected because they

are inappropriate to the subject at hand, even if they are not antisupernatural or incompatible with evangelical belief.

For example math is perfectly capable of dealing with abstract entities (negative numbers for example), but not necessarily concrete ones (can you hold a negative apple?).

Likewise, modern symbolic logic is not designed to handle what questions but only how questions.

Three Apparent ThingsThree Apparent Things1.1. The method should fit its objectThe method should fit its object2.2. The method should not be contrary The method should not be contrary

to the results it is supposed to to the results it is supposed to produceproduce

3.3. No one method can suffice for the No one method can suffice for the many steps involved in developing many steps involved in developing an evangelical theology.an evangelical theology.

Step 1: An Inductive Basis in ScriptureStep 1: An Inductive Basis in ScriptureAny adequate methodology must be based on a

sound exposition of Scripture.An inductive approach must be taken; that is, all

the particular parts of the text must be examined carefully in context before one can safely assume he has the proper interpretation.

Likewise, the whole must be viewed as what makes sense of each part.

The socratic method of interrogation can be used:1) Who wrote it? 2) When did he write it? 3) Where

were they located? 4) To whom was it written? Etc.

Step 2: A Deduction of Truths From ScriptureStep 2: A Deduction of Truths From ScriptureLogical conclusions (deduction) can be drawn

from Scripture.For example:1)God is one2)There are three Persons who are God—the

Father, Son, and the Holy SpiritFrom this it follows by logical deduction that:3)There are three persons in the one God (God

is a Tri-unity)

Step 3: The Use of AnalogiesStep 3: The Use of AnalogiesThe method of analogy can be used to derive

and refine an understanding of God’s revealed truth.

Since God has revealed Himself in both special and general revelation, systematic theology can make use of analogies from either to help explain and expound truth.

Step 4: The Use of General RevelationStep 4: The Use of General RevelationAnother important step in theological

methodology is the use of general revelation.God has revealed Himself in nature, including

human nature.Every perfection in creation, wherever it is

found, is similar (analogous) to God.Sometimes general revelation helps clarify

special revelation, for example the idea of the four corners of the earth(Rev. 7:1)

Sometimes special revelation helps clarify general revelation, for example microevolution vs. macro.

Step 5: The Retroductive MethodStep 5: The Retroductive MethodBy using the information gained in steps 1

through 4 we then refine, nuance, and fill out our understanding.

The adding on and layering of truths and insights deepens and expands one’s theological perspectives.

Step 6: Systematic CorrelationStep 6: Systematic CorrelationThe Bible must be understood in terms of the

literary forms in which it is expressed, its own phenomena (data), and in accord with other revelation from God in nature.

The doctrine of Scripture must be understood in the view of the data of Scripture.

Step 7: Each Doctrine is Correlated with All Step 7: Each Doctrine is Correlated with All Other DoctrinesOther DoctrinesThe word systematic in systematic theology

implies that all teachings of both general and special revelation are comprehensive and consistent.

Consistency must be both internal and external.

Internally, each biblical teaching must be logically consistent with every other teaching.

Externally, no teaching of Scripture can be inconsistent with any truth from general revelation.

Step 8: Each Doctrine is Expressed in View of the Step 8: Each Doctrine is Expressed in View of the Orthodox Teachings of the Church FathersOrthodox Teachings of the Church FathersTests for Orthodoxy:1.What is contrary to ecumenical creeds,

councils, and confessions is certainly unorthodox

2.What is not addressed in the ecumenical creeds, councils, and confessions but is contrary to the universal consent of the Fathers is almost certainly unorthodox, and

3.What is contrary to the general consent of the Fathers is highly suspect.

Step 9: Livability is the Final TestStep 9: Livability is the Final TestTrue Christianity is not merely metaphysics;

it is also ethics.It is not simply theoretical; it is practical.Its goal is not only to satisfy the mind, but

also to shape life.Therefore, it must be livable; its truths must

be effective in a pragmatic way.Of course not all that works is true, but what

is true will work.Systematic theology should lead to practical

theology.