Th 503 Chapter 12

1. 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.

2. MethodMethod
The method of doing theology is widely debated.The method of doing theology is widely debated.
Methodology is of vital importance, because in a veryMethodology is of vital importance, because in a very
real sense methodology determines theology.real sense methodology determines theology.
HowHow theology is done will determinetheology is done will determine whatwhat thethe
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 openIf one begins with a theistic God and a method open
to the supernatural, the conclusions will not beto the supernatural, the conclusions will not be
unfavorable to the supernatural.unfavorable to the supernatural.

4. TheThe Reductio Absurdum MethodReductio Absurdum Method
Chief 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.

5. The Socratic MethodThe Socratic Method
Chief 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.

6. The Deductive MethodThe Deductive Method
Chief 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)

7. The Inductive MethodThe Inductive Method
Chief proponent, Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Popularly known as “scientific method”
Two broad categories: imperfect and perfect
Imperfect 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.

8. The Cartesian MethodThe Cartesian Method
Chief proponent, Rene’ Descartes (1596-1650)
A method for discovering truth that begins with doubt
The method continues with a method of statements based
on successive truths.
Example: 1) I doubt, therefore, I think1) I doubt, therefore, I think
2) I think, therefore, I am2) I think, therefore, I am
3) I am, therefore, God is (because I am an imperfect being3) I am, therefore, God is (because I am an imperfect being
—a doubter), the imperfect implies Perfect (God), by—a doubter), the imperfect implies Perfect (God), by
which I know thatwhich I know that
4) God is, and therefore the world is (for a perfect God4) God is, and therefore the world is (for a perfect God
would not deceive me about the strong, steady impressionwould not deceive me about the strong, steady impression
I am getting of an external world outside myself).I am getting of an external world outside myself).
5) Consequently, I exist, God exists, and the world exists.5) Consequently, I exist, God exists, and the world exists.

9. The Euclidian MethodThe Euclidian Method
Chief 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.

10. The Transcendental MethodThe Transcendental Method
Chief 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.

11. The Abductive MethodThe Abductive Method
Chief 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.

12. The Retroductive MethodThe Retroductive Method
No chief proponent listed by Geisler
This 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.

13. The Analogical MethodThe Analogical Method
Chief proponent, Joseph Butler (1692-1752)
Used by Butler to defend Christianity against deism
Use 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 existence
Religion 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.

14. 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 miracles
Positively, 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.

15. The Dialectical MethodThe Dialectical Method
Chief 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.

16. The Pragmatic MethodThe Pragmatic Method
Chief 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.

17. The Experimental MethodThe Experimental Method
Chief 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.

19. Methodological Category MistakesMethodological Category Mistakes
Etienne 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.

20. Antisupernaturalistic MethodsAntisupernaturalistic Methods
Any 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.

21. Incompatible MethodsIncompatible Methods
While 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.

22. Inappropriate MethodsInappropriate Methods
Other 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.

24. Three Apparent ThingsThree Apparent Things
1.1. The method should fit its objectThe method should fit its object
2.2. The method should not be contrary to theThe method should not be contrary to the
results it is supposed to produceresults it is supposed to produce
3.3. No one method can suffice for the manyNo one method can suffice for the many
steps involved in developing ansteps involved in developing an
evangelical theology.evangelical theology.

25. Step 1: An Inductive Basis in ScriptureStep 1: An Inductive Basis in Scripture
Any 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.

26. Step 2: A Deduction of Truths From ScriptureStep 2: A Deduction of Truths From Scripture
Logical conclusions (deduction) can be drawn from
Scripture.
For example:
1) God is one
2)There are three Persons who are God—the Father,
Son, and the Holy Spirit
From this it follows by logical deduction that:
3)There are three persons in the one God (God is a Tri-
unity)

27. Step 3: The Use of AnalogiesStep 3: The Use of Analogies
The 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.

28. Step 4: The Use of General RevelationStep 4: The Use of General Revelation
Another 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.

29. Step 5: The Retroductive MethodStep 5: The Retroductive Method
By 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.

30. Step 6: Systematic CorrelationStep 6: Systematic Correlation
The 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.

31. Step 7: Each Doctrine is Correlated with AllStep 7: Each Doctrine is Correlated with All
Other DoctrinesOther Doctrines
The 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.

32. Step 8: Each Doctrine is Expressed in View of theStep 8: Each Doctrine is Expressed in View of the
Orthodox Teachings of the Church FathersOrthodox Teachings of the Church Fathers
Tests 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.

33. Step 9: Livability is the Final TestStep 9: Livability is the Final Test
True 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.