Systematic theology (was: Seminary)

[Jamie Wayne]

Well, I found out today that I'll have to wait two years before entering seminary...which is kind of disappointing, but I knew it was a possibility, though I'd prefer to start sooner rather than later, but I'm ok with that.

I did find out a bunch of useful information, though, so by the time I am admitted, I should be very prepared...which should make things considerably easier.

At any rate, I just thought that I'd share this with all ya'll.

It's not a "theological" topic, per se, but it's kinda related...

[Joanne Vergin]

Is there any possibility you could be bumped up?

[Ryan Scott]

What is the rationale behind the age division there? You mentioned in another thread that you thought you'd have to be over a certain age before you were admitted, is that why the extra wait?

[Ian Gentles]

Sorry about your delay just dosent seem right :(

[Jamie Wayne]

What is the rationale behind the age division there? You mentioned in another thread that you thought you'd have to be over a certain age before you were admitted, is that why the extra wait?

The age requirement is exactly the issue - it is for students who haven't completed a bachelor's degree, like myself, and is part of accreditation for theological schools. They can't change the rule or make exceptions.

The rationale for the exemption, allowing admission to older students without having a bachelor's degree, is that seminary educations are usually about a vocational calling to ministry, so they want to be able to promote people's calling, especially later in life, without requiring that someone first get a bachelor's degree. For example, someone who is 45 and thinks God wants them to become a pastor...yet, they've been in the insurance business without a bachelor's degree. This way they can go become a pastor without having an additional 4 years for a bachelor's degree.

The bottom line is that I have to wait until the Summer or Fall of 2009 before I can start, because you have to be a day over 35 by the first day of classes, which means that I can't start in the Spring of 2009 because I have an April birthday.

It's ok, though...I'll just be even more prepared by the time I get there.

[Jim Franklin]

Would attending Nazarene Bible College in the meantime be helpful for your preparation for Seminary. I believe there are many who do so. There are a number of other denominations represented at NBC so that should not stop him.

[Billy Cox]

Offering a fast-tracked seminary degree without an age restriction would gut the undergraduate religion programs. It would also devalue the seminary degree.

[Ryan Scott]

Would attending Nazarene Bible College in the meantime be helpful for your preparation for Seminary. I believe there are many who do so.

He's not going to a Nazarene Seminary, but if he were, taking courses online from NBC would probably be a good start.

[Ryan Scott]

Offering a fast-tracked seminary degree without an age restriction would gut the undergraduate religion programs. It would also devalue the seminary degree.


You're certainly right and my first inclination when I heard that a seminary would even admit someone without a bachelor's was shock. However, I realize that this illustrates the different ways the two denominations handle later in life, career change sorts of ministerial calls.

Most denominations will not ordain someone without an MDiv degree, therefore they need some way for older ministers to obtain the requirements without requiring an impractical seven to eight years of schooling.

The Church of the Nazarene does ordain people without the Master's Degree, but we still provide NBC or local module course of study programs to avoid the same lengthy school tenure.

Ultimately it does make sense to me. I'm glad this course of action is open to you, Jamie.

[Jamie Wayne]

yeah...I don't want to waste time or money finishing my bachelor's degree in philosophy if I can just wait it out and save the money for a Th.D.

[Jamie Wayne]

btw - they let non-Anglicans in to their programs at 35, too, so you could get an M.Div from them as a Nazarene if you wanted to.

[Hans Deventer]

You're certainly right and my first inclination when I heard that a seminary would even admit someone without a bachelor's was shock.

Hey, that sounds good!! I'm over 35, and I don't have a bachelor's degree. Would the same apply for other Master's programs? I've once considered a Master's in Spiritual Formation at NNU.

[Ryan Scott]

Hey, that sounds good!! I'm over 35, and I don't have a bachelor's degree. Would the same apply for other Master's programs? I've once considered a Master's in Spiritual Formation at NNU.

Ask Tom Oord; he might be able to pull some strings for you. My Dad's a trustee; I'm sure you could work the Naznet connections.

[Jamie Wayne]

Hey, that sounds good!! I'm over 35, and I don't have a bachelor's degree. Would the same apply for other Master's programs? I've once considered a Master's in Spiritual Formation at NNU.

Any of the ATS accredited seminaries in the US and Canada comply to the 35 rule. 10% of their student body is allowed to be admitted without a bachelor's degree, according to the ATS.

The exemption at Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry applies not only to their M.Div, but to all of their Master's level work.

I'm thinking of the M.A.R. (honours) degree, specializing in systematic theology...or, possibly, Church history.

[Jamie Wayne]

I don't know if NNU is accredited by the ATS as a seminary or theological or Bible school. If it's not accredited by the ATS, I don't think that you'll find such an exemption, Hans, but I could be wrong.

[Ryan Scott]

I don't know if NNU is accredited by the ATS as a seminary or theological or Bible school. If it's not accredited by the ATS, I don't think that you'll find such an exemption, Hans, but I could be wrong.


I'm not sure if the Master's of Spiritual Formation is or not. I know their new MDiv is not, but only regionally accredited. There is a limit to how many classes the ATS will allow to be done online (among other things).

[Jamie Wayne]

There are also residency requirements at TESM. M.Div students havr to live there for two years; for the M.A.R., there is only a one year requirement. I don't think it's an ATS requirement, but more of a requirement by TESM so that their students get a communal experience worshiping together as seminarians, etc...

Other places may have different standards; however, the Diploma of Anglican Studies (DAS), which is usually for those who have M.Div's from other denominations, so they can become Anglican priests, is offered entirely online...but it's not a degree itself, but a sort of add on to a Master's degree.

[Dave McClung]

The age requirement is exactly the issue - it is for students who haven't completed a bachelor's degree, like myself, and is part of accreditation for theological schools. They can't change the rule or make exceptions.

The rationale for the exemption, allowing admission to older students without having a bachelor's degree, is that seminary educations are usually about a vocational calling to ministry, so they want to be able to promote people's calling, especially later in life, without requiring that someone first get a bachelor's degree. For example, someone who is 45 and thinks God wants them to become a pastor...yet, they've been in the insurance business without a bachelor's degree. This way they can go become a pastor without having an additional 4 years for a bachelor's degree.

The bottom line is that I have to wait until the Summer or Fall of 2009 before I can start, because you have to be a day over 35 by the first day of classes, which means that I can't start in the Spring of 2009 because I have an April birthday.

It's ok, though...I'll just be even more prepared by the time I get there.

Have you considered using the two years to get a bachelor's degree? One can never have too much education.

[Jamie Wayne]

I see that as a waste of time and money, Dave. I could set the money aside for a Th.D, instead of spending it on finishing my bachelor's in philosophy.

I agree that one can never have too much education, but I'm not doing too bad for being mostly "self taught".

[Jamie Wayne]

Hans,

The Nazarene Theological Seminary is ATS accredited.

http://www.ats.edu/member_schools/denom.asp

You might have success there.

They don't have a Master's in Spiritual Formation, but they do offer the following:

M.Div., M.A. in Christian Education, M.A. in Missiology, M.A. (Theological Studies), D.Min.

They do have a Certificate in Spiritual Formation, however.

Jamie

[Billie Goodson]

yeah...I don't want to waste time or money finishing my bachelor's degree in philosophy if I can just wait it out and save the money for a Th.D.

Gee Jamie, why not waste the money. Be like the rest of us who have degrees that have no application to what we do now! :p

I think you are right, you have to weigh all of the factors and make the best decision for you. The COTN has a program that allows for the fulfillment of ordination requirements that is more locally administered. It used to be some form of a home study program, but, I think it has moved to more module based formal instruction. Is anyone familiar with that enough to talk about what the curriculum is and what are the requirements to get into it.

I also know that there is Continuing Lay Training available now online from the COTN. They have really begun to expand the offerings there and offer many different areas of specialization/study. You can access that at www.clt.nazarene.org

[Jamie Wayne]

Thanks, Billie.

About 8 months ago I stumbled across CLT online, and I qualifed for Sunday School Superintendent and completed the Membership Module in about an hour while cooking breakfast on a Saturday morning. It was really quite a joke that I could qualify for Sunday School Superintendent without reading any of the books. The tests were easy. I kept going only to see whether I'd hit a wall where I couldn't breeze through them, but eventually I got bored of passing them all.

I have inquired into the Certificate of Lay Ministry, but because I'm not a Nazarene, I can't apply.

I've thought about the Certificate in Theological and Doctrinal Studies, but I've already passed the tests for two of the books without reading them, and it looks too easy. What's the point of a Certificate in Theological and Doctrinal Studies when I can pass the whole course without doing any work? It's too easy. I suppose that I would learn something by reading the books, but I don't think that these courses are for people who have already tackled more advanced studies like I have.

Besides, I'm still not a member of the CotN, and so far nobody has asked me to teach anything...so, I haven't even requested the certificates for the modules that I have passed. What's the point?

I appreciate your suggestion, though, Billie.

[Jamie Wayne]

Another thing: I had thought that maybe the CLT courses would help me get into a seminary, but they're so easy that they don't really add any credibility...plus, I'll be a shoe in for Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, anyway...when I hit 35 and a day.

I'm not saying that CLT isn't any good, though. I'm sure that the programs are very good for many people, but so far they've been way too easy for me. I reckon if somebody didn't know what TULIP stood for, example, they'd have problems with the Certificate of Theological and Doctrinal Studies (yes, it was a question on one of the tests), but I already know all of that stuff. It being too easy for me doesn't mean that it wouldn't be a challenge for someone else, so I'm not trying to put CLT down at all.

[Glenda Harvey]

Gee Jamie, why not waste the money. Be like the rest of us who have degrees that have no application to what we do now! :p

I think you are right, you have to weigh all of the factors and make the best decision for you. The COTN has a program that allows for the fulfillment of ordination requirements that is more locally administered. It used to be some form of a home study program, but, I think it has moved to more module based formal instruction. Is anyone familiar with that enough to talk about what the curriculum is and what are the requirements to get into it.

I also know that there is Continuing Lay Training available now online from the COTN. They have really begun to expand the offerings there and offer many different areas of specialization/study. You can access that at www.clt.nazarene.org

I think Greg Farra who is on this board is a locally administered COTN ordination program.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

The CLT courses, in my opinion are basically for laymen-not that others cannot take them. You can take courses on the computer for ministerial training through NBC.
A man in our church plans to go to Colorado to graduate next May.
You could have someone check on the district that you live on where you go for the ministerial course. One of my nieces had a degree in business, married and had four children, one being a little black boy that they adopted. She had to drive from the Charleston, SC area to Columbia, SC, and spend the night for her ministerial training. I imagine some of her courses from TNU counted, also. I would imagine you would have to be a member of the COTN to do this.

[Greg Farra]

I think Greg Farra who is on this board is a locally administered COTN ordination program.

I just started the Course of Study (COS). It's an Adult Certificate Program, not a degree. Anyone can take them, and they're easy to enroll in. Some people take them for personal growth, and some, like me, are hearing a calling and taking them for possible ordination. MVNU runs the program I'm in, and they have on and off campus locations. I've taken four courses, with seven needed to apply for a district license. I believe the UMC has a similar program.

This may not help you, Jamie, but you can check into if you'd like. And, of course, you could always become a Nazarene!:fav18

If you go to Nazarene.org, you can find the clergy developement page and it has information on ordination.

[Jamie Wayne]

I'm not interesting in ordination in the CotN.

$120 per credit hour seems like too much considering I wouldn't be able to roll the credits over into a Master's program at TESM. It's a good price if they could be, though, for sure.

It sounds like it would be a waste of money. I'd rather take the money and buy more books with it. :)

Thanks for the info, though, Greg...I appreciate it.

[Hans Deventer]

Hans,

The Nazarene Theological Seminary is ATS accredited.

http://www.ats.edu/member_schools/denom.asp

You might have success there.

They don't have a Master's in Spiritual Formation

Well, that is the only subject that I would be able to get going for. I'm not interested in ontological discussions on the Trinity. I've come to a point that I can do quite well with the theological luggage I have gathered so far, to a point where I understand that I need Jesus more than any added theological knowledge. Hence my interest in Spiritual formation.

Sure, I'll keep reading. And there are still enough good books around. And they will help my thinking. But when push comes to shove, I'm not saved by right thinking, but by grace, by knowing Christ and putting that "knowing" into action.

[Jamie Wayne]

It's too bad that they don't have what you want, Hans. Maybe somewhere else has something more like what you're after.

[Ryan Scott]

I imagine Doug Hardy will be pushing for a Spiritual Formation degree at NTS as soon as the demand can justify it. His coming to the faculty has boosted the spiritual formation component of all the degrees offered. I very much enjoy his contributions to the community.


Even if NTS did offer what he wanted, Hans would also have to be willing to either move to KC or travel here a couple times a year for classes. An online program has a lot of benefits in that area.

[Jamie Wayne]

Has it occurred to you, Hans, that some are called to study spiritual formation and others are called to study systematic theology? I detect occasional streaks of negativity from you regarding systematic theology, and while I understand what you're saying, I think that systematic theology is still a subject worthy of academic study. God calls some to be preachers and others to be teachers, etc... God calls some to deeply think about the ontology of the Trinity - and others not to. Because you think you've gotten to a point where you don't need to study theology anymore, with it's baggage, well...that sounds awfully loaded and negative, as if it would be silly for me to pursue a degree in systematic theology...that I should get over it and move on to something actually important. I agree that we're not saved by right thinking, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't care about right thinking or consider right thinking some sort of baggage that we should like to get rid of.

I don't know if that's what you meant, Hans, but sometimes your language about systematic theology can seem rather negative...

[Hans Deventer]

I don't know if that's what you meant, Hans, but sometimes your language about systematic theology can seem rather negative...

That is correct. It IS rather negative. To me, systematic theology is an attempt to reach what cannot be reached (a comprehensive, systematic and truthful way of talking about God) and in the process, leaves different Biblical data crippled by the side of the road. Wonderful example is TULIP Calvinism. Beautifully arranged, with every next statement following logically from the previous one. And dead wrong.
I think systematic theology inevitably leads to distortion of the Bible's message, for the very simple reason that the Bible was never meant to be that body of neatly arranged truth. So if one tries to mold it into some kind of shape, based on whatever epistemology one might adhere to, one damages rather than enhances the message.

The early church was wise in mainly stating what isn't true about the Trinity, for all the attempts at systematic logic went off track.

Honestly, I can't and won't try to stop anyone who wants to study systematic theology. It's not mine to judge. I can only state how I feel about it.

To me, the purpose of the Scriptures is to get to know Christ. And that is really all I need.

You know, I obviously have a history here. Around 30 years ago I was very much into eschatology. Lots of discussions with hot heads and cold hearts.
Later on, I got into Wesleyan theology. Now Wesley never wrote a systematic theology, and the more I read about him, the more I understood why that was the case. He certainly had the capacity and the mind to do it, but he apparently never felt the need. So why was that? Why then would I feel a need? And slowly on, I came to the conclusion that I could perfectly live without such a systematic theology. The goal is not understanding, the goal is believing. Or, as I wrote before, orthopraxis in stead of orthodoxy.

But Jamie, if your heart beats for the systematic part of theology, who am I to say you shouldn't study it? By all means, if God has laid that on you, go ahead!

I'm just trying to explain why it's not for me.

[Ian Gentles]

That is correct. It IS rather negative. To me, systematic theology is an attempt to reach what cannot be reached (a comprehensive, systematic and truthful way of talking about God) and in the process, leaves different Biblical data crippled by the side of the road. Wonderful example is TULIP Calvinism. Beautifully arranged, with every next statement following logically from the previous one. And dead wrong.
I think systematic theology inevitably leads to distortion of the Bible's message, for the very simple reason that the Bible was never meant to be that body of neatly arranged truth. So if one tries to mold it into some kind of shape, based on whatever epistemology one might adhere to, one damages rather than enhances the message.

The early church was wise in mainly stating what isn't true about the Trinity, for all the attempts at systematic logic went off track.

Honestly, I can't and won't try to stop anyone who wants to study systematic theology. It's not mine to judge. I can only state how I feel about it.

To me, the purpose of the Scriptures is to get to know Christ. And that is really all I need.

You know, I obviously have a history here. Around 30 years ago I was very much into eschatology. Lots of discussions with hot heads and cold hearts.
Later on, I got into Wesleyan theology. Now Wesley never wrote a systematic theology, and the more I read about him, the more I understood why that was the case. He certainly had the capacity and the mind to do it, but he apparently never felt the need. So why was that? Why then would I feel a need? And slowly on, I came to the conclusion that I could perfectly live without such a systematic theology. The goal is not understanding, the goal is believing. Or, as I wrote before, orthopraxis in stead of orthodoxy.

But Jamie, if your heart beats for the systematic part of theology, who am I to say you shouldn't study it? By all means, if God has laid that on you, go ahead!

I'm just trying to explain why it's not for me.


I love, love, systematic theology, also historical theology. It shows me how others are thinking.

[Hans Deventer]

I love, love, systematic theology, also historical theology. It shows me how others are thinking.

Yes. But I read lots of books that aren't systematic theology and still show me how others are thinking.

Listen, I'm only giving my personal consideration. Don't let anyone feel attacked or some such!!!!! I'm just giving my opinion, right?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

TO HANS-----Systematic theology---Then you may understand a little of why I initially got so upset with a theologian that used to post quite often on Naznet. I felt people needed to hear the truth in a way that they could understand it. But, I did write and apologize to him a few months ago, and he accepted my apology.

[Pete Vecchi]

The age requirement is exactly the issue - it is for students who haven't completed a bachelor's degree, like myself, and is part of accreditation for theological schools. They can't change the rule or make exceptions.

The rationale for the exemption, allowing admission to older students without having a bachelor's degree, is that seminary educations are usually about a vocational calling to ministry, so they want to be able to promote people's calling, especially later in life, without requiring that someone first get a bachelor's degree. For example, someone who is 45 and thinks God wants them to become a pastor...yet, they've been in the insurance business without a bachelor's degree. This way they can go become a pastor without having an additional 4 years for a bachelor's degree.

The bottom line is that I have to wait until the Summer or Fall of 2009 before I can start, because you have to be a day over 35 by the first day of classes, which means that I can't start in the Spring of 2009 because I have an April birthday.

It's ok, though...I'll just be even more prepared by the time I get there.

Is there something you can do short of going to seminary that would allow you to become a pastor? Our district has a course of study that can be taken for ministerial candidates which, after the candidates have completed a certain part (I believe 20 or 25%), they can qualify for a district minister's license, in which case they can then pastor a congregation. These district study programs ahould also offer enough education to qualify a person educationally for ordination.

That's the path I took, and I know of several district licensed ministers on this district who are hoping to be ordained soon after completing the last 2 required classes or so.

[Jamie Wayne]

That is correct. It IS rather negative. To me, systematic theology is an attempt to reach what cannot be reached...

Hans,

I think of it similarly to how I view philosophy. Some consider philosophy a waste of time because, ultimately, we're not going to have all of the answers. Yet, to me, it's not really about the answers so much as it is understanding the questions.

I think systematic theology inevitably leads to distortion of the Bible's message, for the very simple reason that the Bible was never meant to be that body of neatly arranged truth. So if one tries to mold it into some kind of shape, based on whatever epistemology one might adhere to, one damages rather than enhances the message.

Sure, some have done that, and I can't argue against that. However, I just got home from the Northeast Ohio Family Camp Meeting, and I bought a couple of books at their book table, including Wynkoop's "Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology". You should be happy that I'm trying to study the theological roots of the Nazarene tradition. Regardless, Wynkoop had a Th.D - a doctorate in THEOLOGY. Thomas Oord teaches THEOLOGY. Two of the most beloved books around on HOLINESS are written by THEOLOGIANS. For someone who has such a low view of systematic theology, you certainly are a big fan of some books written by people who have spent a whole lot of time studying THEOLOGY. Of course, not all theology is systematic theology, but I'm certain that anyone with an advanced degree in theology has studied their fair share of systematic theology to get them to the place where they're at. What's Oord's epistemology? Is he trying to distort the Bible's message? You may not like systematic theology, but you certainly do appreciate some of the benefits that you receive from people who have studied it.

The early church was wise in mainly stating what isn't true about the Trinity, for all the attempts at systematic logic went off track.

I agree, but there was a systematic theology involved, wasn't there? Weren't they using philosophical constructs even while providing a reasonable framework?

Honestly, I can't and won't try to stop anyone who wants to study systematic theology. It's not mine to judge. I can only state how I feel about it.

I appreciate that, Hans, but you have benefited in a myriad of ways from systematic theology...so it's not ALL bad. I'm not saying that you think that it's all bad, but, while there is reasonable room for some negativity, there is also considerable room for supporting academic theology - including systematic theology. Isn't there?

To me, the purpose of the Scriptures is to get to know Christ. And that is really all I need.

That's great, Hans. Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. I agree. However, we both are in fellowship with churches that are built upon systematic theology...and we can't ignore that. This forum, for that matter, isn't a "Spiritual Formation" forum...it's a THEOLOGY forum. Seminarians who become Nazarene pastors study, among other things, systematic theology. Seminaries don't tell their seminarians that all we really need is the Bible. Well, hopefully they do say that, but it's also qualified by much academic work...including, once again, systematic theology.

You know, I obviously have a history here. Around 30 years ago I was very much into eschatology. Lots of discussions with hot heads and cold hearts. Later on, I got into Wesleyan theology. Now Wesley never wrote a systematic theology, and the more I read about him, the more I understood why that was the case. He certainly had the capacity and the mind to do it, but he apparently never felt the need. So why was that? Why then would I feel a need? And slowly on, I came to the conclusion that I could perfectly live without such a systematic theology. The goal is not understanding, the goal is believing. Or, as I wrote before, orthopraxis in stead of orthodoxy.

Yes, systematic theology is not necessary...though I wouldn't be surprised if Wesley, even though he didn't write "systematic theology" studied it himself.

Additionally, I don't like your idea of orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy. I think that orthopraxy follows orthodoxy - not the other way around. Orthopraxy is VERY important, no doubt, but think of it like this, looking at Reformed orthodoxy, what orthopraxy follows from it? We can't have orthopraxy without orthodoxy. I know what you're saying (I think), but I respectfully disagree.

But Jamie, if your heart beats for the systematic part of theology, who am I to say you shouldn't study it? By all means, if God has laid that on you, go ahead!

Thank you, Hans.

I'm just trying to explain why it's not for me.

I can appreciate that; thank you.

[Jamie Wayne]

Is there something you can do short of going to seminary that would allow you to become a pastor? Our district has a course of study that can be taken for ministerial candidates which, after the candidates have completed a certain part (I believe 20 or 25%), they can qualify for a district minister's license, in which case they can then pastor a congregation. These district study programs ahould also offer enough education to qualify a person educationally for ordination.

That's the path I took, and I know of several district licensed ministers on this district who are hoping to be ordained soon after completing the last 2 required classes or so.

Pete,

Yes, I could become an Anglican deacon without going to seminary. That is an angle that I have (and am) pursuing. That will take some time, too, because of the political issues going on between the Episcopal church (ECUSA) and the Anglican church. I may, actually, be able to take advantage of the situation at some point, but that isn't going to happen anytime too soon.

btw - I don't really want to be a pastor. I'd rather do Christian education or something more academic in the Church, but I'm not really a pastoral type of dude. I'd probably make a better "canon theologian" than I would a pastor.

Thank you for your suggestions.

Jamie

[Brian Blankenship]

Jaime, I really appreciate where you are coming from. I have had the privelege of studying systematic theology in both college(at Trevecca) and at NTS. Its great to be able to study systems of theological study. One thing they told us about seminary. Its at seminary that you really learn how to be analytical. It seems to me after reading your thoughts on the matter that you already understand a great deal about learning how to be analytical.

Also, I have been on the other side. If you become a pastor, people in your church aren't going to care that you studied systematic theology or what the proper understanding of epistemology, ontology, or Wesleyan Theology is. They are however going to be greatly concerned about your understanding of scripture and how it affects them, and can change their lives.

[Brian Blankenship]

Systematic theology is not what we preach from the pulpit, but it is the framework we use of how we understand and talk about God. Both are valid. And I understand where you are coming from in your love of philosophy. I had as much as a minor in philosophy at Trevecca, and I loved the philosophy courses I had at seminary. It seems to me that if you feel you need to study it, go right ahead, either on your own, or at the seminary of your choosing.

[Jamie Wayne]

From Wynkoop's "Foundations of Wesleyan-Arminian Theology":

We must also understand our sister churches whose doctrine of salvation differs somewhat from ours. Mutual understanding does much to establish a basis of fellowship, and erases the suspicions and misinterpretations which drain away spiritual strength."I would argue that systematic theology has a place in ecumenism for the reason that Wynkoop lists as one of the purposes of her book. If all that I know is the theology of my own denomination, then I am very limited in being able to empathize with other denominations, because I don't understand them. Consequently, they are seen as the "other". When many don't know their own theology, it makes it even harder to understand the "other". When "folk theology" dominates, it is even harder to understand ones own theology - and that of the "other". Systematic theology can help to break down the barriers, and it can also serve to help us deal with many of the ill effects of practices that are derived from folk theologies.

Practically, consider the example of Mariology or Marianism: there is a Catholic "folk theology" which results in Mariolatry. Some Catholics truly "worship" Mary, yet, having studied Catholicism, and Marianism, in particular, I know the difference between dulia, hyperdulia, and latria. I know that the reverence and adoration that Catholic doctrine actually teaches falls under hyperdulia, an adoration reserved for Mary alone - an adoration which does not run contrary to worship, or latria, which is reserved for God alone. Yet, many Catholics do not know their own doctrine, and heteropraxy follows as a result of "folk theology". Isn't this a case where orthopraxy should follow orthodoxy? I think so. If Catholics knew their own doctrine better, then they would be more clear, especially when dealing ecumenically with Protestants, that they do NOT worship Mary. We would more easily be able to understand that Mary DOES have a very special place, and we wouldn't be so prone to simply ignore Mary, as we often have, as a reactionary measure against what is often the misunderstanding that Catholics "worship" Mary. It certainly doesn't help that some Catholics wrongly (according to their own doctrine) DO worship Mary - but the fact is that they shouldn't. As a consequence, we miss out on learning something from Catholics that we have often neglected.

There are many more examples, but generally we seem content with staying among our own kind rather than looking at other denominations from the perspective that they are like relatives that we've never met that we should embrace as family, like we would at a family reunion. Instead, we turn "Calvinism", for example, into a bad word.

Wynkoop writes in the introduction to the same book, quoting John Wesley:

"It is the duty of every Arminian reacher, First, never in public or in private, to use the word Calvinist as a term of reproach."I would apply the same principle to "Roman Catholic"...but wait a minute - they worship Mary!

[Hans Deventer]

For someone who has such a low view of systematic theology, you certainly are a big fan of some books written by people who have spent a whole lot of time studying THEOLOGY. Of course, not all theology is systematic theology, but I'm certain that anyone with an advanced degree in theology has studied their fair share of systematic theology to get them to the place where they're at. What's Oord's epistemology? Is he trying to distort the Bible's message? You may not like systematic theology, but you certainly do appreciate some of the benefits that you receive from people who have studied it.

Sure. Could be. And some of the backdrops as well.

I'm not against theology, by the way! I love Biblical theology as originally intended.



I agree, but there was a systematic theology involved, wasn't there? Weren't they using philosophical constructs even while providing a reasonable framework?

Sure, but what is the goal?

I appreciate that, Hans, but you have benefited in a myriad of ways from systematic theology...so it's not ALL bad.

No, it isn't all bad. There are good things in there as well. One can't help doing some good wrestling with the message of the Bible, even if the goal itself is wrong.

I'm not saying that you think that it's all bad, but, while there is reasonable room for some negativity, there is also considerable room for supporting academic theology - including systematic theology. Isn't there?

There are lots of reasons to support academic theology! Please don't get me wrong there. I'm just not to keen on the systematic part of it.

That's great, Hans. Scripture contains all things necessary for salvation. I agree. However, we both are in fellowship with churches that are built upon systematic theology...and we can't ignore that.

Are we? Arminius didn't provide one, Wesley didn't either. Sure, some Holiness and Nazarene authors have tried to write one, but I would certainly challenge the idea that the CotN is "built upon systematic theology". I don't think it is.

This forum, for that matter, isn't a "Spiritual Formation" forum...it's a THEOLOGY forum. Seminarians who become Nazarene pastors study, among other things, systematic theology. Seminaries don't tell their seminarians that all we really need is the Bible. Well, hopefully they do say that, but it's also qualified by much academic work...including, once again, systematic theology.

You know, that may indeed be the main issue. What does the church need? Do we lack information? Proper theology? If that were the case, the seminary and universities should produce theologians by the thousands. Or are we lacking in being disciples of Christ? If that is the case, perhaps the seminary and universities should produce people that can lead us into following Christ rather than teaching us the "right" way. The idea that the truth is so important, is a modern idea anyway. As if I am saved by right thinking. Well, I'm not!



Yes, systematic theology is not necessary...though I wouldn't be surprised if Wesley, even though he didn't write "systematic theology" studied it himself.

Wesley read and studied almost anything he could get his hands on.


Additionally, I don't like your idea of orthopraxy instead of orthodoxy. I think that orthopraxy follows orthodoxy - not the other way around.

Well, that may be our key disagreement. What we need in orthodoxy is very, very limited. The Apostle's creed or the Nicean creed will do, and perhaps we can even do with less. We don't need a lot of teaching there. We do need a lot of teaching on following Christ.

Look at Jesus Himself. He didn't give the "Introduction to the Old Testament" course for three years. He taught what it is to live like God wants us to live. And surely that has lots of practical implications you can talk about, but His teachings are far more practical than theoretical, let alone systematical.

Yes, we need girls and guys who get into all the current and historic theologies. Who teach at seminaries and theology courses. Who help us articulate our faith in the 21st centuries. And I understand and appreciate they will also get into systematic theologies. (It's a dirty job, but someone 's got to do it :basic03). And I am very willing to listen to them.

But we most of all need the girls and guys who teach is how to LIVE the holy life. Especially because proper behaviour does not automaticly follow proper teaching. That's probably the worst mistake the church has made since the Reformation.

[Jamie Wayne]

It is my view that systematic theology is about coherency. Shouldn't our doctrinal positions be coherent? Consider the Nazarene Articles of Faith: shouldn't there be coherency among Articles?

From the perspective of apologetics, how are we to explain our faith to a critic if our theology is not coherent?

We aren't saved by our coherency, thank God, but that doesn't mean that we are exempt from making sense - especially if we are to be prepared to give an account of our faith. What good is it to give an incoherent account of Christian belief?

We may say that Arminius and Wesley didn't write a "systematic theology" like Calvin or Barth, but they certainly were concerned with coherency in what they did write. The test should not, I think, be whether they attempted to write a "systematic theology", then, but whether they applied the principle of coherency to what they did write. In fact, Arminius' position on predestination absolutely is about such coherency, because he thought it incoherent that God be the author of sin - that sort of incoherency, especially as posited by Beza, seemed to lead to positively blasphemous conclusions. Arminius was taking a "systematic" theological approach when he formulated his view, as it had to do with grace, faith, sin, Christology, divine decree, predestination, and all sorts of interrelated subjects that demanded coherency as a whole. In this sense, though Arminius did not write a "systematic theology", as Calvin or Barth did, Arminius certainly was writing with systematic theology in mind.

I don't really think that I need to argue my case, but I think this is a useful discussion...perhaps one that should be in the theology forum, where I had originally put this thread.

[Ian Gentles]

Beza messed up Calvanism adding his own interpretations.

[Jamie Wayne]

Beza messed up Calvinism by taking it one step further than Calvin did...not necessarily by his own interpretation (though that was a part of it), but Calvin took Augustine's view to its logical conclusion, and Beza took Calvin's view to its logical conclusion - a conclusion that neither Augustine nor Calvin were willing to posit, i.e., that God was the author of sin.

As an Anglican, I admire the Wesleyan-Arminian position precisely because of how it makes predestination and election palatable to me, as I am unwilling to take Augustine's conclusions to the place where Calvin, Beza, and others went.

[Ian Gentles]

Calvin was an evolving theologian had he lived longer he would probaly have changed more.

[Jamie Wayne]

If Calvin had lived longer, perhaps he wouldn't have let "Calvinism" go as far as it did...but the same is true of Luther of Lutheranism and Augustine of Augstinianism and even Wesley of Wesleyanism - not to mention Jesus of Christianity.

[Ian Gentles]

If Calvin had lived longer, perhaps he wouldn't have let "Calvinism" go as far as it did...but the same is true of Luther of Lutheranism and Augustine of Augstinianism and even Wesley of Wesleyanism - not to mention Jesus of Christianity.



Jesus was truth in flesh, dont get too liberal ;)

[Jamie Wayne]

Bugger off! :fun03

[Brian Blankenship]

If Calvin had lived longer, perhaps he wouldn't have let "Calvinism" go as far as it did...but the same is true of Luther of Lutheranism and Augustine of Augstinianism and even Wesley of Wesleyanism - not to mention Jesus of Christianity.

I don't think you can include Jesus in this group. He is the standard that the rest are judged by.

[Jamie Wayne]

Jaime, I don't think that is an appropriate response.

I thought that it was a playful response to Ian. If he is offended, then I'd gladly apologize to him.

It is easy for someone to misunderstand a message not intended for them.

[Jamie Wayne]

I don't think you can include Jesus in this group. He is the standard that the rest are judged by.

Either you've misunderstood my point, or I've misrepresented what I meant.

The followers of Augustine took Augustinian theology to a point where Augustine might not have supported their conclusions.

Lutherans have taken Lutheranism to a point where Luther might not have supported their conclusions.

The same is true for Calvin, Wesley, and Jesus.

[Hans Deventer]

It is my view that systematic theology is about coherency. Shouldn't our doctrinal positions be coherent? Consider the Nazarene Articles of Faith: shouldn't there be coherency among Articles?

Not more than can be found in the Scriptures.

From the perspective of apologetics, how are we to explain our faith to a critic if our theology is not coherent?

Not. The truth is a Person you have to get to know, not a theory or theology to be believed. The Bible wasn't written for us to analyse and systematize. It was written in order for us to find God, and more specifically, Christ. We don't have to build this great system of Coherent Christian Theology. God never wanted us too, and the world doesn't need it.

I even dislike the word, but the "Biblical data" are more like a jigsaw puzzle with lot's of pieces missing then anything else. Even when knowing Christ, bunches of questions remain. It seems like it was almost written with the purpose to be elusive, perhaps especially for the modern mind. Now why would that be?

We aren't saved by our coherency, thank God, but that doesn't mean that we are exempt from making sense - especially if we are to be prepared to give an account of our faith. What good is it to give an incoherent account of Christian belief?

I stopped giving accounts at all. I know C.S. Lewis was converted by ratio, but I never heard anyone else who took that way. Most find Christ when they see something of Him in other people.

We may say that Arminius and Wesley didn't write a "systematic theology" like Calvin or Barth, but they certainly were concerned with coherency in what they did write. The test should not, I think, be whether they attempted to write a "systematic theology", then, but whether they applied the principle of coherency to what they did write. In fact, Arminius' position on predestination absolutely is about such coherency, because he thought it incoherent that God be the author of sin - that sort of incoherency, especially as posited by Beza, seemed to lead to positively blasphemous conclusions. Arminius was taking a "systematic" theological approach when he formulated his view, as it had to do with grace, faith, sin, Christology, divine decree, predestination, and all sorts of interrelated subjects that demanded coherency as a whole. In this sense, though Arminius did not write a "systematic theology", as Calvin or Barth did, Arminius certainly was writing with systematic theology in mind.

Sure, but what was the first problem? Beza's systematic theology that indeed turned God into the author of sin! That's exactly my point! It was someone trying to create a great system of logic and coherence, and it turned into blasphemy!

Over here, I often hear people say that salvation is 100% God's work, and 100% man's work. Totally illogic and incoherent. But I think it's true all the same.


I don't really think that I need to argue my case, but I think this is a useful discussion...perhaps one that should be in the theology forum, where I had originally put this thread.

I'll put it back. The topic has changed considerably.

[Ian Gentles]

I thought that it was a playful response to Ian. If he is offended, then I'd gladly apologize to him.

It is easy for someone to misunderstand a message not intended for them.



LOL no offense taken

[Ian Gentles]

As i have said elswhere, maybe in this thread, I dont see Systematic Theology as wrong or harmfull, it shows what others think, and at other times, in different cultures. I do think we need a new Nazarene Systematic Theology volumn?

[Chris Baker]

Not. The truth is a Person you have to get to know, not a theory or theology to be believed. The Bible wasn't written for us to analyse and systematize. It was written in order for us to find God, and more specifically, Christ. We don't have to build this great system of Coherent Christian Theology. God never wanted us too, and the world doesn't need it.


Isn't this a false dichotomy, though? It's not Jesus or theology. We can have both. You say, and I agree, that the Bible was written in order that we might know God. Who is this God? Who is Jesus? You can't answer those questions without theology.

Now, perhaps our theology needs to take another form. That is very possible. In fact, I would argue that the form of theology should change with the cultural context. But I'm not sure we are beyond the need for theology. In fact, I would argue it's impossible to read the Bible without getting theology.

Again, if the Bible is written that we might find God, then one way to talk about who this God is is through theology. Can you tell me who God and Jesus are without using theology?

[Hans Deventer]

Isn't this a false dichotomy, though? It's not Jesus or theology. We can have both. You say, and I agree, that the Bible was written in order that we might know God. Who is this God? Who is Jesus? You can't answer those questions without theology.

Now, perhaps our theology needs to take another form. That is very possible. In fact, I would argue that the form of theology should change with the cultural context. But I'm not sure we are beyond the need for theology. In fact, I would argue it's impossible to read the Bible without getting theology.

I totally agree. I'm only arguing against systematic theology, not at all against theology as such. That would indeed be impossible.

[Chris Baker]

I totally agree. I'm only arguing against systematic theology, not at all against theology as such. That would indeed be impossible.
Oh, I see, very good then. So what are some other options for talking about theology other than systematically? How or why might they be better?

[Ian Gentles]

systmatic theology is an honorable mind bender

[Jamie Wayne]

Theology should make sense. Systematic theology is about maintaining coherency in theology. What we believe about one aspect of theology usually has consequences for other aspects of theology. Predestination is an excellent example. It would be inconsistent with a Wesleyan view of prevenient grace to also believe in the perserverance of saints. Those two views are pretty much mutually exclusive, so to be coherent, one can't believe in both.

Christology effects our view of the Trinity, as our Trinitarian theology also influences our Christology, which, in turn influences our soteriology.

It all has to make sense together...or it doesn't make sense at all.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Lots of people's theology is not very coherrant to me.

[Brian Blankenship]

Either you've misunderstood my point, or I've misrepresented what I meant.

The followers of Augustine took Augustinian theology to a point where Augustine might not have supported their conclusions.

Lutherans have taken Lutheranism to a point where Luther might not have supported their conclusions.

The same is true for Calvin, Wesley, and Jesus.

I understand what you are saying now! Sorry! Please forgive me.

[Brian Blankenship]

Thanks Jaime!

[Hans Deventer]

It all has to make sense together...or it doesn't make sense at all.

Jamie, I'm approaching 50 and I have believed as long as I can remember. All these years, it has never made sense. My faith is balancing God's amazing love as displayed in Jesus Christ, and the terrible suffering in the world. Neither make any sense to me and I have as yet never read a book that was able to.

Faith isn't about creating a system that makes sense. Faith is about getting to know God despite the myriads of question that remain unanswered. Actually, in the middle of them. Kind of like the story of Job. It's theology for sure, but far from systematic. In fact, Job's friends failed miserably in trying to find some system in the raw data of Job's life.

I think it is exactly this tendency to "try and figure it all out" that puts off guys like Andy. We can't figure it out and we might as well admit it, that would give us a lot more credibility.

[Hans Deventer]

Oh, I see, very good then. So what are some other options for talking about theology other than systematically? How or why might they be better?

Chris, I think I have answered that in my previous posts in this thread. At least, I tried to! :basic05

[Hans Deventer]

systematic theology is an honourable mind bender

Sure, I wouldn't dare to say it was dishonourable.

[Brenda Jackson]

Do we need a system?

Not a man made one!

I was taught Calvinism when I became a believer as an adult, not coming from a Christian home. I got more and more disillusioned with it however on two counts. Using my reasoning, I just could not believe that God preferred the middle classes (I am from the class divided UK) as most of the Reformed churches were in those areas. You rarely found them in the poor areas. And even when people had to travel up to 25 miles or more to attend a Reformed church, they were invariably teachers and other professionals. I just could not accept that it took an educated mind to gain 'enlightenment'. I thought that it should be simple enough for all even the mind of a child to believe in Jesus and want to follow Him, whereas it seemed that you had to understand the 5 points to have assurance of salvation. And then there were the many verses that did not fit in. Calvinists put them down to 'mystery' or have to add a qualifier.

I had also found that Calvinism was not standing up to the trials I was having, and made the discovery that a system must be fit to be tested in the marketplace of life. I nearly lost my faith trying to get my life experiences to fit into Calvinism.

So I am like Hans, I am wary of systems and think that the safest position is not to look to a system but to Christ to teach us Himself with an open mind. It says that only the pure in heart will see God and this is the key. It is through obedience that He will reveal His truth to us and the more that we have the mind of Christ the more we shall solve the inconsistencies in scripture and understand the paradoxes because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual world has its laws just like the material world. Man wants things to be intellectually certain, it was the fault of Adam and Eve, but God wanted them to gain knowledge only from the tree of life or from His revelations. Man who is not in direct communion with God will look elsewhere to satisfy this desire.

We only need a system to keep an organisation going.

[Jamie Wayne]

Jamie, I'm approaching 50 and I have believed as long as I can remember. All these years, it has never made sense. My faith is balancing God's amazing love as displayed in Jesus Christ, and the terrible suffering in the world. Neither make any sense to me and I have as yet never read a book that was able to.

Faith isn't about creating a system that makes sense. Faith is about getting to know God despite the myriads of question that remain unanswered. Actually, in the middle of them. Kind of like the story of Job. It's theology for sure, but far from systematic. In fact, Job's friends failed miserably in trying to find some system in the raw data of Job's life.

I think it is exactly this tendency to "try and figure it all out" that puts off guys like Andy. We can't figure it out and we might as well admit it, that would give us a lot more credibility.

Hans,

I don't think that I'll ever figure it all out. However, what we believe should make a degree of sense. For example, I assume that you believe in total depravity. Believing in total depravity can lead one to certain conclusions. Calvin went one way with total depravity, and Arminius went a different way. Calvin concluded with the perseverance of saints; Arminius rejected Calvin's conclusion. Arminius concluded with prevenient grace for all men; Beza took Calvin's conclusion to mean that God is the author of sin. Should we not try to make sense of this? Sure, our faith is not in what we believe, but in whom we believe; that much is certain. However, the matter of reality is that we are not only "Christians", but members of specific denominations that have certain doctrinal tenets that sometimes are mutually exclusive to each other. Can a Nazarene properly believe in God being the author of sin? Can a Nazarene properly believe in the perseverance of saints? Why not? Partially, because the doctrines that Nazarenes belief are inconsistent with God as the author of sin and the perseverance of saints. In other words, believing Nazarene doctrine and these other doctrines at the same time leads to incoherence. If one doesn't critically look at what one believes, one may not even realize that there are incoherencies in ones beliefs. Part of being critical of ones beliefs is doing systematic theology - not believing "in" systematic theology, but doing systematic theology to discover more fully what one does and does not believe about the God in whom we do believe.

Additionally, how are we to explain our faith to someone new to the faith or someone who is seeking information about our faith if we give them a bunch of incoherent information? Is that going to be very convincing? We shouldn't be arguing anyone into the faith, but there is an apologetic rational for coherency, as well. Not only should we be honest with ourselves, but we should be honest with others, too.

This is not to say that we have all of the answers, but I don't think that we should posit answers that are mutually exclusive, and, therefore, incoherent, either.

Jamie

[Hans Deventer]

If one doesn't critically look at what one believes, one may not even realize that there are incoherencies in ones beliefs.

I'm sure there are incoherencies in my beliefs. I'm also sure it will be this way until I get to heaven or the Lord returns. I'm not too much of an optimist. If no one has been able to make sense of this world for the last couple of millennia, chances are, I'm not going to figure it out in my life time.
But far more important, I don't think we were ever meant to.


Additionally, how are we to explain our faith to someone new to the faith or someone who is seeking information about our faith if we give them a bunch of incoherent information? Is that going to be very convincing? We shouldn't be arguing anyone into the faith, but there is an apologetic rational for coherency, as well. Not only should we be honest with ourselves, but we should be honest with others, too.

That's exactly what I am trying to do. Not selling a system of coherency, but being honest with the incoherencies of faith. Which really means that the truth is not system to be proved, but a person to be believed. That's what it comes down to all the time. Sure, within theology there are many beliefs that try to make sense of parts of our faith. We have to, that's the way we are made. But we haven't got the grand picture, the answers to the real questions, and we might as well admit it. That would help our credibility rather than hinder it, I'd say. I'd rather share my doubts than my systematic theologies, as coherent as they may seem.

This is not to say that we have all of the answers, but I don't think that we should posit answers that are mutually exclusive, and, therefore, incoherent, either.

Sometimes, we'll just have to. The Scriptures are full of paradoxes. And I actually believe it is within the tension of those paradoxes, that God can be found.

[Jamie Wayne]

Hans,

I am in dialogue with an Anglican Bishop. He is writing a book on the Anglican 39 Articles. His position on Anglican Article XVII (Of Predestination and Election) is quite Calvinistic. He is positing most of the classical arguments of Calvinism. In fact, he explicitly rejects Arminianism as a false teaching because, he says, that Arminianism rejects total depravity. Well, he's certainly wrong about that, as the only point of TULIP that the Remonstrants agreed with was total depravity. Nevertheless, he is arguing that his view is coherent and that Arminianism isn't. How do I convince him otherwise except by logic and coherency? If we all have open minds, then logic is a very useful tool to be used in the service of God. I am trying to show him that the Wesleyan-Arminian position is perfectly compatible with Article XVII, but I can't do that with a bunch of incoherent arguments.

I can't "prove" that I'm right and that he's wrong. Ultimately there is the mystery of it all, but I can show how what I'm saying is coherent, and, therefore, not logically impossible. Am I wrong, in my support of the Wesleyan-Arminian position, to be applying systematic theology to my dialogue with an Anglican Bishop who has mostly sided with the Reformed view?

Here is an excerpt from my response to him; each paragraph is pulled from my response...so this isn't meant to flow like my response to him does:

It is one thing to suggest that Arminianism fails because it claims to know the basis God uses for His election, but it has already been said that “No one is beyond the reach of God’s saving grace or the sufficiency of Christ’s atoning work on the Cross. All who come will be received and those who come will never be cast away.” If this is true, how can we condemn Arminius for saying the same thing? If we believe that Christ will save all who come to Him, then on what basis could we reject the possibility that the elect are none other than those who God already knows will choose Him? Unless we support open theism, which posits that God does not know the future, it seems that we have no reason to suspect that God could not know who would choose Him, and since we believe that God does not refuse anyone who comes to Him, why should we not believe that God has chosen those who have chosen Him?

It is quite true that the initium fidei begins with God’s grace and not of our own doing. In fact, of the five points of Calvinism, per the Synod of Dort, total depravity is the only point that the Remonstrants agreed with. Therefore, the argument that Arminianism fails because of its neglect of total depravity only applies to those few extreme Arminians who held a pelagian or semi-pelagian view contrary to what Arminius, himself, actually believed, as Arminius certainly didn’t hold a pelagian view, and neither did John Wesley. In this case, it would seem irresponsible to suggest that all of what is called Arminianism fails because of its doctrine of sin, as total depravity is the very basis of the Arminian reliance upon “prevenient grace”.

With the idea of prevenient grace God is not merely “foreseeing what we would do”, but it is actually “His love whereby He determines to send His Holy Spirit to give us the ability and will to turn to Christ in faith.” Prevenient grace, then, enables us to accept the invitation to come to the feast. Since God wants everyone to come to the feast, it only makes sense that God would provide a way that nobody would be excluded. By that we should not mean a universalism by which all would be saved, as Moltmann and others might suggest, but that God gives everyone sufficient grace to choose Him – despite our total depravity. Without His grace we could not choose Him, but since He wants all of us to attend His party, He gives all of us the grace to come. If such is the case that all do not come, then it’s not God’s fault, because He gave us all the ability to freely choose Him. We have nobody to blame but ourselves if we do not choose Him.

Therefore, any doctrine of predestination and election must begin, not with the doctrine of original sin, but the doctrine of God. God is love. Consider St. Augustine’s view of the Trinity for a moment: why is God essentially triune? God is essentially triune because love requires relationship, and if God were merely one, then God could not ontologically be love. It is only in the Trinitarian nature of God that we can say that God is love. The Father loves the Son. The Son loves the Father. St. Augustine viewed the Holy Spirit as the bond of love between them. If there is a prime attribute of God, it is His love. God’s justice follows from His love, not the other way around. Therefore, our doctrine of predestination and election must begin with a God who loves everyone, a God whose desire it is for all of mankind to choose Him, a God who enables all of mankind to love Him by Him loving us first, going before us with the grace that we need because of our total depravity. If we do not start with a God who loves all of us, then we start with a God who only loves some of us, and that is not the God that I worship.

This is all too true. God, in His love, sets all of us free to choose to respond to Him, and nobody can claim to choose God without His grace, which goes before us. This grace is what allows those who persevere to persevere, yet it is also by this same grace that those who do not persevere do not persevere, for the Holy Spirit “does not by-pass our choosing and deciding, but sets us free to choose to respond to the Lord.” By that same freedom, we are free to reject the LORD. In fact, were it not for our ability to choose Him, not choosing Him would mean nothing, for in a state of total depravity none choose to reject God, as none have the choice not to reject God. St. Augustine described this fallen state as non posse non peccare. If we can’t choose God, then it means little if we don’t choose God. Therefore, because God is love and desires for all of us to love Him, He gives to all of us the ability, by grace, to choose Him despite our depravity, thus making our choosing Him possible and making a genuine rejection possible, too.

I would suggest that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the primary sign of election, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is evidenced by producing the fruits of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, our focus in election is to be upon love, which is the primary fruit of the Holy Spirit, as all other fruits begin with love, for the Holy Spirit is love, as God is love. We cannot love God if we do not love our brother, nor can we love God if we do not love our neighbor. If we do not love our brother, we do not love God, nor do we love God if we do not love our neighbor. This does not suggest that we are saved by works; rather this suggests that our salvation is made evident by our love, just as we should be known as Christians by our love, just as Jesus died for our sins because of His love, just as we love God because He loved us first, because God is love, and if Christ lives in us, then His love should be evident in us.

There are many good non-Christians who struggle with sin, too, as God has given all of us a measure of conviction by the Holy Spirit in terms of conscience, so it is not a sign of our election whatsoever that someone has an “inner struggle against indwelling sin”. It is only by the power of the Holy Spirit that anyone struggle against sin, but struggling with sin is no badge of being elect. Indeed, through sanctification our struggle should decrease as we are transformed by the Holy Spirit to be more like Christ, and in that transformation we can reach a point where our heart does not struggle with sin because it is too busy loving God. If we do not believe that the Holy Spirit can transform us to a state of perfect love for God, then we limit the power of God to transform us. If sanctification is the process of becoming more like Christ, then why should we suppose that struggling with sin should be a mark of the elect? Did Jesus struggle with sin? No; He struggled with temptation, but it is no sin to be tempted. Should we suppose that we will not increase in love to the point where we struggle less with sin? As we seek God, we should noticeably be struggling with sin less and less, for perfect love drives out fear, and in love we can have security – not in struggling with sin.

God invites all of us to the dance. We are all invited to come and be a part of the divine love dance of perichoresis, and it is up to us to take His hand. If we do, He will lead us in the dance. If we don’t, then He won’t force us to dance, but how can we be expected to dance if we don’t first hear the music? God has created us to hear the music, and our hearts our restless until our hearts beat in step with His. Indeed, we were created to worship Him, and God gives all of us the grace required to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth. Our sin is our knowing what God created us for, yet willfully rejecting what we were created to be, but, by grace, which is God’s love, because God is love, God is always willing to help us be who He wants us to be. There is nobody beyond the reach of God’s love. We only need to really hear the music which invites us to dance with Him, the eternal dance where we lose ourselves in God and He in us, where I am God’s beloved, and He is mine. Security is found in the beat. When our heart is in rhythm with God’s heart, then there is no fear of damnation. Let nothing deter us from rejoicing in God’s Love; may we love day and night and grow in love forever until there is nothing but love.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Jamie, we are not going to be able to lead someone to Christ if we think we have to use theological terms to do it. Use the plain old words that are so plain that a wayfaring man, though a fool need not err therein. If you truly want to understand the truth of God that is needed to get to heaven, find a place somewhere, where you will be able to cry out to God in earnest, and He will meet your needs. You will never have all of the answers. I wish that you could truly understand what we in the COTN, etal. know about the joy of the Lord, and His living and ruling and reigning in our lives. We care for you, and want to see you understand real salvation that you can have in your heart and life. I don't go around tying to remember all kinds of rules. The Holy Spirit can lead us into truth.

[Jamie Wayne]

Jamie, we are not going to be able to lead someone to Christ if we think we have to use theological terms to do it. Use the plain old words that are so plain that a wayfaring man, though a fool need not err therein. If you truly want to understand the truth of God that is needed to get to heaven, find a place somewhere, where you will be able to cry out to God in earnest, and He will meet your needs. You will never have all of the answers. I wish that you could truly understand what we in the COTN, etal. know about the joy of the Lord, and His living and ruling and reigning in our lives. We care for you, and want to see you understand real salvation that you can have in your heart and life. I don't go around tying to remember all kinds of rules. The Holy Spirit can lead us into truth.

Anne,

What I just wrote was written to an Anglican Bishop, someone who most likely doesn't need me to lead him to Christ, and I'm quite sure that he, like myself and many other non-COTN Christians, understand quite well the joy of the LORD. Despite our theological differences, I think that the Bishop and I do understand "real salvation", and I truly believe that both he and I are relying on the Holy Spirit to lead us into truth.

I have known the LORD for over 20 years, Anne, and, though I appreciate your concern, I do not need your advice on how I can "get saved".

I can use plain words, Anne, but when I'm writing to an Anglican Bishop who has a doctoral degree in theology, big words are not inappropriate; in fact, when referring to excerpts from a draft that he's writing to be an academic textbook, it's actually entirely appropriate.

Jamie

[Hans Deventer]

Hans, I am in dialogue with an Anglican Bishop.

Let me see, the question was, "How are we to explain our faith to someone new to the faith or someone who is seeking information about our faith if we give them a bunch of incoherent information? "

In which category does the Bishop fall? I think, in neither.

And what is the purpose of trying to convince Calvinists of the Wesleyan/Arminian position anyway? Been there, done that and it is a waste of time, unless one is really and honestly "seeking information". In that case, God has very likely already been at work in him and you just have to fill in the blancs.

Of course it is nice to talk about Wesleyan theology. I actually like it myself, and think it is more truthful to the Scriptures. Yet, I have to admit that many sincere Christians think differently, and that God doesn't seem to care a whole lot about our theologies being right or wrong. If so, He would have had Jesus write a book. It seems He was a lot more interested in changing lives, than in changing theologies though.

And that is my point all the time. It's dawning on me that one act of love is more important than reading 1000 theology books. Now that thought in itself is theology, I realize full well. But hardly a full blown systematic one :basic05

You know, this really is starting to influence my preaching as well. I'm not supposed to help people think rightly. I'm supposed to speak the words that change lives. Sure, that will include some thinking. But if all my hearers end up like Mother Theresa and be Roman Catholics, I think neither the Lord nor John Wesley nor Phineas Bresee would really care.

[Jamie Wayne]

Let me see, the question was, "How are we to explain our faith to someone new to the faith or someone who is seeking information about our faith if we give them a bunch of incoherent information? "

In which category does the Bishop fall? I think, in neither.

Neither, you are correct, but it is another example of using systematic theology as a tool - in this case with a Bishop with a Th.D. How are we to have a discussion on our Articles of faith without introducing an element of systematic theology? How are we to interpret the Articles as a whole without seeking coherence?

And what is the purpose of trying to convince Calvinists of the Wesleyan/Arminian position anyway? Been there, done that and it is a waste of time, unless one is really and honestly "seeking information". In that case, God has very likely already been at work in him and you just have to fill in the blancs.I began the dialogue with the Bishop because he was conveniently writing a book on the 39 Articles just as I was inquiring whether Wesleyan-Arminian theology jives with the Anglican Article on predestination and election. I had no idea that he held such a Calvinist view, as Article XVII has room to be interpreted fairly broadly.

I am not trying to convince the Bishop that he is wrong or to convince him to embrace a Wesleyan-Arminian theology. Rather, I am simply trying to argue that the Wesleyan-Arminian position is compatible with Article XVII, which is relevant to the book that he's writing. I won't hold what he believes against him at all, but I'd prefer if he didn't hold what I believe against me, as well. According to the draft of his book, he seems to suggest that the Arminian position is a false teaching contrary to Scripture. You think that it's actually more truthful to Scripture. We are called to LOVE God with our minds, too, and systematic theology is one way that we can love God with our minds.

[Hans Deventer]

Jamie, I'll quit the discussion. I have the feeling you're not addressing the issues I'm proposing, nor answering my questions. I feel like I need to repeat the same things over and over again. That doesn't work.

I think, if we ever would want to continue the discussion, it should be face to face.

Any chance you'll be at the Feb 2008 NNU conference?

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Jamie, my post was in answer tothe question of explaining faith to someone new to faith--not about the bishop. In answer to the question, is when I felt we do not need to explain things in a theological way. It would just confuse them. Understand what I am trying to say?

[Jamie Wayne]

Jamie, I'll quit the discussion. I have the feeling you're not addressing the issues I'm proposing, nor answering my questions. I feel like I need to repeat the same things over and over again.

The feeling is mutual. We're talking about two different things.


Any chance you'll be at the Feb 2008 NNU conference?

Not much of a chance at all...

[Jamie Wayne]

Jamie, my post was in answer tothe question of explaining faith to someone new to faith--not about the bishop. In answer to the question, is when I felt we do not need to explain things in a theological way. It would just confuse them. Understand what I am trying to say?

Thank you for the clarification, Anne.

I converse with many people who do use big words and are fairly deep thinkers. For me to use simple language with them wouldn't work, because Christianity would come across as a bunch of fairy tale nonsense without serious philosophical underpinnings.

St. Paul relied on philosophical methods, too, you know, as did many Church fathers who needed to defend the faith with well reasoned answers. Some don't want or need theological answers, but others do. I suspect that your method would not work at all, Anne, with some of the people that I deal with. Most of the time it's not about "converting" anyone, but simply presenting Christianity as other than a bunch of nonsense. Try dealing with a hard atheist without addressing the problem of evil, for example...many people have intellectual questions about Christianity, and they desire intellectual answers.

The "joy of the LORD" is nothing but psychological mumbo jumbo. You can deceive yourself into believing whatever you want, Anne. There is a "god" part of the brain, after all, so it's no surprise that you have such a longing for something bigger than yourself. All cultures have come up with stories to make themselves feel important, but at the end of the day you'll end up as worm food just like everyone else who thought that some "god" exists to save them. Face it, god is just a myth that we've created because we fear death. What makes you think that your "religion" is more true than any other religion? If you could only free yourself from the illusion that you've put up, then maybe you could live without the need to believe in fairy tales.

When dealing with people who have intellectual problems with Christianity, it's not always enough to simply tell them that "Jesus loves them."

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Jamie, I only hope that you will someday come to terms with the GOD I serve, and we will see you in heaven.
Do you live in Ohio, at an address that has the word Bethlehem in it? Our risen Lord was born in Bethlehem.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Jamie, I do have something bigger than myself--the Holy Spirit whom indwells me....and Dwayne Hood.
My home life before marriage caused me to have many of my problems. Mother would not recognize that I was a Christian. About every thing I did was wrong (supposedly). I was not allowed to grow up, or make my own decisions. You would not begin to beleive the guilt trips that were put on me.
How could I ascertain God's will for my own life? And, I fully believe that she is in heaven.

[Jamie Wayne]

Jamie, I only hope that you will someday come to terms with the GOD I serve, and we will see you in heaven.
Do you live in Ohio, at an address that has the word Bethlehem in it? Our risen Lord was born in Bethlehem.

Why do you suppose that I haven't come to terms with God?

Isn't that a bit presumptuous on your part?

No, I don't live in Bethlehem...

[Wilson L. Deaton]

Wow. I hadn't visited this thread for a while because I had not info or advice for your continued education. I was surprised to see the direction this thread had taken.

My two cents:

As you (Jamie) know from my response to your inquiry with regards to good systematic theology books, I've ceased to be a fan of systematic theology.

I'm not prepared to say that it doesn't have a place at all but here are some reaons that I'M (ME PERSONALLY) not a fan:


It isn't "necessary" in the sense that we could live our entire lives as Christians without ever discussing theories of atonement or transubstantiation or... I believe it is an exercise in fulfilling our own desire to understand and know things that aren't necessarily understandable and knowable.
I think by its nature it creates dissension and adverserial relationships within the body because, quite frankly, there are too many different systems...
I think it can become a consuming distraction.
It gives undue importance to "right thinking" or "right knowledge"). I resonate with the double entendre slogan: "Christianity: It's not what you think."
I think it discourages (or worse) those without an acuity for this kind of thinking. The very use of terms and phrases like soteriology and pneumatology leave the uninitiated feeling left out, if not inferior. It can give the false impression that you have to be smart and educated to be a good Christian.
Systematic theology answers question that only systematic theologians are asking. Example: Jesus said to love our neighbor. He was asked, "Who is my neighbor?" That's a question about life. Systematic theologians hear that we should love our neighbor and ask, "Love? Would that be one of God's attributes or his essence?" (That's an exaggeration but you get what I mean.)


Well, I'm being called to dinner (no time to re-read, edit, etc.).

Wilson

[Milton Harrington]

Hello,

I am an Instructor in the Carolinas School of Ministry which is associated with the Nazarene Bible College. All applicants for ordination in the COTN, North and South Carolina Districts are required to take the courses from CSM if they are not attending some other accredited institution. Each course, when completed, has three semester hour credits which will be accepted by NBC. Class attendance is mandatory unless the class registration is too small and then, at the Instructors discretion, the class can be taken by Directed Study. There are no admittance requirements and the classes can be audited. The track for Ordination and Deacon is three years.

If there are unanswered questions, feel free to ask.

Milton Harrington

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Mike Harrington, I have a niece that completed her ordination that way--in SC. Would some of her courses from TNU have counted, also? She had a business degree. Her mother taught in the Business Dept. at TNU.
I probably know some of the people that you know, een though I live in Tennessee, since i am from Rock Hill,SC.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

You told me that God was a myth, and said something against my joy.
Also, iIdidn't think you lived in Bethlehem. I meant the road, street or whatever
you live on.

[Paul Whitaker]

http://www.bakersguide.com/directory/Colleges_and_Schools/Northwest_Nazarene_University/Master_of_Arts_in_Religion_-_Spiritual_Formation/details/

Here's your Master of Theology in Systematic Spiritual Formation
- completely online

[Jamie Wayne]

You told me that God was a myth, and said something against my joy.
Also, iIdidn't think you lived in Bethlehem. I meant the road, street or whatever
you live on.

Anne,

I was presenting some of the things that some hard atheists might say...I wasn't telling you those things as if I believed them - that would run contrary to everything else that I've ever said on NazNet.

I do not live on a street or road named Bethlehem, either.

[Milton Harrington]

Yes, credits from any Nazarene University will be accepted.

Milton

[Chris Baker]

In this and other threads I've noticed a trend--the thought that "right thinking" or orthodoxy isn't very important. Instead, some say, it is "right practice" or orthopraxy that matters.

I'm curious why the two are divided like they are. The two, in my mind, are inextricably linked. This is not to say that one always comes first and the other always comes second--but I do think they are linked. I tend to think that they come side-by-side. As one grows, so does the other. (By the way, I do agree that right thinking isn't enough by itself).

For example--why would we ever try not to sin unless we believed that God provided a way for us not to sin? This would be an example of right practice following right thinking.

Another example--I never really understood the importance of Christian fine arts, specifically sculpture, until I saw a particular life-size sculpture of the prodigal son being embraced by the father. This brought the story to life in ways I never thought possible. Now, looking back on it, my thinking on Chrsitian fine arts has been improved b/c of how I participated in or practiced a specific fine art. This would be an example of orthodoxy following orthopraxy.

My question in light of the discussion of the importance of systematic theology is this: why do we sometimes tend to dichotomize orthodoxy and orthopraxy? Isn't what we do related to what and how we think? Should it be if it isn't?

If orthopraxy is related to orthodoxy, does that mean systematic theology is indeed important?

[Hans Deventer]

http://www.bakersguide.com/directory/Colleges_and_Schools/Northwest_Nazarene_University/Master_of_Arts_in_Religion_-_Spiritual_Formation/details/

Here's your Master of Theology in Systematic Spiritual Formation
- completely online

Yes, I know, Paul. That's the course I've been referring to. Thanks for giving the link.

[Hans Deventer]

In this and other threads I've noticed a trend--the thought that "right thinking" or orthodoxy isn't very important. Instead, some say, it is "right practice" or orthopraxy that matters.

I'm curious why the two are divided like they are. The two, in my mind, are inextricably linked. This is not to say that one always comes first and the other always comes second--but I do think they are linked. I tend to think that they come side-by-side. As one grows, so does the other.

So, let's put it this way. We believe we Wesleyans are correct in our thinking, right? So if a Christian from whatever denomination grows in Christlikeness and thus in practice, (s)he will become ever more Wesleyan?

I think you will find church history to show that very saintly people have held very different views regarding their theologies. God has his people among every denomination. In fact, Christians can be a lot better than their theologies. And of course, far worse too!

So yes, I'm willing to challenge your suggestions.

[Hans Deventer]

You told me that God was a myth, and said something against my joy.

Anne, through time, when I get to know people, I just know that if I read something that appears strange, I'm probably misunderstanding or they wrote something awkwardly. I've started to trust them enough to know that they wouldn't ever mean such a thing. It goes for Jamie, it goes for you.

[Chris Baker]

So, let's put it this way. We believe we Wesleyans are correct in our thinking, right? So if a Christian from whatever denomination grows in Christlikeness and thus in practice, (s)he will become ever more Wesleyan?
I'm not sure that thinking systematic theology is beneficial (or that orthodoxy and orthopraxy are linked) necessarily leads to thinking that everyone needs to become like me to be right. I believe it is possible to do systematic theology in a humble way--humble enough to know that I don't have all the answers. I believe it is possible to do systematic theology--even across denominational lines--in such a way that we help and learn from each other.

Do you think the idea that "I have everything right and people need to become like me" is necessarily inherent in systematic theology? I don't.



Side Note: I would want to steer clear of acting like the purpose of systematic theology is to fully comprehend God and life, as some have done. Of course, that can't be done. Rather, systematic theology is a way to organize what we think and believe about God and life--the purpose isn't necessarily to be complete, but rather to be organized.

[Ian Gentles]

Yes its about neatly packaging things for folks to study.

[Jamie Wayne]

There is also the ecumenical purpose of trying to understand the theology of others so that we can, at least, understand where they're coming from. That has been quite valuable to me.

Additionally, as I've said before, it's not so much about having all of the answers so much as understanding the questions...

[Brian Blankenship]

Jaime, ever tried studying philosophy along with it. Philosophy helps you understand how people think, what makes them tick. I imagine you would be quite good at it. I know I really enjoyed philosophy, and did ok in systematic theology at seminary. But philosophy not only helped me learn how others think, but it also helped me learn processes to help and aid my own learning.

[Jamie Wayne]

Brian,

Until I "dropped out" (i.e., haven't had the money to go back) of college, I was a philosophy major. Way back in the day I was a classical guitar performance major for a single semester...lol. But yes, I love philosophy. In fact, when I was in school, I didn't care too much for general electives, so I primarily took the philosophy classes that were the core for a philosophy major.

Here's the list of classes that I took while I was there:

Intro to Philosophy
Intro to Logic
Intro to Ethics (Honours)
Modern Philosophy
Computer Ethics
Philosophy of Religion
Eastern Philosophy

Philosophy definitely prepared me well for theology, but it's hard for me to separate the two, since philosophy is the "love of wisdom" and theology is the "study of God". They're nearly the same, in a sense, or at least highly complimentary. Beyond school, though, I have read tons of philosophy books, as well as theology books, too, so I've never depended on being in school to motivate me to study this stuff. It's kinda who I am...or how God created me...or what He calls me to do...I don't know...something like that, anyway.

Thanks,

Jamie

[Brian Blankenship]

I would agree with your assessment.

[Ian Gentles]

Sorry ya had to drop out mate :( big time

[Jamie Wayne]

I guess I didn't have the "luck of the Irish".

:D

[Ian Gentles]

I guess I didn't have the "luck of the Irish".

:D

LOL for sure, wish you had!!!

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Jamie, are you a US citizen? If so, and you don't have a big income, you may be able to get a grant to go back to school somewhere--even if it is not your favorite place.

[Jamie Wayne]

I am a US citizen, Anne. In two years I'll probably go to seminary. I'm fine with that. I'll use government student loans, and it'll all work out.