Theological mindset

[Solparvus]

This is a semi-continuation of the Mark Jones thread here. There are theologians broadly (every Christian), but then theologians more narrowly (Calvin, Bavinck, Shedd, etc.). I'm concerned with the latter category.

What methods, practices, mindsets, etc. tend to help one towards being a better theologian? What does that look like in practice?

Some things I know are necessary. No one is a true theologian who is not a true Christian. There is no separation of knowledge and godliness. No theology apart from good churchmanship, or the means that God has appointed. Theology is to serve God's people and kingdom, not to be a private hobby. Still, there's more than simple godliness and piety, or Timothy would not be commanded to give himself to these things, or study to show himself approved.

What do you read? What do you study? How do you study? Method? Approach? What do those who could be called "scholars" do differently? Is it just access to a wide breadth of reading and sufficient time to read more broadly and deeply? Or is there a way of thinking? What skills are needed?

Maybe this is ambitious, but it's also practical. Cornelius van Til never pursued his Ph.D. to be in academics; he just wanted to go back to West Michigan and be a faithful local pastor. I know that from a former colleague of his. The Ph.D isn't possible for me, but I care more for the discipline and knowledge than the title. Paul's immense learning and burning zeal have encouraged my thought patterns this way. Stepping into high-level--even academic--conversations will simply be a must. And having served as a ruling elder, seeing the realities of ministry, and having participated as a delegate in presbytery and synod, I really feel my need.

PS - Saw the Turretin/Campbellite thread, that was helpful. That's partly where I'm aiming, and yet another place where I feel behind in the conversation.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'll try to give a longer answer later.

 

[Jack K]

What methods, practices, mindsets, etc. tend to help one towards being a better theologian? What does that look like in practice?

Be regularly teaching it to someone else. This will give you a purpose that forces you to study, think, integrate, and understand.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Yes, I totally agree with Jack. Witnessing, teaching, discipling.

 

[Solparvus]

I'll try to give a longer answer later.

I didn't know you could give long answers.

Be regularly teaching it to someone else. This will give you a purpose that forces you to study, think, integrate, and understand.

Reminds me, Calvin... he was teaching and preaching every single day. When writing the OP I was trying to figure out why perhaps Calvin became the theologian that he did, but I never made the connection that he was preaching and teaching all the time.

 

[Phil D.]

I don’t disagree with any of the answers given here, but at the same time I think natural God-given faculty and aptitude is a requisite quality that sets the top tier theologians apart from others. In other words, it flows from a Gift.

 

[jacobcandler1689]

I think we can all agree that being renewed in heart is the most important prerequisite. And, as Phil D. commented, God-given ability and brilliance is perhaps the greatest secondary requisite, if one would be a Calvin or a Bavinck. That and a thorough understanding of the Biblical text, for without that, ability and brilliance is used to further views based on faulty premises.

Considering these things, I believe that which sets a theologian apart as superb (beyond that which is above mentioned) is:

-A mastery of primary/influential theological texts in every church age (insofar as they are available to you)
-Exceptional analytical skills. Along those lines, the ability to identify the greatest challenges in your age to particular doctrines and the ability to proffer a legitimate criticism of them
-Originality/Creativity. Not necessarily in articulation of settled doctrines, but in exploration of the implications of settled doctrines
-The ability to effectively communicate oneself, no matter the audience. Bavinck is a great example for this. He has his Reformed Dogmatics, then his Wonderful Works of God, then his Guidebook for Instruction in the Christian Religion, then his What is Christianity?.

I would also say, in close, a recognition of the ultimate and subordinate ends in doing theology. The ultimate end, of course, is the glorification of God in using your mind to put forth a work that honors Him as God. The subordinate ends would be, for instance, the edification of Christ’s church, the defense of the faith against an age’s particular challenges to it, and the joy you derive from it, among other things.

 

[py3ak]

There are at least two varieties of great theologian. There are pioneers, who grasp some deep principle in a way that it hadn't been seen before. And there are consolidators, who correlate insights from others into a coherent whole. All theologians try to synthesize, of course, or they can't claim the label; but it's a question of which quality is predominant.

Calvin is a pioneer, in my view; Turretin is a consolidator. The consolidators may often be technically more accurate, and they are quite essential; but pioneers are often better loved, because the quality of freshness can't be imitated.

 

[TheInquirer]

Make it your life’s ambition to know and love God and live for His glory which is the union of one’s entire self aligned with God’s greatest priorities for man.

As far as reading goes, the Bible is primary and everything else is secondary. Learn to know God from His word yourself as first priority rather than reading it “through” someone else (which is why I hate devotionals as substitutes for the Word of God). After that, learn from theologians who love God and will help shape your heart along with your mind. Separating heart and mind is incredibly dangerous and very easy to do. Augustine, Calvin, and the Puritans did a great job of trying to unite theology with the heart. Van Mastricht also had application as a feature of his theology. Turretin and Bavinck are incredible intellectually but you probably won’t get that much devotionally out of them unless you do some extra work on meditating upon what they teach.

I am happy to hear others interested in this topic as it has been my biggest concern and area of interest for some time.

 

[jacobcandler1689]

Make it your life’s ambition to know and love God and live for His glory which is the union of one’s entire self aligned with God’s greatest priorities for man.

As far as reading goes, the Bible is primary and everything else is secondary. Learn to know God from His word yourself as first priority rather than reading it “through” someone else (which is why I hate devotionals as substitutes for the Word of God). After that, learn from theologians who love God and will help shape your heart along with your mind. Separating heart and mind is incredibly dangerous and very easy to do. Augustine, Calvin, and the Puritans did a great job of trying to unite theology with the heart. Van Mastricht also had application as a feature of his theology. Turretin and Bavinck are incredible intellectually but you probably won’t get that much devotionally out of them unless you do some extra work on meditating upon what they teach.

I am happy to hear others interested in this topic as it has been my biggest concern and area of interest for some time.

Good insight.

 

[Solparvus]

I appreciate the answers given.

I think we can all agree that being renewed in heart is the most important prerequisite. And, as Phil D. commented, God-given ability and brilliance is perhaps the greatest secondary requisite, if one would be a Calvin or a Bavinck. That and a thorough understanding of the Biblical text, for without that, ability and brilliance is used to further views based on faulty premises.

Considering these things, I believe that which sets a theologian apart as superb (beyond that which is above mentioned) is:

-A mastery of primary/influential theological texts in every church age (insofar as they are available to you)
-Exceptional analytical skills. Along those lines, the ability to identify the greatest challenges in your age to particular doctrines and the ability to proffer a legitimate criticism of them
-Originality/Creativity. Not necessarily in articulation of settled doctrines, but in exploration of the implications of settled doctrines
-The ability to effectively communicate oneself, no matter the audience. Bavinck is a great example for this. He has his Reformed Dogmatics, then his Wonderful Works of God, then his Guidebook for Instruction in the Christian Religion, then his What is Christianity?.

I would also say, in close, a recognition of the ultimate and subordinate ends in doing theology. The ultimate end, of course, is the glorification of God in using your mind to put forth a work that honors Him as God. The subordinate ends would be, for instance, the edification of Christ’s church, the defense of the faith against an age’s particular challenges to it, and the joy you derive from it, among other things.

For the analytical skills, who is a master here? What should be read to develop here?

Who would you say is original/creative in the sense that you are describing?

Never made that connection with Bavinck, but that's good.

 

[RamistThomist]

I appreciate the answers given.



For the analytical skills, who is a master here? What should be read to develop here?

Who would you say is original/creative in the sense that you are describing?

Never made that connection with Bavinck, but that's good.

For analytics, see Thomas mcall invitation to analytic theology. Then Oliver crisp

 

[RamistThomist]

Initiation into Analytic Theology

The analytic method is a way of doing theology by clarifying terms. There is nothing evil or sacred about it. I am writing this to help students get their feet wet without getting turned off by m…

tentsofshem.wordpress.com

 

[alexanderjames]

do some extra work on meditating upon what they teach.

Humble dependence upon divine revelation through prayer and meditation is the key to fruitful study.

 

[jacobcandler1689]

I appreciate the answers given.



For the analytical skills, who is a master here? What should be read to develop here?

Who would you say is original/creative in the sense that you are describing?

Never made that connection with Bavinck, but that's good.

I think that for the deepest kind of sharp theological analysis, Thomas (Aquinas) and Turretin are masters to follow. They do the close work, and the greatest way to learn is to read their works and take note of the sorts of questions they ask, the trails that they follow, etc. Edwards's Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World is a great example in this too.

For originality/creativity, I believe that Kuyper is a good example (in the realm of public theology), as well as a'Brakel (in terms of his ability to search out the practical applications of various loci). Edwards is a good example, but he takes his originality too far at a couple of points. Barth would be an example of originality taken too far, in totum.

 

[Solparvus]

I think that for the deepest kind of sharp theological analysis, Thomas (Aquinas) and Turretin are masters to follow. They do the close work, and the greatest way to learn is to read their works and take note of the sorts of questions they ask, the trails that they follow, etc. Edwards's Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World is a great example in this too.

For originality/creativity, I believe that Kuyper is a good example (in the realm of public theology), as well as a'Brakel (in terms of his ability to search out the practical applications of various loci). Edwards is a good example, but he takes his originality too far at a couple of points. Barth would be an example of originality taken too far, in totum.

I've already decided to dip into Turretin to get grips on a few key issues. Looks like that's well-chosen.

I enjoy Edwards, though never read that treatise. Now I'll have to. I've admired Edwards for the creativity you cite, although at times it cut the other way.

 

[RamistThomist]

I've already decided to dip into Turretin to get grips on a few key issues. Looks like that's well-chosen.

I enjoy Edwards, though never read that treatise. Now I'll have to. I've admired Edwards for the creativity you cite, although at times it cut the other way.

There are several issues with Edwards that prevent a full endorsement:
1) Several of his terms have shifted in meaning from older generations.
2) Like Augustine, he wasn't a systematic thinker. In some sense, that's just inevitable and not really a problem.

 

[Solparvus]

For whoever it benefits, you might add something else to this mix: Continuously running through the Confessions and Creeds.

That sounds basic, but there's tremendous value if you take the time to go over the Confession, catechisms, creeds, definitions, etc. These all are climactic points of the theological conversation that has run before their time, and they form the basis of conversations afterward. They are formed by assemblies of pastors and theologians striving to be faithful, sufficiently detailed, yet clear and understandable. If you know these well, you can jump into midstream in the conversation, and you can better understand and appreciate the depth and breadth of the conversation as well.

In martial arts you will run through the same basic moves over and over until the motions become instinct. This frees you to master more complex motions and routines. So just running through the Confessions, Catechisms, and their proofs continually should pay off tremendously in being able to grasp much deeper truths.

The same goes with regularly going through the Bible.

I've always wondered if this idea may play into Hebrews 5:14 when it comes to practical holiness.

There are several issues with Edwards that prevent a full endorsement:
1) Several of his terms have shifted in meaning from older generations.
2) Like Augustine, he wasn't a systematic thinker. In some sense, that's just inevitable and not really a problem.

Is there an example of 1?

 

[RamistThomist]

Is there an example of 1?

His use of free will is the most notorious. Whether we believe Edwards said the same thing as Turretin, he isn't using necessity of the consequent and will in the same way.

 

[ZackF]

For analytics, see Thomas mcall invitation to analytic theology. Then Oliver crisp

This is longer than your previous post in this thread.