Fall 2008 Online Certificate Students:
View all sessions below. Then log all your comments, questions, discussion question answers, criticisms, or thoughts below. Time spent in the comments section will apply toward your one hour of community time per week. To download audio sessions, visit the course homepage on the TTP site. The next session will be posted each Wed.
____________________________
What is The Theology Program anyway? What is our approach to studying theology? Does TTP take the “we’re right, your wrong” approach? Or does it approach theology more peaceably, letting the students make up their own mind? Am I smart enough to take this course? These are all important questions that this first session seeks to answer. This session presents a basic understanding of the importance of the study of theology and the purpose of The Theology Program. The “rules of engagement” will set the stage for all future TTP sessions, arguing that theology is best done with an irenic (peaceable) approach, interacting with Christian doctrine and other belief systems in a gracious manner, allowing the student to make up their own mind when all of the evidence has been accurately presented.
Part 1: Introduction to The Theology Program [26:05m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Part 2: Who you are and why you are here [13:37m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Part 3: Introduction to Theology [15:05m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download Part 4: What is The Theology Program [23:52m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download
Powered by FireStats
August 31st, 2008 at 1:00 am
Here are my discussion question answers for the first session. I’ve completed TTP by self study before, so I already have the questions answered, but I will be reviewing the questions and answers again as we go through the course to see if there’s anything to add or modify.
Week 1 Group Questions:
1. It was mentioned in class that the Christian faith is not a virtuous intellectual leap into the dark, believing that trusting God means that you check your brains in at the front door. How was Christian faith defined in the class lecture?
It was defined in the lecture as meant to be engaged and understood by the mind as well as the heart.
2. Read Isaiah 45:18–22; 46:5–10.
Do these passages encourage or discourage “blind faith”? Explain.
These passages would tend to discourage blind faith by indicating God is the author of order and not confusion so that a logic can be perceived by using ones mind to discern things from creation. The passages also points up that God does provide evidences if we have the eyes to see them. He’s not a big secret but plainly in sight for those who will see.
Pay particular attention to God’s rebuke of the Israelites for worshiping other gods. Which took more “blind” faith, to worship a carved idol or to worship a God who predicts the future? Which kind of faith is God mocking them for having?
God is mocking them for their blind or not-in-evidence faith in these idols - much like our own easily disillusioned beliefs in the idols of today. In the chapter 46 verses, He even invites a sort of God comparison survey as a call to reason out which God is real and which isn’t.
3. How does this change your thinking about what it means to have faith? Explain.
I’ve always thought that God wants us to use our gray matter to think about Him - theology. And over the years I’ve come across lots of scriptures to back this up in places like this, Job, Psalms, etc. But I’ve tended to think it was an odd concept that not many others would agree with there being a popular tendency to be at the emotional extreme of the spectrum with religion. Now I can see there are plenty of others that think this, actually many writings, sites, etc. So… I am not alone, lol.
4. In the “Who are you and why are you taking this course” section, which of the nine types of people do you identify with most? Explain.
I would most identify as a mix of Practical Pricilla and Curious Carla. In all learning I like to see practical application, and I’m glad to report I’m seeing some as I’ve gone through the text readings. In addition I remain curious to see where else this could take us!
5. How do you think having so many different types of people with different perspectives, backgrounds, traditions, and passions will make this type of study better?
I think it can make the study of theology better by further enhancing the variety of viewpoints from which to compare and draw insights. Even different motivations (”passions”) serve to provide more varied perspectives. It also places the study more in a framework like the real world where these many outlooks come from. ‘Doing theology’ in an environment like this can be good practice for expressing one’s faith intelligibly in the real world.
6. Irenic theology was described as theology that is done in a peaceable manner, accurately and humbly representing all views, even if you disagree with them. Polemic theology was described as theology that is done in a warlike manner inside the Church, prophetically speaking against those with whom there is disagreement. Do you think that Irenic theology is a better starting point for doing theology than Polemic theology? Explain.
Really I think it depends on the situation. Irenic would be overall preferable, but one may be at the time in a situation calling more for polemic or even apologetic theology.
7. Are there times when polemic confrontation is necessary? Explain.
Think of possible times when you have been personally rebuked for something sinful, destructive, or selfish. Did you need someone to peaceably come and represent your side, or did you need someone to give you stern rebuke?
I think there definitely are. There can be times when a member is being led far astray, or further are leading others there. There may be dangers of spiritual, physical or emotional harm. There may be a spirit such as one of complaint that has gone from neutral or positive to negative disgruntlement. There may be a ‘wolf among the sheep’ looking to stir trouble. There are many possibilities that might warrant a polemic approach. There are some times I can remember when I wish someone had been polemic with me!
8. How was your thinking most challenged by the lesson? Explain.
My thinking was most challenged by the lesson in a very good way. I was challenged to look at the program not only in a useful practical light, but also as something to have a strong desire for. The lecture was very well delivered to inspire a further interest. Grudem’s how to study theology was inspiring as well, even including the hymn at the end! I was challenged to look at studying theology as more like quenching a soul or a mind thirsty for knowledge.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:06 am
Puzzle analogy
I liked Grudem’s jigsaw puzzle analogy (p. 29). One of my hobbies is strategy gaming, and the analogy reminded me of how when a new game comes out it is sometimes referred to as a ‘new puzzle to solve’. There’s a sense of discovering something new or an entirely new way of seeing things, which is like a lot of parts of TTP, lol. That’s what makes it a worthwhile challenge!
August 31st, 2008 at 1:14 am
Both / And
The both / and approach of the Olsen text would certainly seem like a weak compromise to many. But I remember when I read through it the first time that it actually made more sense for a number of topics than what I had read before from the two sides of the issues.
I think those on the sides sometimes think they can’t afford to budge on an issue, although of course there are times when they shouldn’t budge on critical issues. But I think sometimes recognizing the issues that don’t need such extreme defense is lost or confused with those that do. Then that makes a particular side appear more extreme and removed from reality than is the case.
August 31st, 2008 at 1:26 am
In community
When listening to the part of the lecture again on why it is intended fro us to do theology in community, and Rhome was going over the examples of where we go for connections - church - I was reminded of a new movement that calls itself Revolutionary or a Revolution. There’s a book “Revolution” by George Barna, the pollster, that describes it (I’ve haven’t read it myself, just the reviews on Amazon). Apparently it is opposed to established church, and encourages christians to leave theri established churches and sort of do their christianity separate from any traditional church structure. It seems like the same type of reasons Rhome gave would apply to this kind of thinking. There may be problems with many established churches, but advocating a total disconnect from them seems like a bad idea.
Anybody have any thoughts about this or know anything more about that movement?
August 31st, 2008 at 1:37 am
Extra or Honors reading.
I started reading the Moreland book that Michael recommends when I first went through the program, and I plan on finishing it this time! I see from the session two comments that someone has already started on it (I’ll catch up on that once I catch up with the second session stuff). From what I had read of the book it seems like a great wake up call to realize that part of that verse that is often skimmed over, “..with all your mind.” It goes a little deeper into what Michael was talking about how Christianity has surrendered so much ground in intellectual areas where it should have maintained its historical lead there.
Is anybody else reading that or any of the other extra or ‘honors’ choices?
August 31st, 2008 at 1:49 am
Best feature of Irenic approach
At first I wasn’t too enthused at the sound of an ‘irenic’ approach to theology. It just sounds weak at a time when there is so much struggle between ideas and worldviews, and so many increasingly vitriolic attacks on Christian thinking. But especially for a course like this, an outstanding feature of the approach is that you get to hear others’ arguments made in a way that makes sense at least as to why they believe like they do. That’s probably one of the most illuminating parts of the course for me, as usually one just hears why the other side is wrong, or as Michael points out a straw man argument is made that gives an imbalanced impression of the other side’s point of view. A continuous array of straw man arguments is kind of like watching presidential election coverage, but having to watch it every year, lol.
August 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
More on the Irenic Approach
Like Forest, I too tend to get a little leery when people (nowadays) start talking about ‘irenic’ approaches to theology. There just seems to be SO MANY wishy-washy versions of Christianity out there as a direct result of people not wanting to ‘offend anyone’.
But I’m sure that most people will attest to the fact that it’s pretty hard to listen properly (on ANY subject) when you START in defensive posture. When you START with the assumption that the other guy is wrong and you just need to find the ‘hole in his argument’.
It’s the rare person who can claim to have the WHOLE truth on any given topic and, if you’re not listening, you may scare away someone who has a piece that you’re missing! I think that’s one way to look at what Olson is getting at with his ‘both-and’ emphasis.
Also, I recently just happened to come across a verse in James that seems to offer pretty strong support for “Irenic Theology”:
James 3:17 (ESV)
17But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, open to reason, full of mercy and good fruits, impartial and sincere.
Actually, the whole chapter of James 3 seems to support the ‘irenic’ approach to theology, teaching, and life in general - for those ‘incurable polemics’ out there who suspect that I’ve taken this verse out of context. =)
September 1st, 2008 at 8:50 am
#1. We need to engage our minds and we cannot seperate our mind from our heart.
#2a. Discourages blind faith because you can see God all around. We can see the one true God if we want to see Him.
#2b. It took more blind faith to worship carved idols. The people were praying to gods who cannot save nor save someone from trouble.
#3. It didn’t change my thinking about what it means to have faith, but it reinforced my thinking that anyone can put their faith in anything (real or not real). If it is not the one true God, they put their faith in false gods, hoping in what they believe.
#4. I most identify with Scared Susan. Not necessarily that I cannot learn something new but I do not know enough or have the ability to strongly defend my faith and that “scares” me. I am not sure how I will benefit from TTP at this point, but I know I will benefit greatly from taking this course.
#5. You may see something in scripture in a way that you never really thought about before and it may change how you view a particular issue or how others view them. This is also a great forum to understanding people better and where they are coming from.
#6. Yes, Irenic theology gives everyone a chance to express their point of view and why they believe what they believe (i.e., a platform for discussion).
#7a. Yes, I believe there are times when polemic confrontation is necessary but this should only be used when all else fails. We are in a war for souls and major/constant disagreements can “kill” the church from the inside out. However, we must first try to resolve aguments as peaceably as possible.
#7b. If someone who loves you gives you a stern warning out of care and concern for YOUR benefit and YOUR well-being, it is much different than someone who does this for their own agenda or to make themselves feel better. If it is sinful, destructive or selfish, why do you need someone to represent your side?
#8. The one thing I was most challenged by in the First Session was the idea that the Spirit is working in “us” collectively as a church as opposed to the Spirit working in an individual. I am not sure I looked at it as a whole before this week. I am still thinking about that idea.
September 1st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
More on Irenic Theology
Like Forest and Archie (thanks for braking the ice here), I was unenthusiastic about this “irenic” approach - especially after reading Olsen. It had such a strong hint of “Emergent” in the woay it intially sounded that alarm bells went off. But, I braved through reading on and, over the next hundred pages or so, I began to settle down some.
Honestly, I am finding my faith in God’s sovereignty being challenged. Being a pastor, and being well aware of my responsibility to “protect the lambs”, it seemed counter-intuitive to “put it all out there and allow people to figutr it out completely for themselves. What I am discovering, however, and as Sam C so aptly said to me, is that, “If we do our jobs right, they [the people we are teaching] will be most likely to make the correct choice because we will have presented the truth in such a way that they will be compelled to realize it AS the truth.”
How does that put my faith in God’s sovereignty to the test? Well, if I am depending on my ability to screen information and present only THE RIGHT information, then I am depending on myself, am I not? On the other hand, if I really, REALLY trust that God is sovereign and that, as He says in Isaiah 46:10, “My purpose will be established, and I will accomplish all My good pleasure,” then I can fully depend on Him and not on myself. There actually is a very solid peace to be found in that. It doesn’t depend on me.
This is a major paradigm shift for me, but one I am willing to pursue - for now. As long as it ends up where it appears now to be going, then I will pursue this. In my own teaching, I do often talk of opposing views and speak of controversies that surround certain passages, but not with the same methodology as this “irenic” theology. This is where the shift is for me.
Keep me in prayer if you’re of a mind to? It is difficult for “old-timers” to adjust sometimes.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Archie,
Great verse reference - very appropriate. Even the verse 18 right after that speaks a lot in saying that fruit is sown in or with that irenic approach.
I still see a polemic approach as possibly needed in some cases. I remember one issue I had with a church I was in - and it was and still is a great church - where it couldn’t seem to help but get polemic as there was no way of my bringing the issue up without initially offending someone involved. But even though we were arguing our sides, still we kept ourselves reasonably in check, and when they understood my point better and how it could be damaging to the church’s witness, everyone reached an agreement on solution to that issue (basically it just needed an improvement in communication). So I think it actually turned out for the better even though I knew going in there were going to be some polemics, lol.
September 1st, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Wendy,
I can identify with scared susan a little bit too. I feel I can defend or explain my faith well enough to common questions or arguments, but I often come across arguments against Christianity that involve deeper science or philosophical issues that I’m usually not prepared for on the spot. The Moreland book from our honors reading list makes a good point that a diligent study is needed to address these levels of apologetics - not that we all need to be scientists but that some (probably more than currently) Christians should be rather than most shying away from difficult subjects. And probably most of us could used improved study in general apologetics to at least have an answer or be able to find it better (I know there are resources and sites available, but I mean being able to better use those).
September 20th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I need to try and catch up here with my discussion questions. Here are my thoughts–four weeks late.
1. It was mentioned in class that the Christian faith is not a virtuous intellectual leap in the dark, that trusting God means that you check your brains at the front door. How was Christian faith defined in the class lecture?
–The class made mention that our faith while it is a faith (or trust), it is much more than that. We need to love our Lord not only with our hearts but also with our minds. This entails that we search for and understand this thing called truth. We need to study, analyze, and honestly know the issues. Then we can consider our options.
2. Read Isaiah 45:18-22, 46:5-10.
Do these passages encourage or discourage “blind faith”? Explain.
–They obviously discourage blind faith. For instance he claims he has not spoken in secret, he’s declared and foretold what was to take place so that the Israelites would know and could know the truth that God alone is their God and that aside from him there is no other God.
Pay particular attention to God’s rebuke of the Israelites for worshiping other gods. Which took more “blind” faith, to worship a God who predicts the future? Which kind of faith is God mocking them for having?
–He is mocking them for having blind faith and believing in vain Gods which have failed to give them any assurance.
3. How does this change your thinking about what it means to have faith? Explain. –Faith is not something we just work up and claim. Biblical faith from these passages indicates knowing and trusting in a God that has spoken and made claims about certain things and how they would come about. This is a God of truth and he challenges his creation/followers to use their rational inclinations to examine these propositions. To test them out and then to know that he is truly the Creator God of the universe.
4. In the “who are you and why are you taking this course” section, which of the nine types of people do you identify with the most? Explain.
–If I was to identify with these examples the two that I would most likely relate to are Curious Carla and Struggling Sam. Curious Carla because I’m not sure why I’m taking this class, but I’m excited about the challenge of learning. Also, Struggling Sam because in some things I do have my doubts and struggles. Such as can I better understand what it means to be saved, (once saved always saved or can one loss their salvation?) eschatology, can I better understand the thorny problem of eternal punishment, and other areas that I look forward to increasing my understanding.
5. How do you think having so many different types of people with different perspectives, and passions will make this type of study better?
–I can’t see or try to comprehend everything and I know that seeing and understanding things through someone else’s eye’s and personal experiences can add to much of my understanding. This can be challenging, but a challenge has often helped me to rethink and change some of my preconceived ideas.
6. Irenic theology was described as theology that is done in a peaceable manner, accurately and humbly representing all views, even if you disagree with them. Polemic theology was described as theology that is done in a warlike manner inside the Church prophetically speaking against those with whom there is disagreement. Do you think that Irenic theology is a better starting point for doing theology than Polemic theology? Explain.
–Yes I would say diplomacy or the Irenic approach would be a better starting position. A forceful attitude has often returned an equally forceful, defensive response.
7. Are there times when polemic confrontation is necessary? Explain.
Think of possible times when you have been personally rebuked for something sinful, destructive, or selfish. Did you need someone to peaceably come and represent your side, or did you need someone to give you stern rebuke?
–I would say that a stern and firm rebuke could sometimes be effective too. Some things we must stand firm on but I still think a diplomatic dialogue would be appreciated.
8. How was your thinking most challenged by the lesson?
–I liked this lesson and very much agreed with it. Taking my cue from 1 Peter 3:15.
September 22nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Richard,
In your answer to number 7, I’m thinking the polemic approach would be mostly for situations where someone was refusing to listen to simply soft or constructive criticism and what they are doing may somehow endanger someone in the church whether it may be physically or spiritually. But I certainly agree with the preference for diplomatic approaches at least where both sides are willing to seriously listen and consider which is really right in the matter.
September 23rd, 2008 at 12:09 am
Forest, thank you for your input. I definitely do agree in a situation where someone is so adamant towards his or her position that they cannot or will not at least rethink their position a polemic response would be necessary. And this would especially be true in the case of harm being done to another person especially in a church body.
Thanks again
Richard Wyland
September 28th, 2008 at 10:45 am
As a late entrant into the class, let me first say how glad I am to be a part of this fellowship. I pray I can contribute to each of you as you are already helping me, with your postings. Thank you - Pete
1. It was mentioned in class that the Christian faith is not a virtuous intellectual leap in the dark, that trusting God means that you check your brains at the front door. How was Christian faith defined in the class lecture?
The class states that Christian faith is of both the heart and the mind. Which I take to mean Christian faith is heart based in that we accept Christ through the gift of Gods grace (love) and through the mind which allows us to understand, within our limited human capacity, those things Gods has revealed to us.
2. Read Isaiah 45:18-22, 46:5-10.
1. Do these passages encourage or discourage “blind faith”? Explain.
I don’t believe they encourage blind faith. What I read in 45: 18:22 are facts that have been provided by God, through Isaiah, that should cause us to think about their implications. Particularly verse 19 saying: “…I have not said to Jacob’s descendants, “Seek me in Vain”. This tells me that rather than just being told and blindly accepting Gods word, it is an expression of hope that we should actively, with our heart and mind, accept these facts with thoughtful consideration, understanding that to accept the Word has consequences. Not “Seeking in Vain” says to me our efforts at learning Gods Word can have the result of salvation, if we ultimately accept Christ.
2. Pay particular attention to God’s rebuke of the Israelites for worshiping other gods.
In Isaiah 46: 5-10 God makes it very clear that to turn on Him by accepting idols, also has consequences. Idols return nothing, but God will have His way. Accepting idols is a sin as it separates us from God.
3. Which took more “blind” faith, to worship a carved idol or to worship a God who predicts the future?
I think it takes more blind faith to worship an idol. God has provided everything for us. His work is demonstrable. An idol gives nothing. The only way to accept an idol is through blind faith as there is no scripture on which to depend and no grace is given from an idol, to bring one to the “god” that is the idol.
4. Which kind of faith is God mocking them for having?
I think the blind faith they give to idols, for the reasons I stated above in 2.3.
3. How does this change your thinking about what it means to have faith? Explain.
Faith is an active pursuit in a sense. Through Gods grace we are saved through faith. Faith needs to grow and can only do so if we actively do those things necessary to let it grow.
4. In the “who are you and why are you taking this course” section, which of the nine types of people do you identify with the most? Explain.
Probably a cross between Struggling Sam and Want an answer Will. Struggling Sam – only the struggling part, in so far as I have no doubt in Christ, just my own struggles to live in a more Christ-like manner, not the part about this being a safe place. As to Want an answer Will, I do look for answers but I am also ready to do the work in this community, where Want an answer Will isn’t willing to do so.
5. How do you think having so many different types of people with different perspectives, and passions will make this type of study better?
God gave us all different strengths and perspectives. Being opened to hearing these will allow me to grow in my understanding of how others view and feel things. One thing of which I am certain is that I have much to learn. By studying with others I believe I’ll learn more and I’ll more deeply understand what I have learned.
6. Irenic theology was described as theology that is done in a peaceable manner, accurately and humbly representing all views, even if you disagree with them. Polemic theology was described as theology that is done in a warlike manner inside the Church prophetically speaking against those with whom there is disagreement. Do you think that Irenic theology is a better starting point for doing theology than Polemic theology? Explain.
Yes I do think Irenic theology is a better starting point. Simply, I am here to learn and grow in my understanding of God. While there are many who are better educated to theology than I, to propose their views in a polemic fashion, I think is somewhat arrogant. The “my way or the highway” approach could tend to push away some in an introductory course such as this. That said, there needs and can be to firmness within Irenic Theology, in standing by the most fundamental teachings of the church; God exists, Christ is God, He suffered to save us from sin, He died, rose and ascended into Heaven.
7. Are there times when polemic confrontation is necessary? Explain.
Yes. I think a Polemic approach as a defensive methodology may be useful when combating those that are working to break down the church from within.
8. How was your thinking most challenged by the lesson?
It is forcing me to use critical thinking skills to review, assess and decide on how I can better serve, through my growth in Theological understanding.
October 5th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Pete,
I like your description of faith as an active pursuit. I think it’s meant to be much more of an ongoing exercise than how it’s sometimes described as a one time event of believing or accepting a belief.