Is Theology Necessary?

Is Theology Necessary?  Part 1

Some people read the bible, hear a few messages, read some books, attend church for a few months, take a couple of leadership classes, and from there they think they are ready and equipped to lead a bible study, pastor a church and do all sorts of other things. They may have zeal, but it has to be according to knowledge (Prov. 19:2; Rom. 10:2).

Question:  Is theology necessary?

Any preparation for ministry, especially in the role where you will find yourself teaching from the Bible regularly demands, in my humble opinion, a course on systematic theology. 

Why is this?

First, systematic theology is necessary in order to be balanced. 

It is only through Theology that we are able to come to balanced views of the truth of the word of God. Almost inevitably if we study the Bible and do not study it doctrinally it is impossible for us to expect over a long period of time to have some understanding of the Bible in a balanced way.

There a multitudinous examples of this.  Let me add a couple.

Some churches (preachers) show a heavy leaning toward prophecy.  They get all excited over the signs of the times and how many of them match up with the Bible, and then in their excitement, they set dates on the return of Jesus.

But if they studied systematic theology, they would know that although the signs for the soon coming of Jesus are definitely there, Jesus taught that no one knows when He would return (Mark 13:32). 

Furthermore, this kind of person with a great interest in prophecy and a great knowledge in prophecy, often does not have the practical truths to go with his prophecy.  To be sure, if one is unbalanced doctrinally, he or she will be unbalanced on the practical side too.

Then there is the other side, in which a person becomes a Christian and hooks up with an evangelical church in which prophecy is discounted. Frequently all that is served up to the members of the church are simple devotional messages in which there is no real exposition of the word of God in consecutive fashion at all but just texts chosen here and there.

Another example of being unbalanced is seen by how people try to defend their emotional experience of praying in tongues using the Bible. 

I don’t know how many times I have Christians (many of whom are pastors or small group leaders) use passages like:

Romans 8:26:  In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us through wordless groans.

Here “wordless groans” is interpreted as the Spirit of God praying through us in gibberish.

Never mind that speaking or praying in tongues is not even mentioned at all in the Book of Romans, especially in the spiritual gift section in chapter 12:3-8.  Never mind that it is not listed at all in the book of Ephesians in the spiritual gift section of chapter 4. Never mind tongues is not mentioned at all in the epistle of 1 Peter in the spiritual gift section of chapter 4. Never mind that the only place where praying in tongues becomes an issue is in 1 Corinthians 12-14, written to a church that was carnal because of its abuse of spiritual gifts, especially tongues.

And of course, my favorite: Jude 1:20: “Praying in the Holy Spirit.” How anyone arrives at praying in tongues from this phrase is a miracle. If I pray in English or in a language that I understand, will that disqualify me from “praying in the Spirit?” Is praying in the Spirit only possible if I pray gibberish?

Of course, the flip side can be dangerous as well.  Some people who are opposed to praying in tongues often get all bent out of shape when they are in a service or a small group that is charged up emotionally with hand clapping, dancing, hands and arms raised, people with their eyes close, crying etc. They see this as “of the devil.” 

But when you read the Word of God, joy is a fruit of the Spirit and it is something you want to see in all church services and small group bible studies.

But you see, unless you take the time to collect all the data from all the New Testament, you will end up being unbalanced doctrinally.

End of Part 1

Is Theology Necessary?  Part 2

Theology is necessary first of all, in order to be balanced (Part 1).

Second, theology is necessary in order to be Preserved from False Doctrine. You might say that sound theology protects the church from food poisoning.

The key is “sound theology.” The way to arrive at sound theology is through the method of “induction.”

What do I mean by induction?  All study whether it is scientific or as you and I may carry on in our private devotional life, is conducted on the basis of certain truths that are assumed.

In other words, we assume we have a sound mind. We assume that the things that we come to by reason of the exercise of the rational process that God has given us are reliable.  Everybody begins with certain assumptions. So when we come to the word of God we begin with certain assumptions of that character.

Secondly by induction, we ascertain, collect and put together the truths that we see through the study of the word of God.

Now we do this spiritually under the guidance of the Spirit of God. In this way we differ from a scientist whom uses the process of reasoning that God has given him.  But nevertheless we collect and combine the truth that we discover as we read the word of God. We then put them together and we do it with carefulness and completeness, if we are going to have good induction.

Example:  In the case of sound theology it’s important for us to not miss and misunderstand our data. We might for example look at the word of God and read that Jesus does not know something, as in the case of Mark 13:32, in which Jesus stated that He did not know the hour of His second coming.  We might conclude from this that Jesus was not omniscient (He did not have knowledge of all things).  But then we read in numerous occasions that He does know in such a way that we have to predicate of Him omniscient.

For example, that when He met Nathaniel, Jesus began to open the conversation by saying, “behold the Israelite in whom there is no guile, i.e. no God” (John 1:47). 

I’m sure that Nathaniel wondered how in the world Jesus was able to see into his character.  But Jesus was not finished. He went onto say to Nathanael, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you” (v. 48). This prompted Nathanael to respond to Jesus in faith and believe that He is the Son of God. Nathanael knew that Jesus was omniscient. 

So one text states that there was something Jesus did now know. Another states that Jesus knows omnisciently.  So as we collect our data from the Bible, we do not want to go off either deep ends and say,  “Jesus knows everything, He cannot be ignorant of anything,” or we might say, “If He is ignorant of this, He could be ignorant of many other things, such as tomorrow things.”

By using inductive reasons and data collecting, we study Jesus’ nature and see that, while in His body, Jesus willingly chose not to know certain things – such as the time of His second coming. However, Jesus was more than a man, He is the God-man. Thus as God, He knows all things.  As a man, Jesus possessed the attributes associated with being human – i.e being ignorant of certain things. As God, He possessed attributes associated with deity -- omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence.

Now Jesus never possessed any false information. But there were times in His human experience He could say, “There are some things I do not know,” therefore He had “to increase in wisdom” (Luke 2:52).   But at the same time, as God, He possessed all knowledge, both knowable and possible.

Then after we’ve collected all our data then we derive our principles and our teachings from the examination of the data, and come to a sound conclusion.

So theology is possible and necessary when it is carried out by inductive methods of reasoning guided by the Holy Spirit.

End of Series