1

Christian Theology I 1

The Nature of Theology WHAT IS THEOLOGY? The Definition of Theology The Church did not invent the word ‘theology’. In ancient Greece, the poets were the first to be called theologians. Homer and Hesiod narrated stories about the gods through the special medium of myths. Their work was called mythic theology. Philosophers like Plato and Aristotle criticized mythic theology. They translated the narrative of mythic theology into the philosophical logos. In this sense, these philosophers were the first demythologisers. In addition, there was also political theology. This dealt with the gods of state religion. When Constantine became a Christian, the political gods were Christianised. The Christian God became the head of the political religion of the Roman Empire. These three forms of theology existed before Christianity. It was the apologists of the 2nd century who commandeered the word ‘theology’ to the Christian faith. Theology is not a biblical word. For the apologists it refers to the truth of God and God’s word of revelation. The Christian apologists presented the Christian faith as the true philosophy – philosophia Christiana. Both Christian theology and Greek philosophy dealt with the logos theou. But Christian theology has the advantage because it knows the logos in the flesh. Its understanding of the logos was therefore concrete and historical and not abstract. In the medieval period (scholasticism) theology is understood in two senses. (1) In the literal sense as the doctrine of God. (2) More broadly, as the statement of truth regarding the sacred teachings of the church (sacra doctrina). In this second sense, theology dealt everything from creation to the sacraments. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica is an example of a comprehensive theological work. It deals with all things pertaining to the Christian faith. Aquinas’ Summa combined natural theology and dogmatics (sacra doctrina). This is based on the view that there is a relationship between reason and faith. God can be known by reason and revelation. How, then, should we define Christian theology? The basic definition is: ‘Theology is the study (science) of God as he is known in his revelation’. This study also includes God’s relationship with the creation in general, and with human beings in particular.

2

According to this definition, Christian theology must have the following characteristics;

1. Christian theology must be biblical. The primary source for Christian theology is the canonical Scriptures of the OT and NT. Theology uses the tools and methods of biblical research to study the content of the Bible.

2. Christian theology must be systematic. This means that it draws from the whole Bible, the entire counsel of God’s Word. The different passages of the Bible cannot be read in isolation from each other. The biblical teaching must be understood in its harmonious coherent whole.

3. Christian theology must relate to issues of general culture and learning. Christian theology must take an inter-disciplinary stance. It must interact with the developments in other fields of human learning. One example of this is theology’s interaction with the natural sciences.

4. Christian theology must be contemporary. By this I mean that Christian theology must use the concepts and idioms of today to express its thoughts. This must be done with care because of the danger of distortions.

5. Christian theology must be practical. ‘Practical’ here does not refer to skills like preaching and evangelism. Rather it refers to how we should conduct our lives. Christian theology should lead to proper worship, obedience, and service to God. Christian theology should lead to devotion.

Branches of Theology Christian theology as we know it is a broad term which brings together many different branches of theological disciplines. It is important that we understand what these different disciplines are and how they are related to one another. Biblical Theology All Christian theology must be biblical. That is to say, Christian theology must be established upon the study of the Christian Scriptures of the OT and NT. In this broad sense, Christian theology is dependent on the insights of biblical exegesis. Christian theology is therefore biblical theology. There are three senses of the term ‘biblical theology’:

1. Biblical theology may refer to the theological movement that arose in the 1940s and declined in the 1960s. This movement sought to synthesize the teachings of the Bible. But it has been severely criticized. Brevard Childs has documented the decline of the biblical theology movement in Biblical Theology in Crisis.

2. Biblical theology may also refer to the theological content of the Old and New Testaments. There are two approaches to biblical theology in this sense. Descriptive biblical theology seeks to simply present the teachings of the various writers of scripture in their first century context. This approach is favoured by Krister Stendahl. Normative biblical theology seeks to isolate the pure teaching of the Bible. These teachings are deemed to be unchanging and valid for all times and contexts.

3

3. Finally, biblical theology simply means theology that is based upon the teachings of the Bible. It is this sense of the term that is most important to Christian theology.

Thus, all Christian theology is biblical in the third sense – it is faithful to the teachings of the Bible. Historical Theology Historical theology is the study of theology as it has developed in the history of the Christian church. There are two major ways of organizing historical theology:

1. The synchronic approach focuses on the theology of a particular period (e.g., Patristic) or a particular theologian (Thomas Aquinas) in relation to others in the same period. Thus the theology of each successive century or major period of time would be examined sequentially.

2. The diachronic approach traces the history of a particular doctrine (e.g., Christology) throughout the history of the Church.

The study of Christian theology must include historical theology. This is because theology is always bound up with history and context. There are at least three reasons why historical theology is important:

1. Historical theology will make us more self-conscious and self-critical of our own presuppositions. We bring our own presuppositions to our reading and interpretation of the Bible. Knowledge of the history of Christian thought and doctrine will enable us to check those presuppositions as well as our conclusions. Historical theology also emphasizes the fact that theology is the work of the Church.

2. Historical theology also helps us with our own theological reflections by looking at how other have done it in the past. The study of the way in which Augustine, Athanasius, Calvin and Karl Barth have theologized in the past will help us with our own theological reflections.

3. Historical theology will provide us with the means to evaluate a particular idea. The ideas that appear novel today may have precursors at earlier periods of the church. For example, the idea that Jesus Christ was just a man who was specially anointed by the Holy Spirit to carry out the will of God in some liberal christologies can be traced to the adoptionist christologies of the 2nd century.

Philosophical Theology Christian theology also uses philosophical theology. While philosophical theology may not supply the content for Christian theology, it is helpful in many other ways. Philosophical theology may contribute to Christian theology by providing the tools for the latter to present a rational defense of the truths of the faith. Furthermore, philosophical theology may also be helpful in clarifying certain terms that Christian theology uses. For example, analytical philosophy is helpful in scrutinizing the meaning of terms and ideas employed in the theological task. It is also useful in analyzing and criticizing the arguments of Christian theology.

4

Theology as Science How does one categorize theology? Since the medieval period theologians has categorized theology as a science. But what does that mean? Augustine preferred to describe theology as wisdom (sapientia) rather than a science (scientia). For Augustine, wisdom relates to eternal things, to the things of God. Science has to do with the investigation of worldly and temporal things. Although science can lead to wisdom, the two must be distinguished. During the time of Aquinas, theology was elevated as the queen of the sciences. Aquinas defines theology as a science. But he qualified this by maintaining that theology is a derived science. According to Aquinas, there are sciences which result from a principle known by the intellect. He cites the various mathematical disciplines as examples. But sacred doctrine (theology) proceeds from the principles revealed by God. It is therefore nobler than all the natural and speculative sciences. Theology is also based on a greater certitude because it is based on the divine knowledge. Because of this sacred doctrine cannot be misled. While other sciences can err, the truth of sacred doctrine is sure because it is based on God’s revelation. Theology is greater than the practical sciences (e.g. ethics). From the Enlightenment, the definition of science became more restrictive and narrow. Science refers only to the investigation of objects of sense experience. The scientific method is also defined in terms of observation and experimentation. Inductive logic is often used in the scientific method. Because of this definition, theology can no longer be described as a science because it deals with supersensible objects. In the twentieth century, a debate ensued concerning the status of theology. This debate is particularly acute in the West where theology is offered as a subject in the universities. Theology’s legitimacy in the university curriculum was called to question. Heinrich Scholz maintains that if theology is to be accepted as a science it must fulfill the following criteria:

• Theology must be free from internal contradiction; • There must be coherence in its propositions; • Its statements must be susceptible to testing; • It must make no assertion that is physically and biologically impossible; • It must be free from prejudice; • Its propositions should be broken up into axioms and theorem and susceptible

to proof. On the basis of these criteria, Scholz concludes that theology is not a science.

5

Karl Barth rejects Scholz arguments and criteria. He maintains that it is legitimate for theology to be called a science. Here are his arguments:

• Theology has a definite subject matter – God in his revelation. • It has a definite method in investigating its subject matter. • Theology is objective – it deals with objective matters. • There is coherence among the propositions of its subject matter. • Theology is answerable to the same canons of logic. • It involves communicability. • To some extent, theology employs the same methods as the other sciences. • It shares subject matter (e.g. anthropology) with other disciplines.

THEOLOGY AND THE BIBLE The Authority of Scripture One of the most important questions in theology is that of authority. On what authority does the church develop her doctrines and practices? For the church, the foundation event is of course Jesus Christ himself who is presented by the original witness of the apostles. This event is not a past event. It is also eschatological in nature. It holds the key to the present meaning of the church. This event is therefore the source of the church’s faith. It is also the norm of the church’s doctrine. Creative authority therefore involves a returning to the sources (resourcement) and bringing the church up-to-date (aggiornamento). Every generation of believer must have the freedom to go back to the sources (Scripture). This is the true authority of the church. This question on authority is the heart of the Reformation. What was the authority that Martin Luther appealed against the highest authorities in the church and empire? Was it reason, conscience, religious experience, dogma, magisterium or Scripture? Theologians from all the traditions of the Church would of course maintain that absolute authority resides in God. They will also agree that God has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, and that this is God unique and supreme revelation. But how do we come to know the mind of Jesus? Where can we find the reliable and trustworthy medium of God’s self-communication? The Reformers maintain that God’s Word is found in Scripture and that Scripture is the norm for faith and practice. This is well articulated in the Formula of Concord:

We pledge ourselves to the prophetic and apostolic writings of the Old and New testaments as the pure and clear fountain of Israel, which is the only true norm according to which all teachers and teachings are to be judged and evaluated … The Word of God is and should remain the sole rule and norm of all doctrine, and no human being’s writings dare be put on a par with it, but everything must be subjected to it.

How are we then to understand the authority of the Bible?

6

1. The Bible is authoritative primarily as a book of religion or divine revelation. It is neither a textbook on the natural sciences or a record of all ancient history. As a book of religion, the Bible records God’s historically mediated words and actions. It would be a mistake to read the Bible as providing a scientific account of the world (e.g., creation science).

2. The message of the Bible transcends the geographical and chronological matrix of

the biblical books. The Bible therefore cannot be subjected to the theory propounded by the school of relativism. This theory maintains that the message of the Bible cannot be communicated to another nonbiblical culture.

3. The authority of the Bible lies in the sovereign God, who commands and

persuades but does not coerce human beings. Christians therefore do not engage in ‘Bibliolatry’ – they do not worship the Bible.

4. The Bible is authoritative when it is interpreted in its historical context and by the

criterion of Jesus Christ. 5. The Bible is authoritative as the Holy Spirit bestows illumination as to the

significance and application of specific texts within the specific books of the Old and New Testaments. Because the Holy Spirit works in the church to bring her into all truth, the authority of the Bible is supported by the tradition of the church.

The Interpretation of Scripture The Historical-Critical Method The historical-critical method (HCM) seeks to interpret Scripture according to the following considerations:

• Lexical, grammatical, syntactical aspects; • Author-related aspects; • Literary genre; • Religious aspects; • Historical contexts

HCM alerts us to the fact that biblical interpretation should begin with the strange ancient world of the Bible. It should not begin with the traditions of later Christianity or the experience of Christians today. Biblical interpretation should be done in context. A certain biblical text must be understood with reference to the preceding text and succeeding passages. HCM maintains that excessive proof-texting will lead to the misunderstanding of the text. HCM also warns against excessive biblical literalism. A biblical passage or text has only one meaning or sense. The meaning of the text is that which was intended by the author or compiler. The Protestant Reformers rejected the medieval fourfold sense of Scripture. They maintain that a passage has ‘one single sense’ (unus simplex sensus) and insists on the ‘historical or grammatical sense’ (sensus historicus sive grammaticus).

7

HCM also maintains that the historical revelation of God was situational. This means that God addresses himself to human beings in their personal, social, geographical and chronological settings. Connected to this is the view that view that a distinction must be made between the culturally restricted and the universally valid. An example would be the distinction between the ceremonial and civil laws of the Pentateuch and the moral law. The former is not binding to Christians, but the latter is. Problems with HCM HCM can be subjected to historical positivism. When this happens an antimetaphysical and anitheological view of the Bible would result. Those who take this approach will insist that knowledge can come ‘only by observation and experience’. The result can be a totally human Bible and a humanized form of biblical religion. Historicism also results in antisupernaturalism. Historicism would not allow divine causation and therefore it would deny all miracles and the miraculous. History, according to its philosophers, cannot be the bearer of the unique or the eternal. According to these scholars, one should accept as true and believe only what can be established by positive, rational proofs. THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY Faith and Reason Probably the single most important issue in a theological prolegomenon is the relationship between faith and reason. Does reason have a role to play with regard to faith? From the very beginning of the history of theology theologians have answered this question in different ways. Among the church fathers there were no single dominant approach. Justin Martyr and Clement of Alexandria affirmed the positive role of reason. The philosophical quest for truth is seen as the preparation of the Gospel. Tertullian, however, held a contrary view. He says that the Gospel is believable precisely because ‘it is absurd … it is certain because it is impossible’. Augustine had maintained that we cannot believe until we first understand, and we cannot understand until we first believe. In other words reason prepares for faith and then it plays an instrumental role to elucidate the truth that is held by faith. Anselm in the middle ages stood in the Augustinian tradition when he defined theology as ‘faith seeking understanding’. Thomas Aquinas maintained that the ‘natural man’ could arrive at a valid knowledge of God, although in reality natural reason is in nearly all cases mixed with error. Bonaventure, Aquinas’ contemporary, maintained that philosophy by itself could only lead to error, not faith.

8

The Reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin questioned human capacity to make contact with divine revelation. Both maintain that all people are inescapably related to God But sin has so utter defaced the imago dei that human beings are incapable of laying hold of God’s redeeming revelation in Jesus Christ. In the 20th century, Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg represent two poles in Christian theology in this question. Barth stresses the priority of faith over understanding. Pannenberg calls for a new appreciation of the open rationality of the Enlightenment. Pannenberg: ‘Every theological statement must prove itself on the field of reason, and can no longer be argued on the basis of unquestioned presuppositions of faith’. We should now define reason and faith. In its broadest sense, reason can be defined as any human cognitive faculty and capacity. It includes philosophical insight and intellectual comprehension. Faith refers to the inward awakening to the infinite mercy of God revealed in Christ. Faith gives rise to the commitment of the whole person to the claims of Christ. Faith is related to knowledge. But it is the knowledge that comes from the illumination of the Spirit in conjunction with hearing the gospel. Faith involves a venture of trust and obedience that goes beyond what reason can guarantee. Faith is not just the assent (assensus) of the truth of revelation but also trust (fiducia) of the Giver of that revelation. Faith is based on divine revelation. And revelation is not the outcome of human reasoning. Yet faith in the revelation must be explicated by reason. Revelation intrudes on human reasoning and redirects this reasoning. Revelation sometimes reverses this reasoning in some cases. Theology and Philosophy The relationship between theology and philosophy has a long history in Christian theology. There are some theologians who maintain that philosophical concepts, indeed philosophical systems can be used to explicate the Christian faith. Others maintain that theology has nothing whatsoever to do with philosophy. Both these positions are untenable. When thinking of the relationship between theology and philosophy, two things must be borne in mind. Firstly, philosophy does not supply theology with its content. Theology’s content is dependent on the revelation of God in Christ as recorded in the Bible. The content of revelation will provide theology also with the framework within which speculation must be carried out. The revelation presents to the Church a particular view of reality – God, the world, and God’s relationship with the world. To say that philosophy may provide the content or substance of theology is to adopt an alien view of reality into theology.

9

Secondly, philosophy – if it is to be of use to theology – must be understood in terms of an activity rather than a body of truth. Philosophy is therefore a way of thinking – philosophizing – rather than a doctrine about the way things are. This perspective of philosophy can be of use to theology because it is can be applied to any data, including the data supplied by revelation. In the medieval period, theologians have employed Aristotelian logic because the latter is seen as a tool that can be used to establish the coherence of the biblical data. In the modern period, analytical philosophy is of use to theology because it helps the latter to clarify concepts and terms it uses. Thus philosophy can be of help to theology in the following ways:

1. Philosophy sharpens our understanding of concepts. Theology as ‘faith seeking understanding’ demands that we must seek to determine just what we mean by what we believe and what we say. Philosophy can help us to do this in some sense.

2. Philosophy can help us to examine some of our presuppositions. Here we must be careful to qualify that philosophy does not provide the presuppositions for theology. Theology must be based on theological presuppositions, not philosophical ones. But philosophy will help us to examine some of the presuppositions we hold.

3. Philosophy can help us to trace the implications and ramifications of an idea. Often it is not possible to assess truth based on the idea itself. We must examine the implications the idea has. For e.g., Arius’ monotheism would lead to the conclusion that the Son is not homousios with the Father. This would have implications on salvation since only God can save.

Theology and Metaphysics The discussion of the relationship between theology and philosophy leads to the relationship between faith and metaphysics. Metaphysics may be simply defined as the investigation of the ultimately real. Metaphysics is therefore closely related to philosophy. Some say that it is the core and soul of philosophy. Theology is related to metaphysics, although it is not metaphysics. Theology has a metaphysical dimension because it is also interested in reality. Theology also deals with the problem of being, that is, with ontology. Theology therefore has metaphysical concerns. In fact, it contains a metaphysic, although this is sometimes more implicit than explicit. Theology’s metaphysic has to do with revelation, with eternity breaking into history. Theology’s metaphysic is therefore neither abstract, nor is it only focused on concrete history. In the history of philosophy, there have been a number of times when philosophy tries to transcend metaphysics. This is done by focusing on human needs and on the concrete exigencies in history. For example, the positivist philosopher Auguste Comte maintains that humanity is now entering into a new age. No longer will we be preoccupied with abstract metaphysical concerns. We will be concerned rather with observing and verifying empirical facts.

10

The natural sciences therefore have taken the place of traditional metaphysics. In theology there were also attempts to rise above metaphysical concerns. Albrecht Ritschl, for example, wanted to ground the Christian religion ins ethics rather than in metaphysics. The statements of theology for him are therefore value judgments based on historical perceptions rather than metaphysical affirmations. In response to Ritschl, H. R. Mackintosh maintains (rightly) that ‘faith must always be metaphysical, for it rests upon convictions which, if true, must profoundly affect our whole view of the universe and the conduct befitting us within it. In this important sense, a metaphysical import belongs to every judgment concerning Ultimate Reality’. While there is a relationship between faith and metaphysics, this relationship must be carefully understood. In the patristic period, theology was so closely wedded to the Hellenistic conception of God as the impassible Absolute that this often overshadows the biblical depiction of God as loving Father. In the medieval period, theology is so closely related to Aristotelian metaphysics that the latter sometimes over powers the former. Can faith enter into an alliance with a particular metaphysics in order to make the truth of the gospel more intelligible to the contemporary mind? Here, the advice of Pannenberg is important:

Christian theology can effect a link-up with the philosophical concept of God only when it undertakes a penetrating transformation of the philosophical concept of right down to its roots. Wherever philosophical concepts are taken over, they must be remoulded in the light of the history-shaping freedom of the biblical God.

The NT itself employs philosophical concepts. But these concepts are always set in a new context and given a new meaning. These concepts have been baptized into the service of theology. The same can be said for Nicaea’s use of concepts like ousia and homousia. Theology’s approach to metaphysics and philosophy must therefore be eclectic and utilitarian. Theology may (indeed it must) use concepts and imagery drawn from the wisdom of the culture. But we must not bow down before them and let them determine our thinking. Philosophy and metaphysics is not necessarily and enemy of theology because God works in culture as well. But metaphysics is not necessarily the preparation of the Gospel or handmaiden to theology. Philosophy and metaphysics must be revised before it can be used by theology.