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 Gods 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
Gods relationship with the creation in general, and with human beings in particular.
1

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 Gods 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
theologys 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. 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.

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 Gods 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. Theologys 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.

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 churchs faith. It is also the norm of the
churchs 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 Gods self-communication?
The Reformers maintain that Gods 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 beings 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?

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 Gods 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).

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.

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 Gods 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. Theologys 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 Gods 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.

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. Theologys metaphysic has to
do with revelation, with eternity breaking into history. Theologys 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.

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 Nicaeas use of concepts like ousia and
homousia.
Theologys 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.

10