002. I. Theology.

I. Theology.

1. Sense and Use of the Ground-term.—The term theology is formed from the Greek words θεός and λόγος, and means primarily a discourse concerning God, or a doctrine of God. It was in use anterior to Christianity, and in literature entirely apart from the divine revelation. Aristotle wrote of theology as one of the sciences, and as the highest of all, because it treated of the highest of all beings. The Greeks gave the name of theologian—θεολόγος—severally to such poets as Hesiod and Orpheus, because they sang of the gods and the origin of things, though with only poetic inspiration.

We are more concerned with the use of this term in the expression of Christian thought. In this use the primary sense has been greatly broadened, so that it often means the sum of Christian doctrine. This appears in what may be accepted as its proper definitions. “God is the source and the subject and the end of theology. The stricter and earlier use of the word limited it to the doctrine of the triune God and his attributes. But in modern usage it includes the whole compass of the science of religion, or the relations of all things to God.”^[3] “Theology, therefore, is the exhibition of the facts of Scripture in their proper order and relation with the principles or general truths involved in the facts themselves, and which pervade and harmonize the whole.”^[4] These definitions reach far toward a definition of systematic theology, and yet do not transcend the meaning of the term theology in its present use. As the ground-term it may consistently be used in so broad a sense. There is still a place for the distinct form of systematic theology.

^[3]Pope:Christian Theology, vol. i, p. 3.

^[4]Hodge:Systematic Theology, vol. i, p. 19.

2. Theology with Differentiating Terms.—Under this head we may state briefly and in a definitive manner, the different forms or distinctions of theology.

Natural theology has its special distinction from revealed theology. This points directly to a distinction of sources. The light of nature is the source of the one, and revelation the source of the other. This distinction means the limitations of the natural compared with the revealed. Many of the deeper truths of Christianity could never be discovered simply in the light of nature. No truths of theology are so clearly given therein as in the Scriptures. Yet the existence of God and our moral responsibility to him, and the duties of obedience and worship, are manifest in the light of nature. We must find in nature the proof of God’s existence before we are prepared for the question of a revelation from him. In view of these facts we may properly retain the formula of natural theology. Revealed theology, simply as such, needs no further statement at this point.

Exegetical theology is a formula in use, particularly in the terminology of theological seminaries. It has no direct exegetical doctrinal meaning, its specific office being simply the interpretation of the Scriptures; but it is properly named here because of the valuable service which biblical exegesis renders in preparing the material with which the theologian must construct his doctrines. This will be pointed out in another place.

Biblical theology is closely related to exegetical, but advances to a doctrinal position. The Scriptures furnish the material with which it works, and which it casts into doctrinal forms. Biblical theology has nothing to do with the confessions or formulas of faith which appear in the history of doctrines. In dealing with such creeds it departs from its own proper sphere and enters that of dogmatic theology. While limited to the Scriptures it need not cover the whole, and rarely does. Sometimes the Old Testament is the subject,^[5] and sometimes the New.^[6] Often the chosen part is only a small fraction of the Scriptures.^[7] With such limitation the term biblical can properly mean only the form of theology.

^[5]Oehler:Theology of the Old Testament.

^[6]Schmid:Biblical Theology of the New Testament.

^[7]Crooks and Hurst:Theological Encyclopedia and Methodology, pp. 391-293.

Dogmatic theology has its proper distinction from both biblical and systematic, though often used in the same sense as dogmatic the latter. It is not limited to the Scriptures, like the biblical, nor has it by any requirement the comprehensiveness of the systematic. Dogmatic theology deals largely with the same material as historical theology, but in a different mode. Its work is with creeds or symbols of faith, not, however, in a mere presentation of their contents or history of their formation, but rather in a discussion of the doctrines which they embody. It may be in its mode either affirmative or controversial. Mostly, dogmatic theology devotes itself to the creed of a particular school. There is no necessary inclusion of all the doctrinal symbols of such school. Dogmatic theology may be just as free from dogmatism in any philosophic sense of the term, and just as scientific in its principles and method, as systematic theology. Its distinctive character is in its close connection with doctrinal symbols and the permissible limitation of its subjects.

Historical theology is often used in a sense to include ecclesiastical history, but the doctrines of the Church are its specific subject. In its subject, therefore, it is closely related to dogmatic theology, but still has its own distinctive character. This will appear in the statement of its definitive facts. It is the office of historical theology to trace the history of doctrines from their incipiency in individual opinion down to their full development and formation. The truth of a doctrine is no condition of its proper place in this history. Athanasianism and Arianism, Augustinianism and Pelagianism, Protestantism and Romanism, Arminianism and Calvinism, are alike entitled to candid treatment. Such treatment fulfills the office of historical theology. When the historian of doctrines enters into their formal discussion, supporting some and controverting others, he so far departs from his own proper function and enters the sphere of dogmatic theology. In logical order, practical theology follows the systematic; yet for the present we find it convenient to reverse this order. Theology in its strictly doctrinal sense is viewed as completed when we reach practical theology; so that the latter has no proper doctrinal content. Yet it is so related to the practical ends of theology as to be fairly entitled to the use of the ground-term.

Practical theology is concerned with the methods for the effective application of doctrinal truths to their practical ends. “It thus possesses a claim to scientific character. For while all theology aims, in its character as a positive science, to affect the life of human beings, it is yet incomplete without that department which is most directly engaged in carrying that positive aim into effect. It is, accordingly, with entire justice that practical theology has been termed by Schleiermacher ‘the crown of the tree.’”^[8] The truth should be specially emphasized, that the practical forces of Christianity, whether for the Christian life or the evangelizing work of the Church, are embodied in the doctrines of Christian theology. This is the requirement for the methods of practical theology whereby these forces may be most effectively applied to the Christian life and the work of the Church.

^[8]Crooks and Hurst:Theological Encyclopedia and Methodology, p. 473.

3. Definitive Facts of Systematic Theology.—In stating the other forms of theology the distinctive character of the systematic also appeared; but for clearness of view we require additional statements. The special subjects of systematic theology are the doctrines of Christianity. It is not meant that the doctrines so designated have their only source in the New Testament. All the doctrines of religion which have a ground of truth in either nature or the Old Testament also belong to this form of theology. But as the doctrines from such sources have their recognition and fuller unfolding in the New Testament we may properly designate all as the doctrines of Christianity. The sense of the term doctrine is not hidden. Any principle or law reached and verified through a proper induction is a doctrine, whether in science, philosophy, or theology. Thus there are doctrines of physics, chemistry, geology, ethics, metaphysics. So in theology: certain truths reached and verified through a proper induction are doctrines in the truest sense of the term. We may instance the personality of God, the divine Trinity, the person of Christ, the atonement, justification by faith. Systematic theology deals with such truths, and for completeness it must include the sum of Christian doctrines. The doctrines severally must be constructed in a scientific manner. A system of theology is a combination of doctrines in scientific accord. But the several doctrines are no more at hand in proper form than the system itself. Hence the requirement for the construction of the doctrines severally. This is possible only through a scientific process. Through a careful study of the facts of geology the doctrines of the science are reached and verified, while in turn they illuminate the facts. Through a careful study and profound analysis of the relative facts the great doctrine of gravitation was reached and verified. The multiform facts are thus united and interpreted and set in a light of new interest. So must systematic theology study the elements of doctrinal truth, whether furnished in the book of nature or the book of revelation, and in a scientific mode combine them in doctrines. Very many facts point to a divine Providence, moral responsibility, human sinfulness, atonement in Christ; but only through a like scientific use of the facts can we reach the great doctrines which underlie these formulas. The method is exemplified in the construction of a doctrine of the Trinity by the Council of Nice and a doctrine of the person of Christ by the Council of Chalcedon. Such symbols, however, give merely the forms of doctrinal expression, not the processes of doctrinal construction. Systematic theology is concerned with the whole work of construction. The doctrines, separately constructed, must be combined in a system. Only thus can we reach a systematic theology. The same principle which rules the construction of the doctrines severally must rule their systemization. As all the elements combined in a doctrine must be in scientific accord, so all the doctrines combined in a system must be in like agreement. As discordant elements cannot constitute a doctrine, so discordant doctrines cannot constitute a system. Hence the requirement of consistency in all the doctrines combined in the system must be faithfully observed. As this imperative law of systemization is manifest on its statement, and also must often appear in future discussions, it here requires no formal illustration. The three facts presented under the present head characterize systematic theology and differentiate it from the other forms previously stated. Its specific subjects are the doctrines and the sum of the doctrines. It must construct the doctrines severally in a scientific form. In this construction there must be a constant view to the ruling principles of the system, else the doctrines may lack the necessary consistency. Finally, the doctrines must be combined in a system under the imperative law of a complete scientific agreement. There is no specific function of interpretation, as in exegetical theology; no restriction to a purely scriptural ground, as in biblical theology, and which may limit its treatment to a mere fraction of the Scriptures; no dealing chiefly with ecclesiastic symbols of faith and without any requirement of a system, as in dogmatic theology; no simply historic office in tracing the development and formation of doctrines and giving their contents, as in historical theology. Systematic theology is broader and deeper. It must include all the doctrines which properly belong to a system, and may freely command all the resources of doctrinal truth.

4. Relation of Systematic to Other Forms of Theology.—The different forms of theology are not severally isolated. Otherwise there could be no proper methodology in the curriculum of theological study. They are so related as readily to take their places in a logical order. There is a close relation of systematic theology to the other forms, particularly in the fact that mostly they furnish the material, and much of it well prepared, for its use in the construction of doctrines. This appears in the case of exegetical theology. The doctrines are grounded in the Scriptures and, to be true, must be true to the sense of the Scriptures. The doctrinal sense lies chiefly in the appropriate texts, what we call the proof-texts. It is the office of exegesis to give this sense. In this view the texts are for doctrine what facts are for science. Hence exegesis fulfills in the former the office of observation and experiment in the latter. The intimate relation between exegetical and systematic theology and the valuable service which the former renders the latter are thus clearly seen. Systematic theology, however, still has its own office to fulfill. As the generalizations of science are a distinct work from the finding of the facts, so the construction of doctrines is a distinct work from the interpretation of texts. Biblical theology is subsidiary to systematic in a manner kindred to the exegetical.

There is also an intimate relation to historical theology. In this view we may include the dogmatic with the historical, as both deal so largely with the same material. The historical two give us the history of doctrinal opinion and the results of doctrinal construction. The doctrines so constructed are not authoritative for systematic theology, but may render valuable service in the prosecution of its own work. This may be the case even when the method is wrong and the results erroneous. It has been so in relation to various sciences. Alchemy prepared the way for chemistry, and with all its vagaries performed a valuable service. Astrology prepared the way for astronomy, and the gathered facts were of great service in the transition from the false theory to the true. The method of Linnaeus in botany is no longer accepted, but the work which he wrought is of value to this day. No wise worker in these spheres of science has overlooked this preparatory work or failed to appropriate its fruits. So may the systematic theologian find help in dogmatic and historical theology. This history discloses many errors in theology, and many errors appear in dogmatic symbols; but the true can be set over against the false and be seen the more clearly in the contrast. Besides, in many instances the truth of doctrine has been reached and well formulated. The history of doctrines may thus help the work of systematic theology.