The following is a highly overlooked point, particularly with reference to Christian theology. What, or more pointedly, Who is theology’s control? The answer to this question drives what I attempt to be all about, when it comes to doing prayerful and dialogical theology. We could ask this question another way: is there an order, a taxis, to doing Christian theology; an order that takes into account a thoughtful and intentional theological ontology? These are important questions, and ones that I rarely see engaged with within the received theologies of much of evangelical Lutheran and Reformed theologies. It is just presupposed that there is some sort of vestiges theology available in the natural order; as if we might posit a general and special revelation: the former coming prior to the latter (and so, natural theology). But I would argue, au contraire, as does the great Scot theologian, Thomas Forsyth Torrance.
As we shall see later, in natural science, that is in the science of natural objects which have to objects of our cognition, when we known them, we can test our knowledge through experimental controls in which we force them to answer our questions. Moreover natural objects may be affected by our knowledge as they come under the coercive devices of our empirical methods of observation. But God is not subject to observation like that. He does not come under man’s command, and therefore we cannot put Him to the test or bring Him under the power of our controlled scrutiny. Nevertheless, here, as in all other genuine scientific knowledge, the method of knowledge must correspond to the nature of the object, so that where natural science has its controlled observation and experimental verification, we have to cast ourselves on the Grace of God and allow Him to determine the form of our knowledge will take, and the kind of verification appropriate to Him. Thus, for example, the kind of inquiry we have to direct to God that is in accordance with His nature as Divine Subject is rather of the nature of prayer, and never the coercive questioning we have to devise for mute and natural objects.[1]
This is how TFT develops what he calls his, theological science. He also calls it kata physin (according to the nature of) theology; and as mechanisms of this type of theology he will refer to a ‘stratified knowledge of God’ and/or an ‘epistemological inversion,’ wherein a knowledge of God, in a God-world order, sees the world’s antecedent, and inner-reality, in the triune God, as the ground and basis upon which a genuine knowledge of God might be arrived at. In this approach to theology there aren’t any hooks or ‘vestiges’ in the fallen created order wherein a philosopher or a theologian might stumble upon a discovery of the Christian God. For TFT, and for myself following, the only way the Christian God is known is after God. That is, as both Barth and TFT argue for verbosely, along with the early church fathers, only God reveals God. In this frame, the only mediary between God and humanity, humanity and God, is the Godman, the Theanthropos. It is here where an evangelical or kerygmatic knowledge of God fru-its; where the flower of God’s triune life for the world blossoms in the prosopon (face) of Jesus Christ. It is only as we know God as our Father, just as sure as the Christian is a Christian indeed, while in participation in the bosom of the Father in the Son, that a genuinely Christian knowledge of God might obtain; as we think from a center in God (that is, in Christ).
It seems to me that the above should be basic, a given for the Chrisitan way of theology. But surprisingly in the history of interpretation, and theological development, another way has unfolded. A speculative way; a way that attempts to synthesize the classical Greek philosophers, particularly, Aristotle and Plato, with Christian Dogmatics. Unfortunately, with the overemphasis on speculation provided for by appeal to the philosophers, theologians following this wake, end up providing a picture of God that is anything but personalist and relational. Indeed, in the 21st century such “theologians” mock the type of Christian theologizing that would come to think God in terms of Father of the Son; they call the proponents of such theologizing: theistic personalists (juxtaposed with their self-proclaimed classical and thus orthodox theology). But is the story these “theologians” self-narrate to their navels really the story of God for the world in Jesus Christ?
[1] Thomas F. Torrance, Theological Science (Oxford/London/New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 38.
Theology is a dialectic— the contradistinction of what can be known and understood by the capacity of the human form of mind through humankind’s created faculty of consciousness and thought— to know reality as it actually is… as spirit.
Since the “usurpation” of mankind’s self-consciousness came to fruition through deception (thereby proving the ultimate unreliability of human reason) there can be no final dependence upon reason as the ground and basis of knowing God— because such knowing is only possible in the context of a relationship of mutual fidelity— found of God by man, and manifest in humankind as faith, the reciprocal loyalty/faithfulness of man in agreement with God’s own benevolent fidelity to and for man.
Biblical theology is essentially the written testimony of Israel that bears witness to this particular people’s experience of that relationship, given by virtue of God’s choice of such means to make himself known as he actually is in the essence of his own being: the Father, who is Spirit, made manifest to mankind (and mankind’s capacity of mind) in human form through the Son, who is a particular man.
In the end… decisively… we are confronted with two completely different paradigms; one based in a “non-logical” commitment to divine revelation and the other based on an attempt to make divine revelation logical. In the end, we are confronted with faith as reason.
@Richard, yes: faith as knowledge of God; as that is mediated to us through the humanity of Jesus Christ. In union with Him we have access into the life of God, and thus a true relation loving knowledge of Him.
Indeed… and as Torrance astutely proclaims, the theological task is either ‘kata physin’ or it is simply a self-projection of the would-be knower in regard to thinking God; and thus, self.
And what is the etymology of the word “logical”, that is, the Greek word that is its ultimate root?
Bobby,
I resonate with the general tilt of your thinking regarding the place of philosophy in theology. I don’t have access now but will send you a dissertation from one of my seminary professors in which he engages in a serious critique of the role of philosophy in Christian theology.
On a related by slightly different point, I have always felt that the true hermeneutic is not found in a method or an interpretive principle but in the simple idea that obedience brings one to more light. As we obey what we have been given we can see further. John 7:17 This roots all knowledge in the relationship of trust and obedience and not in the speculative mind alone.
The philosophy always comes in as we try to relate Bible truths to other systems of thought as in apologetic efforts. Jaroslav Pelikan has a book, “Christianity and Classical Culture” in which he explores the theology of the Cappadocian fathers. What has always fascinated me is that the first half of the book is titled “Natural theology as apologetic” and then the 2nd half “Natural theology as presupposition.” You can see what happens. We begin by using philosophical arguments to engage unbelievers and by the time we are done their foundational premises have become our own and end up reworking our own theological conceptions.
Are we trying to penetrate deeper than what God has revealed? Is our curiosity greater than our desire to obey? And does this lead to speculation rather than a more penetrating insight into the scripture itself? These are questions I muse on but have not arrived at solid answers for.
Rob
Ps. Thank you for sharing your efforts to think through these things.
Anon.,
I have no idea how your comment impinges on my post’s topic. I can see a type of facile reasoning behind what you’re attempting to say, but that is facile and does not defeat or undercut the basic premise of the post. Explain further, but you’ll have to use your real full name if you want to engage further.
Hi Rob,
Yeah, the work I’ve been doing here at the blog and elsewhere, over the years, attempts to present a positive way (via positiva) and/or kataphatic (rather than apophatic) way for doing theology. And yes, the Pelikan point is definitely illustrative of that problem, as are many of the Reformed Confessions by way of order and composition etc. This is why I often write against natural theology and/or its sub-mechanism of analogia entis (analogy of being). I am against speculative based theologies and for revelational, only after God has spoken (Deus dixit) in Christ type of theology.
Bobby, my heart breaks for the misunderstandings expressed to the scholastics. I know because I was once one of those who did this. I assure you, my aim is not to troll, but to ask questions that provoke further thought. I spent 40 consecutive work days praying in a chapel for someone I know enveloped by these ideas; I say this not to boast, but to show that I am concerned about this as an issue of salvation and truth and not for my ego in a passing argument. I pray for you every day.
Asking about the Logos should be an invitation to further discussion. Indeed Jesus is the Word spoken to mankind in a way that is intelligible and logical (for further, please read Francis Schaeffer, the God Who Is There). We run the risk of making our faith seem like an irrelevance if we focus on a perceived divide between faith and reason.
Sam
Sam (I asked for full name, but made an exception for you, since we’ve corresponded before). This is not a salvation issue for me, as it is for you. One of the problems with your commenting is that you really never engage with the substance of my posts on this matter (like scholasticism, natural theology etc). You refer to anecdotal things, or present quotes from various doctors of the church, so on and so forth. That is not a meaningful way to engage, esp. on matters that you seem to think carry the weight of salvation. Whether or not someone is a scholastic, classical theologian, or whatever in that vein, these are not salvific matters for me (as I already noted); they are matters of Christian spirituality and existence, which are indeed, very very important matters; i.e., the implications for how one lives and perceives the living God on a day to day basis.
In my view, you are pretty confused on these things, which saddens me. It is simply “believe on the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” You seem to be in bondage to thinking salvation has to do with what church you are connected to (sectarianism), how you understand the so-called means of grace (which I don’t even prefer using that language), what theological method someone is attuned to etc etc. These are not matters of eternal salvation, per se, but again, of understanding what the incarnation itself implies for all things (including a theological ontology and epistemology). So, again, while I don’t think what I am critiquing, in regard to scholasticism (and my critique is primarily focused on Protestant versions of that) is a matter of whether or not someone is saved, on a continuum, it still has serious consequences in regard to the way a Christian will live their Christian life before God and others.
I’m not sure what you’re hoping to persuade me of, but I have spent at least a nearly quarter of a century studying and reading and writing on these things. There isn’t something I am going to “find out” at this point that is going to change my mind about the negative way of theology. It isn’t biblical; it is philosophical; it isn’t revelational; it is speculative; it doesn’t think from Father of the Son; but from a prefabricated speculative understanding of god as pure act/being/monad. None of that is biblical, and the Catholic church has gotten that sorely wrong (as have many classical Protestant iterations following in its wake). But my critique of Catholicism is different than what I typically write on here. My critique of Catholicism has to do with a theory of authority and revelation. So, there is overlap, of course. But typically my attempt is to reduce the logic that many scholastic Protestants have imbibed to their point of ecclesial origin in Catholicism. I am at least a step removed from where you’re at. I hope that you’ll see how Catholicism has erred on fundamental things, particularly in the area of ecclesiology and authority and revelation.