15. Theology and science.
We must not enter into the question of whether theology is a science until there is an understanding of the concept of science, because the word science is used in various senses and even more often without any sense.
If by science one understands "an ordered natural knowledge," that is, a knowledge which man has gained without the revelation of Holy Scriptures by way of observation of nature and himself, Christian theology is not a science. The reason for this lies in the fact that of that which constitutes the specific content of Christian doctrine, namely, the Gospel of Christ, neither the vast domain of nature nor the conscience of man gives any knowledge, as Scripture clearly teaches.432) From the revelation of God, which is present in nature and in the human conscience, not the Christian, but only the so-called natural religion or the religion of the law can be recognized.433) Furthermore: If science in the field of
429) Acts 20:32.
430) The Christian Faith, Presented in Context According to the Principles of the Evangelical Church, 1, 16.
431) St. L. X, 406.<w:t>432) 1 Cor. 2:6-16.
433)<w:t>Rom. 1:18 ff; 2:14. 15.
120 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 107]
theology is understood as a higher level of knowledge compared to the knowledge of faith, then theology is not a science in this sense either. The reason for this lies in the fact that even the most learned theologians do not go beyond the explicit revelation of the Holy Scriptures with their knowledge of spiritual things. Even with them, as with all Christians, in this life the organ of cognition of spiritual things (the medium, cognoscendi) remains only faith. In still other words, the theologian, too, recognizes of spiritual things only as much as he believes on the basis of the revealed Word of God.434) "The beginning, middle, and end of theology is to believe the Word of God." The fact that the theologian's knowledge is as a rule extensively greater is due to the fact that, as a result of persistent study, he recognizes more details or secondary circumstances from the revelation of Scripture. It does not stand in such a way that the theologian knows what the other Christians only believe. For the theologian, too, knowledge is faith and faith is knowledge. The philological, philosophical, historical, etc. knowledge of the theologian, which he has acquired beforehand, is not just knowledge. The philological, philosophical, historical, etc. knowledge of the theologian, which he has ahead of other Christians, belongs to the external theological apparatus, not to the inner essence of knowledge, and, properly used, serves only the knowledge of faith. They serve the exact understanding of the scriptural word, i.e. the exact understanding of the divine revelation; they do not enable or entitle the theologian to have his own thoughts about spiritual things, i.e. thoughts that are created from himself. When a number of recent theologians define theology with preference as the science of Christianity in the sense that it is the task of theology to elevate faith to knowledge, there is a great self-deception and apostasy from the principle of knowledge of theology.
If one understands by science a certain knowledge in contrast to mere views, opinions, hypotheses, etc., then theology is the science κατ εξοχήν, that is, the most accomplished science that can exist on earth. The reason is this: Whereas in all fields of knowledge belonging to the realm of nature we have only a compilation of human observations and human conclusions, which by the nature of the thing (errare humanum est) yield more or less uncertain results (philosophy, astronomy, medicine, etc.), so
434) 1 Cor. 13:12; Jn. 8:31-32; Rom. 1:5.
121 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 108]
the Christian theologian has God's Word, i.e. God's own observation, view and doctrine, in the Holy Scriptures about all objects with which he has to do as a theologian, whereby of course (errare in Deum non cadit) every error and uncertainty is absolutely impossible. Jn. 17:17: "Thy word is truth" and Jn. 10:35: "The Scripture cannot be broken."
Against this was and is objected: Granted that what the Scriptures teach is truth or objectively certain, there still remains in question the subjective certainty, namely, whether man also rightly recognizes or understands the doctrine revealed in the Scriptures. It is said, for instance, "The pure objectivity of those who merely want to adhere to Holy Scriptures, namely, not only as a norm but also as a source, is only appearance." And this is justified by the fact that the content of Scripture must necessarily pass through the subjective conception of the theologian.435 ) To this it is to be said: even the faith by which the Christian theologian, like every other Christian, apprehends or recognizes God's own doctrine in Scripture is not an opinion or view produced by men themselves (fides humana), but a knowledge or conviction (fides divina) wrought by the Holy Spirit through the divine Word itself, that is, quite certain knowledge or certain cognition.
Faith is the product not of “the wisdom of men,” (έν δυνάμει θεοῦ) but of “the power of God” έν δυνάμει θεοῦ436); it is therefore, in contrast to worldly knowledge, the one certain knowledge, as Scripture itself declares (1 Cor. 2:12): “We have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.” “ἵνα εἰδῶμεν τὰ ὑπὸ τοῦ θεοῦ χαρισθέντα ἡμῖν."437) But this subject will be further treated under the section "Theology and Certainty." It should only be pointed out here how Luther describes the certainty which prevails in theology. He says: "The Holy Spirit is not a skeptic, and has not written doubts or opinions in our hearts, but assertions more certain and firm than life itself and all experience." 438) Even later Lutheran dogmatists, who reject scientia as a generic term for theology, admit that theology may very well be called a science if the certainty prevailing in it is seen as opposed to an opinion.
435) Nitzsch-Stephan, p. 11.<w:t xml:space="preserve">436) 1 Cor. 2:5. <w:t>437) 1 Cor. 2:12.
438) Opp. v. a.VII, 123 sq.: Spiritus Sanctus non est scepticus nec dubia aut opiniones in cordibus nostris scripsit, sed assertiones ipsa vita et omni experientia certiores et firmiores. [Google] St. L. XVIII, 1680.
122 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 108-109]
Thus Calov says: "It should be noted that it is not a question of whether theology can be called a science in a more general sense of the word, nor of whether theology, because of its perfection, should not rather be called a science than an opinion or an imperfect skill (habitus) . … Both we readily admit, because it is also called a science in a wider sense by the Holy Spirit, 1 Cor. 12:8, and is properly taught here and there by Thomas [Aquinas] as well as by Augustine, that it is not merely an opinion, but also a science."439)
In our time, we do not like to call theology a science because the word has been misused by recent theologians. The discrediting has been done by those theologians who assign to theology the task of elevating faith to knowledge or of proving Christian doctrine to be true before human reason. This is impossible because the natural man cannot know the truth of the gospel, ψυχικός άνθρωπος ου δέχεται τα του πνεύματος του θεοϋ … ου δύναται γνώναι.440) Therefore Christ's command is not to prove the gospel to the world, but to preach it to the world, κηρύξατε το εύαγγέλιον πάοη τη κτίσει. The apostle Paul possessed a scientific education. But this very apostle emphasizes very strongly that he abstained from scientific demonstration even before a scientifically educated audience, e.g., the Corinthians, so as not to impose false supports on their faith.441) Ancient theologians express this aptly and briefly thus: Theologia non est habitus demonstrativus, sed exhibitivus. What they mean by this is that theological aptitude consists in presenting or announcing the Christian doctrine to the world, not in proving it to be true on the basis of reason. The proof of truth is provided by the Holy Spirit, who is connected with the proclaimed word, breaking the secure hearts by the proclamation of the Law of God, and by the proclamation of the
439) Systema I, 42: Observandum autem, non disquiri, utrum theologia scientia dici possit laxiori vocis significatione, nec etiam, an theologia potius scientia ob sui perfectionem quam opinio aut imperfectus habitus dici debeat. ... Utrumque illud facile admittimus, cum et a Spiritu Sancto vocetur scientia laxa significatione 1 Cor. 12, 8 etc. et recte a Thoma ut et ab Augustino passim doceatur, eam non solum opinionem, sed et scientiam esse.. [Google]
440) 1 Cor. 2:14; 1:23.<w:t>441) 1 Cor. 2:1-5.
123 ><w:t>The nature and concept of theology. [English ed. 109-110]
Gospel of God, producing faith in the gospel in the hearts and eo ipso the proof of truth for the gospel. Let us take the matter as it really is! In the state of the contritio worked by the law of God the interest in reasons disappears, because the man is "beaten into a heap". And then, when through the proclamation of the Gospel faith in the Savior of sinners has arisen, man rejoices in the divine truth that saves, without looking around for reasons of reason for the same. In this sense is meant the axiom: "The best apology of the Christian religion is its proclamation." Kirn thinks that man is sufficiently prepared for understanding the Gospel if he "seeks God and strives for moral perfection."442) It is precisely the despair of all moral perfection or the personal realization of the worthiness of damnation (terrores conscientiae, contritio) that is the inevitably necessary but also sufficient preparation for the "understanding" of the Gospel. As far as the proofs of reason for the Christian religion are concerned, we can of course explain to the naturally rational man, especially to the educated one, that it is more reasonable to accept the Christian religion than to reject it. This belongs to the field of apologetics. But the apologist must remain aware that it is not his task to demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion to the unbeliever, but to expose to him the untruthfulness of unbelief, because unbelief, whether consciously or unconsciously, crowds intelligence, whereas it is based on the evil will, as Christ testifies: “every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved” Ό φαύλα πράσσων μισεΐ το φως καί ονκ ερχεται προς το φως, ΐνα μη έλεγχϑη τά εργα αΰτοΰ.443) There are no scientific reasons against Christianity. This subject will be further discussed under the section "The Divine Authority of Holy Scriptures," specifically at "fides humana."