Is Theology a Science?
I think this is a good topic to discuss. Perhaps we need to provide definitions of 'science'? What benefits are there to refering to theology as a science? What drawbacks are there?
I will include a quote from John Frame (RP members do not go mad):
Frame's complete article can be found here.
I will include a quote from John Frame (RP members do not go mad):
The best way to define theology, in my view, is as the application of the whole Bible to the whole of human life. Theology is not an attempt to articulate our feelings about God (Schleiermacher), but neither is it merely an attempt to state the objective truth, or to put the truth in “proper order” (Hodge), for Scripture already does those things perfectly well.
Frame's complete article can be found here.
posted by Anonymous | 10:53 AM
11 Comments:
I think Hodge (from this quote; I haven't read any further from him) seems to be saying a bit more than that. "It must be able to show that if one [fact] be admitted, others cannot be denied." This seems to at least imply that we need to first establish that all the biblical facts agree with each other. I think rather this should be an a priori fact! As God's infallible word, they do relate and are all necessary and undeniable; taking that as a given, we proceed from there!
But I do agree that he doesn't seem to be using a definition of science that I would normally think of as science!
I think you're too hard on Hodge, Mary. I don't think he'd deny that it is a presumption of Bible study that the Bible is consistent. Nor do I think that the text you quote implies that the Bible's consistency isn't a presumption of Bible study. What he is saying is that it's part of the job of the systematic theologian to exhibit the logical relations in which various portions of the text stand to each other.
It may, however, be the case that the Bible's consistency isn't a presumption of a certain sort of apologetics.
Here's a bit more from the same place of Hodge:
This constitutes the difference between biblical and systematic theology. The office of the former is to ascertain and state the facts of Scripture. The office of the latter is to take those facts, determine their relation to each other and to other cognate truths, as well as to vindicate them and show their harmony and consistency. This is not an easy task, or one of slight importance.
It depends on your definition of 'science'. Words communicate the meaning that you get from them, and in particular from the generally accepted use.
Today the term 'science' is usually used for the study of natural phenomena, but in Hodge's day it was different. I think he understood it as "a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject". See this definition from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
SCI'ENCE, n. [L. scientia, from scio, to know.]
1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. "The science of God must be perfect."
2. In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science, as the mathematics, is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths, as metaphysics; or on experiment and observation, as chimistry and natural philosophy; or even to an assemblage of the general principles of an art, as the science of agriculture; the science of navigation. Arts relate to practice, as painting and sculpture. "A principle in science is a rule in art."
3. Art derived from precepts or built on principles. "Science perfects genius."
4. Any art or species of knowledge. "No science doth make known the first principles on which it buildeth."
5. One of the seven liberal branches of knowledge, viz grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music.
[Note - Authors have not always been careful to use the terms art and science with due discrimination and precision. Music is an art as well as a science. In general, an art is that which depends on practice or performance, and science that which depends on abstract or speculative principles. The theory of music is a science; the practice of it an art.]
For a modern definition, see here. Could modern man also define 'theology' as a science, given this definition?
"A particular subject that is studied using scientific methods", i.e. those which are "careful and systematic"?
I think so, but I don't like to refer to theology as a science as it makes it sound too cold, and in today's humanistic society makes it sound subject to man's judgment of its verity.
I think people in Hodge's day were enamoured by the term 'science' as they were affected by the Enlightenment's love of it. Add the label 'science', and you make it sound modern and glorious!
I take back my last statement. I think my prejudice against the late 19th Century was just speaking.
I think the Hodges were just using the term 'science' in a very matter-of-fact way.
Phil,
We still haven't worked out why we should mad. You must enlighten us.
David,
Could you please explain this statement for me, because I'd like to understand what you're saying? It seems ambiguous to me.
"It is a body of knowledge that can be systematically modelled for examination via deductive tests for logical consistency, coherence, and historical validity. It conveys propostions about reality that are or can be true independent of uncritical examinations and thus open to further investigation upon deducible warrants."
Daniel,
Yes, I see your point; although I think his quote could be taken either way. But I'll give him the benefit of the doubt! ;)
I wonder about his comment about "vindicating" the facts of Scripture, in your quote. But I'll reserve judgment and read Hodge's full section on "Theology a Science" tomorrow, God willing.
David,
Thanks for your long & thoughtful answer! It's helped me understand your views a lot better. I think, if I understand you correctly, that we basically agree.
Just to clarify my position for you, I would say that the Bible is our basic and primary source of authority and knowledge for a systematic theology. So when someone makes a theological model, I think he should appeal to Scripture primarily to determine whether this is a true model or not, and whether it is consistent. I think historical witness can be helpful in understanding certain practices better which are mentioned in Scripture, particularly the witness of the very early church fathers. I really don’t think archaeology is very helpful in systematic theology though.
What do you mean by “the known existence of historical communities of faith” & how would this help one in developing a systematic theology?
Thanks again & I look forward to your reply.
Phil,
It must be the RPs you hang-out with! I think Frame is brill, however I may disagree with him about the Regulative Principle of Worship. Our Professor of Systematic Theology, Apologetics and Ethics uses Frame's " Apologetics to the Glory of God" as his introduction to apologetics. So all our 'younger' pastors will have studied it.
David,
I think we stray into dangerous ground when we depart from Scripture in constructing a Systematic Theology; i.e. any claims that are not found or cannot be deduced from Scripture.
With regard to Reason, I do understand the concern about "blind faith." Have you ever read Greg Bahnsen on apologetics? I think he deals with this concern very well. Basically I believe that faith in Scripture is not blind, as Christianity is the only reasonable faith; this can be proved by showing that it alone can adequately explain reality, wheareas any other worldview (whether atheism, agnosticism, or other religions) cannot (and are inherently self-contradictory).
A ST should be judged by how well it conforms to Scripture, not by Reason as a separate source of religious authority.
When a person comes to faith in Christ, it is the Spirit's work in his heart that initially enables him to accept the truth of Scripture. But for a Christian, it is a reassuring exercise to see how very reasonable his faith is!
As for Tradition, I believe the Scriptures are adequate for any systematic theology (for instance, II Tim 3:16-17 - makes the man of God "adequate, equipped for every good work"!); very early church fathers' writings may further confirm or enlighten certain areas (such as ways of celebrating the Lord's Supper, for instance), having lived during or directly after the time of our Lord; but in general, church tradition must be judged by Scripture rather than being used as another source for ST.
If someone made crazy claims about Christ or Moses, I would reject these as not being supported by Scripture, without having to use archeology!
As they said in the Reformation, Sola Scriptura...
I hope I've explained my position well enough! Please say if you have further questions or see a problem with something I've said!
David,
I've only just read your comments (Monday the 10th) and hope to reply soon. (I've been busy as we hope to leave on holidays on the 13th!)
Mary
Post a Comment
<< Home