Featured The Nature of Theology

There are several definitions of theology. I understand theology to be the study of God, literally. But more than not we are speaking of systematic theology. Systematic theology is a discipline that addresses topics individually and in summary (it utilizes the bible as a whole to develop its doctrines). As such, I believe that theology itself is limited. It is limited to what is being revealed in Scripture. It is limited to our interpretations. It is limited to human reasoning and the capabilities of our finite minds.

Another definition holds that theology is revealed by God by special revelation and also by illumination. If this theology is the theology revealed by God then it is objective (it is not swayed by man’s limitation).

Awhile back the argument was made that God gave to the Church specific teachers (here speaking of Reformed theologians). Their teachings were given by God for the Church and are therefore absolute.

What do you think? Does God reveal through special revelation theology as objective truth? Is there a theological system today that is not subject to the failings of man?

 

I always considered historical theology a bit separate, but I suppose it is really an examination of systematic theology and doctrinal development throughout history. While I agree that systematic theology is less objective than biblical theology, I think it is important to realize that neither are completely objective.

My main question of this thread is about systematic theology and the development of doctrine (the question came from another thread involving systematic (not biblical) theology. Do you think it fair to say that theology is revealed by God through special revelation?

 

There is a sense where I agree with you and a sense where I do not.

I agree that God's revelation is unveiled through the work of the Spirit (as evidenced in this passage). However, I disagree that we can look to our theologies themselves as completely objective and given via special revelation (if that is what you mean beyond the illustration).

In other words, and for illustration, God did not impart 5 point Calvinism (or Arminianism) as perfect and objective divine special revelation. What is unveiled is what has already been revealed to mankind. Both of those theological systems are less than completely objective (one may be right, but the weak point is human understanding and reasonable ).

 

I absolutely agree (and hopefully didn't turn this into a Cal/Arm debate, I am neither but it is an excellent illustration to use). Arminianism and Calvinism both have distinctive reasonings that come out in their theology (all theologies do). They also share many presuppositions. It is important, IMHO, to at least try to identify what we bring into the theology we hold.

 

Icon,

As far as I know you never said that these teachings were absolute. If I remember correctly you said that they were objective. There was a thread (there were, if I recall, actually 2 threads) where I was challenged for rejecting the interpretation of an eighteenth century pastor. The charge against me was one of questioning the doctrine God gave the church because God had given that pastor to the Church for its teaching. The teaching therefore was God given revelation and absolute truth (it was not subjective, but objective fact). It was this mentality that I was addressing, not your comments. And no, I do not believe it appropriate to quote the statement as that person is not involved in this thread (the thread also did not continue very well). So, unfortunately, I’ll ask you to take my word for the dialogue or if my revealed character does not afford that concession, dismiss it all together (I won’t be offended either way). I'll just take your comment to be that our theologies are not absolute (I take it for the reasons mentioned), but Scripture itself is absolute. And on that I can agree.

BTW, I think in your passage you mean “revealed” truth and not “reformed.” Jesus was not reforming but revealing and fulfilling (reformed doctrine was an attempt at getting back to what was revealed).

 

I agree that the Holy Spirit guides us, and that God's revelation is unveiled as we continue to study. We now see darkly, but then face to face. I am not taking specifically about understanding what God reveals to us, I am talking about systematic theology and our building of doctrines.

For example, one may hold one of several eschatological views - but none of these views are absolute truth on par with Scripture itself. One may hold one of several theories of atonement, yet none are absolute truth on par with Scripture itself. If to me Calvinism is the gospel message because that is how I understand the gospel, then that is well and good. But if I believe that it is actually God's revelation of that gospel (that the gospel is actually Calvinism) then I am approaching heresy (or Catholicism....one of those two).

 

Ah….I misunderstood your comment. Hebrews 9:10 clears it up and I agree. You mean in terms of rectification; of reformation in the sense of reconstruction – a reshaping of Israel’s religion (the New Covenant). I took your comment out of context (sorry).

 

I disagree. It is not that we cannot know anything about anything but that we cannot know everything about everything. Calvinism simply incorporates things that are not absolutely revealed in the Bible. Theology does this, and as Spurgeon eloquently noted, there is a "needsbe" for this. We have finite cognitive abilities. You understand the gospel in terms of Calvinism (I also did at one time). But there is also a reason that we are commanded not to lean on our own understanding.

God's Word is without error, it is objective and absolute. How we develop doctrines and apply God's Word, however, is not so clean cut. The Bible was never written so that you could teach the mind of God, His thought process in election, the logical order of His decree to save, etc.

What I am saying is that our understanding is necessary for us to deal with God's revelation. But we can't lean on our understanding. Calvinism may be my understanding of the gospel (it is to me the gospel itself), but for me to think that the gospel is Calvinism is wrong. There is so much in Calvinism (and any theology) that is extra-biblical. There is no special revelation, for example, given of God's thoughts as He offered His Son, or of the total scope of the Atonement...or of the logical order of God's decree to elect. We may have a theory, and even need a theory, but that is so that we can understand and deal with what is actually revealed in and of God's Word.

We have the doctrine of the Trinity. It is systematic theology. And there are gaps and potential error in our understanding of the relationship of individual members of the Godhead. There are differences. I have stated that I reject a separation between Father and Son on the Cross, based in part from passages forming our understanding of the Trinity.