Expanded, in-depth answers from the Catechismus Maximus—detailed theological expositions that unpack the concise teachings of the catechism.
Q1: What is Theology?
This answer expands the Catechismus Maximus response to Q1: What is Theology?, unpacking all arguments in detail for the Compendius Maximus.
Etymology and Foundational Definition
The term “theology” derives from the Greek compound theologia (θεολογία), meaning “discourse on God,” formed by combining theos (θεός, God) and logos (λόγος, word, discourse). This etymological foundation establishes theology as fundamentally linguistic and rational engagement with the divine, reflecting humanity’s attempt to articulate coherent understanding of God through reasoned discourse.
The classical definition positions theology as the systematic study and articulation of divine revelation, encompassing God’s nature, acts, and relationship to creation. This tripartite scope—nature, acts, and relationship—reflects the comprehensive ambition of theological inquiry to address not merely abstract divine attributes but the dynamic engagement between God and the created order. The systematic character distinguishes theology from mere religious experience or devotional practice, emphasizing methodological rigor and coherent organization of divine truth.
Scripture as Foundation: Theopneustos
Theology finds its epistemological foundation in Scripture as theopneustos (θεόπνευστος, God-breathed), as articulated in 2 Timothy 3:16: “All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” The concept of theopneustos establishes divine inspiration as the fundamental source of theological knowledge, distinguishing revealed truth from human speculation.
The historical development of this doctrine traces through early Christian understanding of prophetic inspiration, where the Holy Spirit was understood to move through human authors while preserving their individual literary styles and historical contexts. The early church fathers, particularly those involved in the canonization process, recognized theopneustos as the criterion distinguishing authentic apostolic writings from later compositions. This principle became foundational for all subsequent theological methodology, establishing Scripture’s authority over human reason and tradition.
The implications of theopneustos extend beyond mere textual inspiration to encompass the entire theological enterprise. If Scripture is God-breathed, then theology—as systematic reflection on Scripture—participates in divine revelation itself, though always in a derivative and subordinate manner. This relationship prevents theology from claiming independent authority while affirming its legitimate role in articulating divine truth.
Dual Revelation: General and Special
General Revelation through Physis
Theology engages both general revelation through physis (φύσις, nature) and special revelation through apokalypsis (ἀποκάλυψις, revelation). Romans 1:20 establishes the foundation for natural theology: “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.”
The concept of general revelation through nature has generated extensive theological reflection throughout church history. The early church fathers, influenced by Platonic and Stoic philosophy, generally affirmed that creation bears witness to its Creator. Justin Martyr argued that the logos spermatikos (seed-bearing word) was present throughout creation, making divine truth accessible through rational reflection on the natural order. Clement of Alexandria similarly maintained that philosophy served as a “schoolmaster” leading Greeks to Christ, parallel to the law’s function for Jews.
However, the adequacy and clarity of natural revelation became a point of significant theological debate. While Romans 1:20 affirms that God’s “eternal power and divine nature” are “clearly perceived” in creation, Romans 1:21-23 immediately describes how humanity “became futile in their thinking” and “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images.” This tension between revelation’s clarity and human cognitive failure has shaped theological method for centuries.
Special Revelation through Apokalypsis
Special revelation through apokalypsis represents God’s particular disclosure of himself through historical acts and verbal communication, culminating in Jesus Christ. Hebrews 1:1-2 provides the classic formulation: “Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world.”
The progressive character of special revelation unfolds through covenantal history, beginning with primeval revelation to Adam and Eve, continuing through patriarchal and Mosaic covenants, developing through prophetic literature, and reaching definitive expression in the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Each stage builds upon previous revelation while introducing new elements, creating a unified yet complex theological narrative.
The relationship between general and special revelation has generated significant theological debate. Some traditions emphasize their harmony, arguing that both sources ultimately derive from the same divine author and therefore cannot contradict each other. Others prioritize special revelation, viewing it as necessary for correctly interpreting general revelation, which has been obscured by human sin. Still others, particularly in reformed traditions, argue that sin has so corrupted human reasoning that general revelation, while objectively clear, cannot be properly understood apart from the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.
Synthesis into Scientia Dei
Theology synthesizes both forms of revelation into a coherent scientia Dei (knowledge of God), representing the systematic integration of divine truth into comprehensive understanding. This synthesis requires careful methodological consideration of how general and special revelation relate to each other and how human reason appropriately engages divine truth.
The concept of scientia Dei implies that theological knowledge possesses genuine cognitive content—it is not merely symbolic, experiential, or practical, but constitutes actual knowledge about God’s nature and acts. This epistemological realism has been challenged by various theological movements, including some forms of liberal theology that reduce religious language to symbolic expression of human experience, and postmodern approaches that question the possibility of objective knowledge about God.
However, classical Christian theology has consistently maintained that scientia Dei represents authentic knowledge, though always analogical and accommodated to human cognitive limitations. This knowledge is reliable and substantive while remaining creaturely and finite. The synthesis of revelatory sources requires careful attention to their relative authority, with special revelation providing the interpretive framework for understanding general revelation.
Patristic Foundations: Origen’s Contemplative Ascent
Origen’s Theological Method
Patristic thinkers, notably Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253), framed theology as a contemplative ascent to divine mysteries (mysterion, μυστήριον). Origen’s approach to theology emerged from his comprehensive engagement with Scripture, philosophy, and the spiritual life, creating a unified vision of theological inquiry as participation in divine truth rather than merely academic investigation.
Origen’s theological method is articulated most clearly in his *De Principiis* (On First Principles), where he establishes a hierarchical understanding of theological knowledge. At the foundational level lies the “rule of faith” (*regula fidei*) received from apostolic tradition, providing the essential framework for theological reflection. This rule encompasses core doctrines including the Trinity, incarnation, and salvation, which serve as non-negotiable parameters for theological inquiry.
Beyond this foundational level, Origen recognizes extensive areas where Scripture and tradition provide limited guidance, requiring careful theological reasoning. In the preface to *De Principiis*, he writes: “All who believe and are assured that grace and truth were obtained through Jesus Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth, agreeably to his own declaration, ‘I am the truth,’ derive the knowledge which incites men to a good and happy life from no other source than from the very words and teaching of Christ.”
The Contemplative Dimension
Origen’s characterization of theology as contemplative ascent reflects his integration of philosophical and spiritual methodology. Drawing from Platonic traditions of intellectual ascent to divine truth, Origen argues that theological understanding requires purification of the soul and progressive illumination by divine grace. This process involves three stages: ethical purification (*praktike*), natural contemplation (*physike*), and mystical theology (*theologike*).
The contemplative ascent begins with moral purification, recognizing that sin obscures spiritual vision and impedes theological understanding. Origen writes in his *Commentary on the Song of Songs*: “No one can receive the things of the Spirit of God unless he has first been purified in heart.” This purification involves both negative elements (removal of vice and passion) and positive cultivation of virtue, particularly the theological virtues of faith, hope, and love.
Natural contemplation represents the intermediate stage, where the purified soul recognizes divine presence and activity throughout creation. This contemplation goes beyond mere intellectual analysis to involve spiritual perception of divine truth mediated through created reality. Origen’s extensive allegorical interpretation of Scripture exemplifies this contemplative approach, seeking spiritual significance beyond literal meaning.
The culmination in mystical theology involves direct, though still mediated, encounter with divine truth. Origen describes this as the soul’s marriage to the divine Word, using the imagery of the Song of Songs to articulate the intimate union between the human spirit and divine truth. This union does not eliminate the distinction between Creator and creature but represents the highest possible participation in divine life available to created beings.
Divine Mysteries (Mysterion)
Origen’s emphasis on divine mysteries (mysterion) reflects his understanding that theological truth ultimately transcends human comprehension while remaining accessible through divine revelation and grace. The concept of mysterion in Origen’s theology encompasses both the objective hiddenness of divine truth and the subjective process of spiritual illumination required for theological understanding.
The objective dimension of mysterion acknowledges that God’s essence remains incomprehensible to created intellect. Following the broader patristic tradition, Origen maintains divine transcendence while affirming that God genuinely reveals himself through his economic activity. This revelation occurs through theophany (divine appearance), logos (divine word), and ultimately through the incarnation of the eternal Word.
The subjective dimension involves the spiritual preparation and illumination necessary for receiving divine truth. Origen argues that different levels of spiritual maturity correspond to different depths of theological understanding. In his homilies on various biblical books, he frequently distinguishes between “milk” appropriate for spiritual infants and “solid food” for the mature, based on 1 Corinthians 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12-14.
This understanding of mysterion significantly influenced later theological development, particularly in Eastern Christianity, where the mystical dimension of theology remained central. The Cappadocian Fathers, Pseudo-Dionysius, and subsequent Byzantine theologians all drew upon Origen’s integration of intellectual rigor and spiritual contemplation, though modifying his more speculative tendencies.
Medieval Scholastic Development: Aquinas’s Scientia Sacra
Aquinas’s Theological Methodology
Medieval scholastics, particularly Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), elevated theology to the status of scientia sacra (sacred science), establishing a sophisticated relationship between philosophia (philosophy) and pistis (faith) through the analogia entis (analogy of being). Aquinas’s approach represents a systematic attempt to integrate Aristotelian philosophical methodology with Christian theological content, creating a unified intellectual framework for understanding divine truth.
In the opening question of his *Summa Theologica*, Aquinas addresses “Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required.” His response establishes theology’s scientific character while maintaining its dependence on divine revelation. He argues that human reason, while capable of attaining some knowledge of God through natural means, requires supernatural revelation for complete knowledge of divine truth necessary for salvation.
Aquinas writes: “It was necessary for man’s salvation that there should be a knowledge revealed by God besides philosophical science built up by human reason. Firstly, indeed, because man is directed to God, as to an end that surpasses the grasp of his reason.” This statement establishes the necessity of revealed theology while acknowledging the legitimate but limited scope of natural theology.
The scientific character of theology, according to Aquinas, derives from its basis in divine knowledge rather than human discovery. Just as subaltern sciences (like music) depend on higher sciences (like mathematics) for their principles, theology depends on God’s knowledge of himself for its foundational principles. These principles, revealed in Scripture, provide the starting point for theological reasoning that proceeds according to logical methodology.
Subordination of Philosophy to Faith
Aquinas’s subordination of philosophia to pistis does not represent anti-intellectual fideism but rather a careful ordering of intellectual disciplines according to their objects and methods. Philosophy, operating through natural reason, can attain genuine knowledge of God’s existence and certain attributes, but this knowledge remains incomplete and requires completion through revealed theology.
The subordination operates through several principles. First, when philosophical conclusions contradict revealed truth, philosophy must yield to faith, since divine revelation cannot err while human reason is fallible. Second, philosophy serves theology by providing conceptual tools and logical methodology for articulating revealed truth. Third, philosophical reasoning can demonstrate the rational coherence of revealed doctrines, even when those doctrines exceed the capacity of unaided reason to discover.
In his *Summa Contra Gentiles*, Aquinas articulates this relationship: “The truth about God to which the natural reason reaches is fittingly proposed to men for belief. For the truth about God that is attainable through reason is known only by a few, and that after a long time, and with the admixture of many errors. But man’s whole salvation, which is in God, depends upon the knowledge of this truth. Therefore, in order that the salvation of men might be brought about more fitly and more surely, it was necessary that they should be taught divine truths by divine revelation.”
This subordination does not eliminate philosophy’s legitimate autonomy within its proper sphere but establishes clear boundaries and hierarchical relationships. Philosophy retains its capacity to investigate natural reality and demonstrate truths accessible to reason, while acknowledging its limitations regarding supernatural truth.
The Analogia Entis
The analogia entis (analogy of being) represents Aquinas’s solution to the problem of theological language—how finite human concepts can meaningfully refer to infinite divine reality. The doctrine of analogy stands between two extremes: univocal predication (which would make God a being among beings) and equivocal predication (which would make theological language meaningless).
Aquinas develops his analogical theory through careful analysis of how terms can be predicated of both God and creatures. In the *Summa Theologica* I, q. 13, a. 5, he explains: “Neither, on the other hand, are names applied to God and creatures in a purely equivocal sense, as some have said. Because if that were so, it follows that from creatures nothing could be known of God at all; for the reasoning would always be exposed to the fallacy of equivocation.”
The analogical relationship operates through the principle of proportionality and attribution. In proportionality, the same term applies to different subjects according to different relationships—as “healthy” applies to an animal (which possesses health) and to medicine (which causes health). In attribution, terms apply primarily to one subject and secondarily to others through causal relationship—as “being” applies primarily to God (who is being itself) and secondarily to creatures (who participate in being).
This analogical framework enables theological discourse to make meaningful statements about God while maintaining divine transcendence. When theology affirms that God is good, wise, or just, these statements convey genuine content about divine reality while acknowledging that divine goodness, wisdom, and justice infinitely exceed their created counterparts.
The analogia entis also establishes the metaphysical foundation for natural theology. Since creatures bear analogical resemblance to their Creator, philosophical reflection on created being can yield genuine, though limited, knowledge of divine attributes. This principle underlies Aquinas’s Five Ways for demonstrating God’s existence, each proceeding from observed features of created reality to their ultimate divine source.
Protestant Reformation: Calvin’s Sola Scriptura
Calvin’s Reorientation of Theological Method
Protestant Reformers, notably John Calvin (1509-1564), fundamentally reoriented theology toward sola Scriptura (Scripture alone), insisting that human nous (νοῦς, mind) bows to divine doxa (δόξα, glory) as revealed in 1 Corinthians 1:20-21: “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe.”
Calvin’s theological method emerges from his conviction that sin has fundamentally corrupted human reason, making it unreliable for attaining salvific knowledge of God apart from Scripture. Unlike medieval scholasticism, which maintained confidence in reason’s capacity to demonstrate God’s existence and attributes, Calvin emphasizes the noetic effects of sin—the way fallen humanity’s cognitive abilities have been impaired regarding spiritual truth.
In the opening of his *Institutes of the Christian Religion*, Calvin writes: “Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But, while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern.” This statement establishes the bipolar structure of theological knowledge while acknowledging the complex relationship between divine and human knowledge.
The Authority of Scripture
Calvin’s commitment to sola Scriptura reflects his understanding that Scripture possesses unique authority as the Word of God written, distinct from both natural revelation and ecclesiastical tradition. This authority derives not from human recognition or institutional validation but from Scripture’s intrinsic character as divine revelation authenticated by the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit.
In *Institutes* I.7.4, Calvin explains: “Let this therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.”
This doctrine of internal testimony solves the epistemological problem of how finite human beings can recognize infinite divine authority. Calvin argues that the same Spirit who inspired Scripture also illuminates believers to recognize its divine character. This recognition is not merely intellectual but involves the whole person in spiritual transformation.
The practical implications of sola Scriptura extend throughout Calvin’s theological method. Scripture serves as the sole infallible rule for faith and practice, the final court of appeal in theological disputes, and the sufficient source for all doctrine necessary for salvation. This principle does not eliminate human reason or tradition but subordinates them to biblical authority.
Human Nous and Divine Doxa
Calvin’s understanding of the relationship between human nous (mind) and divine doxa (glory) reflects his conviction that true theological knowledge requires the submission of human reason to divine revelation. The text from 1 Corinthians 1:20-21 serves as a foundational principle, demonstrating that worldly wisdom, however sophisticated, cannot attain salvific knowledge of God.
The corruption of human nous manifests in multiple ways according to Calvin’s analysis. Intellectually, sin produces ignorance, error, and confusion regarding spiritual truth. Morally, it generates pride, rebellion, and hostility toward God. Spiritually, it creates blindness to divine beauty and insensitivity to spiritual reality. These effects are not merely academic but concern the fundamental orientation of human existence.
Divine doxa represents God’s self-revelation in its fullness and glory, ultimately manifested in Jesus Christ but mediated through Scripture and the Spirit’s testimony. Calvin writes in *Institutes* I.6.1: “Therefore, though the light which offers itself to all eyes, both in heaven and in earth, is more than sufficient to withdraw all support from men’s ingratitude—yet (apart from Scripture) we are not instructed in the saving knowledge of God.”
The submission of nous to doxa does not eliminate human rationality but transforms it through regeneration and sanctification. Calvin maintains that reason, properly ordered under scriptural authority, serves important functions in theological understanding: analyzing biblical texts, drawing logical inferences, systematizing doctrinal truth, and applying scriptural principles to contemporary situations.
Calvin’s Theological Legacy
Calvin’s reorientation toward sola Scriptura established the methodological foundation for Protestant theology, influencing numerous subsequent traditions including Reformed, Presbyterian, Baptist, and evangelical movements. The principle of scriptural authority became central to Protestant identity, distinguishing it from both Roman Catholic reliance on tradition and magisterium, and from rationalist attempts to ground theology in human reason alone.
However, Calvin’s approach also generated ongoing debates within Protestant circles regarding the relationship between Scripture and reason, the role of tradition in theological interpretation, and the possibility of natural theology. These debates continue to shape contemporary evangelical and reformed theological method.
Contemporary Theological Debates
Barth’s Neo-Orthodox Theologia Crucis
Karl Barth (1886-1968) developed a neo-orthodox theologia crucis (theology of the cross) that rejects natural theology outright, prioritizing Christ’s kenosis (κένωσις, self-emptying) as described in Philippians 2:7: “but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.” Barth’s position represents a radical intensification of Protestant concerns about natural theology while maintaining distinctive emphases that separate him from classical Reformed tradition.
Barth’s rejection of natural theology emerges from his conviction that any attempt to know God apart from Jesus Christ inevitably results in idolatry—the construction of false gods conforming to human expectations rather than encounter with the living God who reveals himself in Scripture. In his famous debate with Emil Brunner, published as “Natural Theology,” Barth responds with an emphatic “Nein!” to any suggestion that general revelation provides a point of contact (*Anknüpfungspunkt*) for the gospel.
In his *Church Dogmatics* II/1, Barth writes: “God is known only by God. We do not need to engage ourselves in the question whether man has a capacity for revelation. We are actually confronted by God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, and our concern is to see that this revelation is the ground of the possibility of the knowledge of God.”
Christocentric Theological Method
Barth’s theologia crucis centers on the conviction that Jesus Christ is not merely the primary revelation of God but the exclusive locus of divine self-disclosure. This Christocentric method rejects any theological starting point outside of Christ, whether in human reason, religious experience, or created order. All theological statements must be grounded in and measured against the revelation of God in Jesus Christ.
The kenosis (self-emptying) of Philippians 2:7 becomes central to Barth’s understanding of divine revelation. God’s self-revelation occurs not through divine attributes accessible to human reason but through the radical humiliation of the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. This divine self-emptying reveals God’s true nature as the one who exists in freedom for humanity while maintaining absolute sovereignty.
Barth’s emphasis on kenosis leads to his distinctive understanding of divine election, where God’s eternal decree involves not arbitrary predestination but God’s self-determination to be God-for-humanity in Jesus Christ. In *Church Dogmatics* II/2, he argues that election is primarily God’s self-election to be savior and only secondarily the election of human beings to salvation.
This Christocentric method extends throughout Barth’s theological system, affecting his doctrines of creation, anthropology, soteriology, and eschatology. Creation is understood as the external basis of the covenant, existing for the purpose of God’s self-revelation in Christ. Human beings are understood primarily as covenant partners whom God addresses in Christ rather than as rational beings capable of natural knowledge of God.
Critique of Natural Theology
Barth’s rejection of natural theology goes beyond Calvin’s concerns about the noetic effects of sin to question whether natural theology is possible or legitimate even in principle. He argues that natural theology necessarily begins with human assumptions about divinity and projects these onto God, creating idolatrous constructions rather than genuine knowledge of the living God.
In his essay “The Gift of Freedom,” Barth explains: “Natural theology is the doctrine of the union of man with God existing outside of God’s revelation in Jesus Christ. Natural theology is the doctrine of a knowledge of God possible to man on the basis of the identity of the divine and human nature.”
This critique extends to traditional theistic proofs, which Barth sees as attempts to demonstrate God’s existence according to human criteria of rationality and evidence. Such proofs, even if logically valid, cannot bridge the gap between the finite and infinite, temporal and eternal, sinful and holy. Only God’s sovereign act of self-revelation in Christ can establish genuine knowledge of God.
Barth’s position has generated extensive theological debate, with critics arguing that his rejection of natural theology undermines the rational foundations of Christian faith and makes evangelical witness impossible. Supporters contend that his approach preserves the transcendence and sovereignty of God while maintaining the centrality of Christ in all theological reflection.
Van Til’s Presuppositionalism
Cornelius Van Til (1895-1987) developed a presuppositionalist approach that demands a noetic starting point in God’s self-attestation, standing in contrast to evidentialists who rely on apologia (ἀπολογία, defense) as encouraged in 1 Peter 3:15: “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
Van Til’s presuppositionalism emerges from his conviction that the antithesis between Christian and non-Christian thought is absolute and total, affecting not merely conclusions but the fundamental categories and criteria by which truth is evaluated. Unlike evidential apologetics, which seeks to demonstrate Christianity’s truth through commonly accepted rational standards, presuppositionalism argues that such standards are themselves shaped by religious commitments.
The Transcendental Method
Van Til’s method involves transcendental argumentation—demonstrating that Christian theism provides the necessary preconditions for rational thought, ethical judgment, and scientific investigation. Rather than arguing for God’s existence from neutral premises, presuppositionalism argues that God’s existence must be presupposed for any meaningful predication to be possible.
In his *A Survey of Christian Epistemology*, Van Til writes: “The point of contact for the gospel, then, must be sought within the natural man. Deep down in his mind every man knows that he is the creature of God and responsible to God. His knowledge of God is ineradicable. His sense of deity is ineradicable. But this knowledge is suppressed by his ethical rebellion against God.”
This approach involves exposing the internal contradictions of non-Christian worldviews while demonstrating the coherence and necessity of Christian theism. Van Til argues that non-Christian thought inevitably falls into irrationalism (skepticism, relativism) or rationalism (autonomous human reason elevated to ultimate authority), both of which undermine the possibility of genuine knowledge.
Critique of Evidential Apologetics
Van Til’s critique of evidential apologetics centers on its alleged concession to non-Christian standards of rationality and evidence. He argues that evidential approaches implicitly grant the competence of fallen human reason to evaluate divine revelation according to independent criteria, thereby placing human judgment above divine authority.
Classical apologetics, following the tradition of Aquinas and developed by Protestant scholastics like William Paley, argues that reason can demonstrate the existence of God and the credibility of revelation, providing a rational foundation for faith. Van Til contends that this approach grants too much autonomy to human reason and fails to recognize the total antithesis between regenerate and unregenerate thought.
In his critique of evidential apologetics, Van Til distinguishes between the “fact” of God’s existence and the “theory” of God’s existence. He argues that all human beings know the fact of God’s existence through general revelation and the sensus divinitatis (sense of divinity), but non-Christians suppress this knowledge through ethical rebellion. Evidential arguments, therefore, do not provide new information but expose the inconsistency of suppressing known truth.
The practical implications of presuppositionalism extend throughout apologetic methodology. Rather than accumulating evidence for God’s existence, presuppositionalist apologetics involves challenging the foundations of non-Christian thought while demonstrating the internal consistency and explanatory power of Christian theism.
The Relationship Between Van Til and Barth
Despite significant methodological differences, both Van Til and Barth share certain concerns about natural theology and the autonomy of human reason. Both reject the possibility of neutral, objective reasoning about God and emphasize the necessity of divine revelation for genuine theological knowledge. However, their differences are equally significant.
Van Til criticizes Barth’s dialectical method and his distinction between revelation and Scripture, arguing that Barth’s approach leads to subjectivism and undermines biblical authority. Van Til maintains a more traditional reformed commitment to biblical inerrancy and the objective character of revealed truth, while Barth emphasizes the dynamic, personal character of divine revelation.
Despite these differences, both theologians represent significant departures from classical natural theology and contribute to contemporary debates about theological method and the relationship between faith and reason.
The Telos of Theology: Gnosis Theou
Despite methodological differences, all theological traditions affirm theology’s ultimate telos (τέλος, purpose): knowing God (gnosis Theou, γνῶσις Θεοῦ, knowledge of God). This convergence on the final purpose of theological inquiry provides unity amidst methodological diversity and establishes the distinctive character of theology as a discipline.
The concept of gnosis Theou encompasses both intellectual understanding and personal relationship, both theoretical knowledge and practical wisdom. Biblical usage of gnosis in theological contexts typically involves more than mere intellectual apprehension, including experiential acquaintance, relational intimacy, and transformative encounter.
Jesus’ prayer in John 17:3 provides the definitive statement of theology’s ultimate goal: “And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” This passage establishes the soteriological dimension of theological knowledge—knowing God is not merely academic exercise but constitutes eternal life itself.
The practical implications of this telos affect theological methodology throughout its development. Theological inquiry that fails to promote genuine knowledge of God, regardless of its intellectual sophistication, fails to achieve its proper purpose. Conversely, theological reflection that enhances authentic knowledge of God justifies its existence even when it involves complex technical discussion.
Contemporary Complications: Process and Liberation Theology
Process Theology’s Mutable Deity
Contemporary theological developments have further complicated the scope and method of theological inquiry. Process theology, developed by Alfred North Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne, posits a mutable deity evolving with creation, fundamentally challenging classical concepts of divine aseitas (self-existence) as revealed in Exodus 3:14: “God said to Moses, ‘I AM WHO I AM.’ And he said, ‘Say this to the people of Israel: “I AM has sent me to you.”‘”
Process theology emerges from process philosophy’s understanding of reality as fundamentally composed of temporal occasions of experience rather than static substances. Applied to theology, this philosophy suggests that God, like all reality, exists in temporal becoming rather than eternal being. God experiences genuine temporal succession, is affected by worldly events, and grows in knowledge and experience through interaction with creation.
Charles Hartshorne, in *The Divine Relativity*, argues: “The absoluteness of God has been misconceived. God is indeed in all ways perfect, but there are two kinds of perfection, and God is perfect in both ways. He is absolutely perfect in that his love, wisdom, and power are beyond improvement, but he is relatively perfect in that his concrete experiences are enriched by his temporal relations with the world.”
This reconstruction of divine attributes directly challenges classical theism’s understanding of God as pure act, eternal, immutable, and impassible. Process theology argues that these attributes, derived from Greek philosophical influences rather than biblical revelation, actually diminish rather than enhance divine perfection.
Challenges to Classical Aseitas
The divine name revealed in Exodus 3:14, “I AM WHO I AM” (*ehyeh asher ehyeh*), has traditionally been interpreted as indicating God’s self-existence, necessity, and ontological independence from creation. Classical theology, from Augustine through Aquinas to Protestant orthodoxy, has understood aseitas as fundamental to divine perfection—God exists from himself, depends on nothing outside himself, and serves as the ultimate ground of all other existence.
Process theology challenges this interpretation on several fronts. First, it argues that self-existence, understood as complete independence from all relationships, is less perfect than existence enriched by relationships. A God who cannot be affected by creation, according to process thought, is less loving and responsive than a God who genuinely experiences joy and sorrow through relationship with the world.1
Second, process theology contends that biblical narratives consistently portray God as temporally engaged, experiencing surprise, regret, and changing plans in response to human actions. The anthropomorphic language of Scripture, rather than being mere accommodation to human limitations, reflects genuine divine temporality and mutability.2
Third, the classical understanding of divine perfection as static completeness conflicts with process philosophy’s understanding of perfection as optimal responsiveness and creative advance. Hartshorne argues that God is “surpassable by self alone”—perfect in character but growing in concrete experience and knowledge through temporal engagement with creation.3
Orthodox Response: Immutabilitas and Simplicitas Dei
Orthodox theology responds to process challenges by reaffirming classical doctrines of divine immutabilitas (immutability) and simplicitas Dei (simplicity of God), grounded in passages like John 4:24: “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” These doctrines maintain that God’s perfection consists precisely in his unchanging excellence rather than temporal development.4
The doctrine of divine immutability, articulated definitively by Augustine and systematized by Aquinas, maintains that God cannot change because any change would involve either improvement (implying prior imperfection) or deterioration (implying loss of perfection). Since God is perfect being itself, change is metaphysically impossible.5
Anselm’s formulation in the Proslogion captures this logic: “But you are whatever it is better to be than not to be. For it is better to be just than unjust, better to be happy than unhappy. Indeed, it is better to be just, happy, and so on, than not to be these things.”6 Applied to temporality, God’s eternal mode of existence transcends temporal limitations rather than being subject to them.
The doctrine of divine simplicity maintains that God is not composed of parts—including temporal parts or distinct attributes that could change independently. God’s essence and existence are identical, his attributes are identical with his essence, and his eternal decree encompasses all temporal relationships without introducing change in God himself.7
Contemporary defenders of classical theism, including scholars like Edward Feser and David Bentley Hart, argue that process theology’s critique misunderstands both the nature of perfection and the relationship between eternity and time. They contend that divine immutability enables rather than limits genuine relationship with creation, since God’s eternal knowledge encompasses all temporal events in their concrete particularity.8
Liberation Theology’s Praxis-Oriented Redefinition
Liberation theology, developed primarily in Latin American contexts by theologians like Gustavo Gutiérrez and Jon Sobrino, redefines theologia as praxis (πρᾶξις, action) for justice (tsedeq, צדק, righteousness), drawing particularly on Luke 4:18: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed.”9
This methodological reorientation challenges traditional academic theology’s emphasis on theoretical knowledge, arguing that authentic theological understanding emerges through engagement with concrete struggles for social justice. Gutiérrez writes in A Theology of Liberation: “Theology is reflection, a critical attitude. Theology follows; it is the second step. What Hegel used to say about philosophy can likewise be applied to theology: it rises only at sundown.”10
The liberation method involves a three-step process: ver (seeing), juzgar (judging), and actuar (acting). This methodology begins with social analysis of oppressive structures, moves to theological evaluation of these structures in light of Scripture and tradition, and culminates in transformative action for justice.11
Liberation theology’s hermeneutical approach prioritizes the “preferential option for the poor,” arguing that God’s revelation is most clearly discerned from the perspective of the marginalized and oppressed. This hermeneutical privilege does not merely add social concern to traditional theology but fundamentally reorients theological method around praxis for liberation.12
The movement’s emphasis on tsedeq (righteousness/justice) draws extensively on Hebrew prophetic literature, particularly texts like Isaiah 61:1-2 (quoted in Luke 4:18) and Micah 6:8. Liberation theologians argue that biblical righteousness encompasses both individual moral standing and social justice, making concern for economic and political liberation integral to theological reflection.13
Orthodox Critique of Liberation Methodology
Orthodox critics of liberation theology raise several methodological concerns. First, they argue that beginning with social analysis rather than Scripture or tradition reverses proper theological order, making human experience rather than divine revelation the primary source of theological knowledge.14
Second, critics contend that liberation theology’s emphasis on praxis reduces theology to sociology or political activism, losing sight of theology’s primary concern with divine truth. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in his “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation,’” warns that “the ‘theologies of liberation’ of which we are speaking mean by Church of the poor a Church which has been made aware of the requirements of the revolutionary struggle as a ‘Church’ which has been awakened from the sleep of ‘alienation.’”15
Third, orthodox theology maintains that while Scripture consistently demands concern for justice and care for the poor, this social dimension complements rather than replaces theology’s theoretical task of articulating divine truth. The contemplative and active dimensions of Christian life are both necessary but distinct.16
The Fundamental Tension: Speculative versus Practical Theology
The debates between process, liberation, and orthodox approaches reflect a deeper tension within theological method between speculative and practical emphases, and between transcendent and immanent understandings of divine engagement with creation. This tension mirrors the complexity described in Romans 11:33: “Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!”17
The speculative emphasis, represented classically by figures like Aquinas and continuing in contemporary systematic theology, prioritizes theoretical understanding of divine nature, attributes, and acts. This approach seeks comprehensive, logically coherent articulation of revealed truth, emphasizing theology’s scientific character and its capacity to yield genuine knowledge about divine reality.18
The practical emphasis, seen in various forms from liberation theology to contemporary practical theology movements, prioritizes theology’s transformative function in Christian life and social engagement. This approach emphasizes theology’s pastoral, ethical, and missional dimensions, arguing that theological truth is properly known only through faithful practice.19
Similarly, the tension between transcendent and immanent approaches reflects different emphases in understanding God’s relationship to creation. Transcendent approaches, including classical theism and Barthian neo-orthodoxy, emphasize divine otherness, sovereignty, and independence from creation. Immanent approaches, including process theology and various forms of panentheism, emphasize divine presence, relationship, and involvement in temporal processes.20
Theology as Human Enterprise under Divine Initiative
Despite these methodological tensions, Christian theology consistently maintains that theological reflection represents a human enterprise conducted under divine initiative. Theology is simultaneously a creaturely activity employing finite human concepts and language, and a response to divine self-revelation that transcends human capacity to initiate or control.21
This paradoxical character appears throughout theological history. Augustine writes in his Confessions: “You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.”22 This statement captures both the human yearning that drives theological inquiry and the divine grace that enables genuine knowledge of God.
The human character of theology appears in its employment of particular languages, cultural concepts, philosophical categories, and historical contexts. Every theological statement bears the marks of its finite, temporal origins and requires interpretation within its specific context. This contextual character does not relativize theological truth but acknowledges the accommodated form in which divine revelation reaches human understanding.23
The divine initiative appears in theology’s dependence on revelation, the Spirit’s illumination, and regenerating grace that enables spiritual understanding. Apart from God’s self-disclosure and the Spirit’s testimony, human theological reflection would remain imprisoned within idolatrous projection rather than genuine encounter with divine truth.24
Theology as Finite Echo of Infinite Veritas
Ultimately, theology constitutes a finite echo of infinite veritas (truth), reflecting both the genuine character of theological knowledge and its essential limitations. This understanding preserves both the legitimacy of theological inquiry and appropriate humility regarding its achievements.25
The concept of theological knowledge as “echo” suggests several important characteristics. First, echoes are genuine responses to original sounds—they are not mere human constructions but actual reflections of divine self-disclosure. Second, echoes are always diminished versions of their originals—they participate in but never exhaust the reality they reflect. Third, echoes require proper conditions for clear reception—they can be distorted by obstacles or enhanced by favorable acoustic environments.26
Applied to theology, this understanding means that theological statements can make genuine truth claims about divine reality while remaining essentially finite and partial. The infinite character of divine veritas ensures that theological understanding always remains incomplete and subject to further clarification, while the genuine character of divine self-revelation ensures that theological knowledge is not merely human speculation.27
Conclusion
This expansion of the question “What is theology?” reveals the complex methodological landscape that shapes contemporary theological reflection. From Origen’s contemplative ascent through Aquinas’s scientific synthesis, Calvin’s scriptural reorientation, and contemporary debates involving Barth, Van Til, process theology, and liberation theology, the discipline exhibits both remarkable continuity in its fundamental purpose and significant diversity in its methodological approaches.
The etymological foundation in theologia as “discourse on God” remains constant throughout these developments, establishing theology’s essential character as rational reflection on divine revelation. The synthesis of general and special revelation into scientia Dei continues to challenge theological method, whether through medieval confidence in natural theology, Protestant emphasis on scriptural authority, or contemporary skepticism about natural knowledge of God.
The tensions between speculative and practical approaches, transcendent and immanent emphases, and various understandings of revelation’s relationship to reason reflect theology’s ongoing struggle to articulate divine truth in faithful and intelligible ways. These tensions are not merely academic but concern the fundamental question of how finite human beings can genuinely know infinite divine reality.
However, these methodological complexities converge on theology’s essential telos: gnosis Theou, genuine knowledge of God. This convergence provides unity amidst diversity and establishes the distinctive character that separates theology from other academic disciplines. Whether pursued through contemplative ascent, scientific synthesis, scriptural exegesis, or liberating praxis, authentic theology seeks to know God as he has revealed himself.
From a first-century, non-denominational, New Testament Protestant Christian perspective, this theological enterprise finds its ultimate center and criterion in Jesus Christ as the definitive revelation of God. John 1:1-14 establishes this Christocentric foundation: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God… And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.”28
Christ as the eternal Word (Logos) who became incarnate represents both the source and norm of all genuine theological reflection. He is the one through whom all things were created (John 1:3), in whom all divine revelation culminates (Hebrews 1:1-2), and through whom alone the Father is known (John 14:6). This Christocentric focus does not eliminate the complexities of theological method but provides the essential foundation and orientation for navigating them faithfully.
The various methodological approaches examined—whether emphasizing natural theology, scriptural authority, contemplative ascent, or practical engagement—find their proper place within this Christocentric framework. Christ as the incarnate Word validates both the possibility of genuine knowledge of God (since God has truly revealed himself) and the necessity of humble dependence on divine grace (since this revelation comes through divine initiative rather than human achievement).
Therefore, theology remains what it has always been: the human attempt to articulate, in finite and fallible but genuine ways, the infinite truth of God as he has made himself known in Jesus Christ through Scripture by the Holy Spirit. This enterprise, conducted under divine initiative and oriented toward the telos of knowing God, constitutes both the highest calling and the greatest challenge of human intellectual endeavor.
Bibliography
Augustine. Confessions. Translated by R.S. Pine-Coffin. London: Penguin Classics, 1961.
Anselm. Proslogion. In Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works, edited by Brian Davies and G.R. Evans. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. Translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1947.
———. Summa Contra Gentiles. Translated by Anton C. Pegis. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975.
Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics. 4 vols. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1956-1975.
———. “Natural Theology.” In Natural Theology, by Emil Brunner and Karl Barth. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2002.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
Feser, Edward. Five Proofs of the Existence of God. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017.
Gutiérrez, Gustavo. A Theology of Liberation. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1973.
Hart, David Bentley. The Experience of God. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.
Hartshorne, Charles. The Divine Relativity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948.
Origen. On First Principles. Translated by G.W. Butterworth. Notre Dame: Ave Maria Press, 2013.
———. Commentary on the Song of Songs. Translated by R.P. Lawson. Westminster, MD: Newman Press, 1957.
Ratzinger, Joseph. “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation.’” Vatican City: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1984.
Van Til, Cornelius. A Survey of Christian Epistemology. Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1969.
Footnotes
1 Charles Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948), 20-21.
2 Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality (New York: Free Press, 1978), 343-351.
3 Hartshorne, The Divine Relativity, 34.
4 Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 9, a. 1.
5 Augustine, The City of God, XI.10; Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 9.
6 Anselm, Proslogion, chapter 5.
7 Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 3.
8 Edward Feser, Five Proofs of the Existence of God (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2017), 15-51; David Bentley Hart, The Experience of God (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013), 127-159.
9 Gustavo Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1973), 6-15.
10 Gutiérrez, A Theology of Liberation, 11.
11 Ibid., 13-15.
12 Jon Sobrino, The True Church and the Poor (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 1984), 36-59.
13 José Míguez Bonino, Doing Theology in a Revolutionary Situation (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975), 61-105.
14 Michael Novak, Will It Liberate? (New York: Paulist Press, 1986), 45-78.
15 Joseph Ratzinger, “Instruction on Certain Aspects of the ‘Theology of Liberation’” (Vatican City: Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 1984), VII.9.
16 Henri de Lubac, The Mystery of the Supernatural (New York: Crossroad, 1998), 127-156.
17 All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.
18 Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 1, a. 2.
19 Edward Farley, Theologia: The Fragmentation and Unity of Theological Education (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983), 73-124.
20 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology, vol. 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 235-289.
21 Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics I/1, 1-44.
22 Augustine, Confessions I.1.
23 Calvin, Institutes I.13.1.
24 Van Til, A Survey of Christian Epistemology, 10-12.
25 Aquinas, Summa Theologica I, q. 1, a. 8.
26 John Webster, Holy Scripture: A Dogmatic Sketch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 45-87.
27 Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 213-248.
28 All Scripture quotations are from the English Standard Version.
Explore More Resources
Related Keywords: Theology, Christian theology, divine revelation, Scripture, natural theology, sola Scriptura, Karl Barth, Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, theological method