_15_Theology and Science

Before we discuss the question whether theology is a science, we shall have to agree on the meaning of this term; it is used in more than one sense, frequently without any sense at all.

If “science” is defined as “a systematized natural knowledge,” meaning a knowledge of nature and of man which is not derived from the revelation of Holy Scripture, but is obtained through human observation, then Christian theology is not a science. For neither nature, in all its wide reaches, nor the voice of conscience tells anything about the specific content of the Christian doctrine, about the Gospel of Christ. That is the clear teaching of Scripture (1 Cor. 2:6-16). The natural religion, the knowledge of God derived from what God has revealed concerning Himself in nature and in man’s conscience, is not the Christian religion, but the religion of the Law. That is the clear teaching of Scripture (Rom. 1:20: “The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen”; Rom. 2:14-15: “The work of the Law written in their hearts … their conscience also bearing witness … their thoughts accusing or else excusing one another”).

Nor is theology a science in the sense that “theological science” represents a higher form of knowledge than the knowledge of faith.155 The simple fact is that the theologian, with all his learning, cannot acquire more knowledge of spiritual things than the revelation of Holy Scripture provides. There is but one organ for apprehending things spiritual (medium cognoscendi), and that is faith, the simple faith of the Christian man; the theologian is not equipped with some other, more highly developed organ for this purpose. In other words, the theologian, like any other Christian, knows of spiritual things only so much as he believes on the basis of the revealed Word of God (John 8:31 f.: “If ye continue in My Word,” etc.; 1 Cor. 13:12; Rom. 1:5). “To believe God’s Word is the beginning, middle, and end of theology.” True, the theologian, as a rule, has a wider knowledge of the Bible than the layman. He devotes more study to it and knows much more about the details and minor circumstances of the Biblical facts. His knowledge is greater extensively. But it is not true that his knowledge of the mysteries of faith is of a different nature from that of his fellow Christians. It is not true that he comprehends what the ordinary Christian merely believes. Also in the case of the theologian, knowledge is faith, and faith is knowledge. And his greater philological, philosophical, and historical learning is merely a part of the external theological apparatus. It is not a source of the spiritual knowledge. It does, indeed, when properly applied, serve this knowledge of faith; it helps him to ascertain the exact meaning of a passage of Scripture, that is, to understand exactly what God has revealed. But it does not give the theologian the ability to generate of himself spiritual thoughts; it does not give him the right to think his own theological thoughts. Some modern theologians like to define theology as the “science of Christianity” (“of the Christian faith”), meaning that theology aims at elevating faith to knowledge. But that is nothing else than self-deception and direct rejection of the principle of cognition in theology, of the Scripture principle.

If the term “science” denotes a certain knowledge, in opposition to mere opinions, views, hypotheses, etc., theology is the perfect science, the only reliable science on earth. All other sciences are based on human observations and human deductions, and in the nature of the case– errare humanum est– the information offered by philosophy, astronomy, medical science, etc., is more or less unreliable. But the Christian theologian gets his information from the Bible, which is God’s Word, the depository of God’s own observation, opinion, and doctrine. Such a science cannot contain any error — errare in Deum non cadit — and cannot give any unreliable information (John 17:17: “Thy Word is truth”; John 10:35: “The Scripture cannot be broken”).

An objection is raised here: Objective certainty does not guarantee subjective certainty. The teaching of Scripture may be the absolute truth, but it will always be doubtful whether one has correctly apprehended and understood Scripture. Thus Nitzsch-Stephan: “The pure objectivity of those who insist on relying solely on Scripture, on making Scripture not only the norm but also the source, is pure illusion,” because, says our objector, the thought of Scripture must necessarily pass through the subjective understanding of the theologian. We reply: The faith by which the Christian theologian, just as every Christian, apprehends and knows God’s own doctrine in Scripture, is not a knowledge or conviction gained by the use of his own natural powers (fides humana), but is a knowledge and conviction wrought by the Holy Ghost through the divine Word itself (fides divina); it is therefore a sure knowledge; it is absolute certainty. Faith is the product not of “the wisdom of men,” but of “the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:5); 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.” Theology deals with certainties. In the words of Luther: “The Holy Ghost is not a skeptic, nor are what He has written on our hearts doubts or opinions, but assertions more certain and more firm than life itself and all human experience.”156 Also later Lutheran dogmaticians who refused to classify theology as one of the sciences were ready to apply this term to theology in the sense that theology deals with certainties, not with mere opinions. Thus Calov: “It is to be noted that the question is not whether theology may be called a science in the wider sense of the term nor whether theology, because of its perfection, ought not be called a science rather than an opinion or an imperfect aptitude. We readily admit both, because it is called a science, in the wider sense, by the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 12:8), and Thomas (of Aquino) as well as Augustine, in various places, correctly teach that theology is not merely an opinion, but also science.”157

We prefer not to call theology a science because today an evil odor attaches to this term, due to its use in modern theology. Modern theologians call theology a science in the sense that it is the business of theology to elevate faith to knowledge, to demonstrate the truth of the Christian doctrine before the forum of human reason. That is impossible, since the natural man cannot apprehend the truth of the Gospel: “the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God … neither can he know them” (1 Cor. 2:14; 1:23). Christ therefore does not ask the Church to prove the Gospel to men; His orders are to proclaim it (Mark 16:15). The Apostle Paul certainly knew his science and philosophy. But this same Apostle Paul would have us know that he never resorted in his preaching, even when dealing with a highly educated public, to scientific demonstrations. He would not offer his hearers such false props for their faith. He told the Corinthians: “My speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God” (1 Cor. 2:4-5). Our old theologians expressed this truth in the terse and pointed phrase: Theologia non est habitus demonstrativus, sed exhibitivus. That means: Christian theology is the ability to present, or preach, the Christian doctrine to the world; Christian theology does not attempt to prove its truth by rational or philosophical arguments. As for proving its truth, the Holy Spirit, united with the Word, takes care of that when He crushes secure hearts through the preaching of the Law and creates faith in the Gospel through the preaching of God’s Gospel. That absolutely settles the case. Just deal with realities! The man in whom the Law of God has wrought contritio has lost all interest in rational and philosophical proofs, because he is crushed and “knocked into a heap.” And when the Gospel has wrought faith in the Savior of sinners in him, he rejoices in the saving divine truth and does not ask to have this truth demonstrated to him scientifically. That is the meaning of the axiom: “The best apology of the Christian religion is its proclamation.” 158

A word on the rational proofs for the Christian religion, as employed in apologetics. The Christian apologist is in a position to show any rational man, particularly if he have a well-trained mind, that after all it would appear more reasonable to accept the claims of Christianity as true than to reject them as false. But he must ever keep in mind that his real business is not to demonstrate the truth of the Christian religion to the unbeliever, but to uncover the insincerity of unbelief, for all who reject Christianity do so, consciously or unconsciously, because of their evil will and not because of their pretended “intellectual honesty.” So Christ declares: “Men loved darkness rather than light…. Everyone that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved” (John 3:19-20). There are no scientific reasons or rational proofs against the truths of Christianity. This matter will be discussed further in the chapter “The Divine Authority of Holy Scripture,” particularly under “fides humana.”