Theology as a Science

The words theology and science are not often mentioned in the same sentence. Generally they are regarded as two separate, unrelated disciplines. But it also depends on how "science" is defined.  Could theology be called a science, like geology or astronomy?  Many would say "No."  B.B. Warfield would say "Yes."  More accurately Warfield has in mind Systematic Theology.

In his article "The Idea of Systematic Theology" (The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Studies in Theology) he states that Systematic Theology "deals with its material as an organizable system of knowledge."   To say that theology is a science is to say that "it includes all the facts belonging to that sphere of truth that we call theological." [All citations from Warfield, unless otherwise noted, will be from this article.]

Operating on a basis of unified knowledge, Warfield does not believe that it is appropriate to speak of various "theologies" unless speaking from a historical perspective. Therefore, to speak of a Chrisitan Theology, a Buddhist Theology, or a Muslim Theology may be useful for distinguing between those systems, but only so when studying a history of religions. When Warfield observes that Systematic Theology is a science it is

"to deny that it is a historical discipline, and to affirm that it seeks to discover, not what has been or is held to be true, but what is ideally true; in other words, it is to declare that it deals with absolute truth and aims at organizing into a concatenated system all the truth in its sphere."

To declare that theology deals with absolute truth means there cannot be rivals. Using other disciplines as an example, Warfield mentions Geology and Psychology:

"Geology is a science, and on that very account there cannot be two geologies; its matter is all the well-authenticated facts in its sphere, and its aim is to digest all these facts into one all-comprehending system. There may be rival psychologies, which fill the world with vain jangling; but they do not strive together in order that they may obtain the right to exist side by side in equal validity, but in strenuous effort to supplant and supersede one another; there can be but one true science of mind.

In like manner, just because theology is a science there can be but one theology. This all-embracing system will brook no rival in its sphere, and there can be two theologies only at the cost of one or both of them being imperfect, incomplete, false."

This is the case in regard to--as mentioned above--Christian, Buddhist, and Muslim theologies or Pelagian/Augustinian or Arminian/Calvinistic theologies. They are rivals.

Even in the area of biblical studies that separates fields of study into Lucan Theology, Johannine Theology, or Mosaic Theology (the theology of Luke, John, and Moses, respectively), the strength of Systematic Theology, though it acknowledges these separate distinctions, is that all these voices speak with one Voice. There are different writers using different genres in what Timothy Ward calls a "polyphony" of voices. But since the facts belonging to theology's "sphere of truth" are found in Scripture, it is a "canonically limited polyphony."

Just because there can be only one Theology does not mean that our understanding of the Theology is complete. It always needs refining, much as in our understanding of other sciences. Warfield acknowledges this, stating, "For the very existence of any science, three things are presupposed:

1) the reality of its subject-matter; 2) the capacity of the human mind to apprehend, receive into itself, and rationalize this subject-matter; and 3) some medium of communication by which the subject-matter is brought before the mind and presented to it for apprehension...Facts do not make a science; even facts as apprehended do not make a science; they must be not only apprehended, but also so far comprehended as to be rationalized and thus combined into a correlated system."

In many regards this ties nicely into what John Frame calls a perspectival view of theology. The reality of the subject-matter would be the Normative perspective; the capacity of the mind to apprehend and use the subject-matter would be the Existential perspective; and the medium of communication presents the subject-matter to the mind would be the Situational perspective.

It is the balancing and binding together of objective and subjective realities. For theology to even exist as a science, to Warfield, presupposes

1. "the objective reality of the subject-matter with which it deals;

2. "the subjective capacity fo the human mind" to understand and rationalize the subject-matter into a "comprehensible whole";

3. "the existence of a trustworthy media of communication by which the subject-matter is brought to the mind."

The affirmation that theology is a science, more specifically, presupposes

1. "that God is, and that He has relation to His creatures. Were there no God, there could be no theology; nor could there be a theology if, though He existed, He existed out of relation with His creatures."

2. "that man has a religious nature, that is, a nature capable of understanding not only that God is, but also, to some extent, what He is; not only that He stands in relations with His creatures; but also what those relations are."

3. "that there are media of communication by which God and divine things are brought before the minds of men, that they may perceive them and, in perceiving, understand them."

The first point declares the reality of God's existence and leaves no room for atheism or deism.  The second point acknowledges that humans can have an understanding of God and the relationship with his creation beyond a bare knowledge. The third point states that there is a "trustworthy media of communication" found in God himself as he has revealed himself to humanity in the objective reality of revelation.

What this means for the study of theology as a science is that though we have attained to a large amount of knowledge regarding God as he has revealed himself in Scripture and in creation, there is still much to learn and refine in our understanding. That is because, as Ward says,

"It is impossible in practice to hold the diversity of Scripture's themes and generic voices in one's mind all at once and to put them into practice in one's life all at the same time. This, though, does not make systematic theology a fruitless exercise, just as it does not render futile the attempt to live a coherent Christian life. Rather, it should make us humble and hopeful, not despairing, in both our Christian living and in our more formal doing of theology." (p. 217)

Or, as Warfield summarily has stated, "Authority, intellect, and the heart are the three sides of the triangle of truth."