The Nature of Theology
Teach and exhort these things. If anyone teaches a different doctrine, and it does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the doctrine that is according to godliness, he is puffed up, knowing nothing.
—1 Timothy 6:2–3
The first of the prolegomena of theology concerns the nature of theology.
I. We will demonstrate our theoretical-practical theology, consistent with the nature of any discipline, in two parts: the prolegomena and the system. Thus, with respect to the prolegomena, three are set forth in the first book: the nature, rule, and distribution of theology. And since the nature of something is not made known to us in any way more clearly than in its exact definition, which presupposes that which is defined (definitum),
1 in this chapter, after a preliminary discussion of the method of teaching theology, we will contemplate the definitum, which is theoretical-practical Christian theology,
2 and then its definition by which it is “the doctrine of living for God through Christ.” We will lay as the foundation for all these things the exegesis of the aforementioned text, 1 Timothy 6:2–3.
The Exegetical Part
It is built upon the text.
II. In this text, the apostle, who is about to put the finishing touch on this epistle, gives Timothy a most serious admonition regarding true and false theology: encourage the former and flee the latter. In this the following points are clear:
A. A certain exhortation concerning the good that must be pursued: “teach and exhort these things.”
3 In this two things are shown:
1. The subject encouraged,
4 namely, “these things”
5—which is to say, “those things that I have taught you, not only in the immediately preceding words, but throughout this entire epistle, and indeed throughout the entire course of my ministry, while I declared the entirety of sacred theology, as much with my living voice as in my writing” (see Acts 20:27). Here the whole of Christian theology is commended to Timothy, which is indicated not only by the antithesis in the following phrase (“if anyone should teach otherwise”),
6 but also by the parallel of 2 Timothy 1:13.
2. The duty of exhortation,
7 which concerns how theology must be related, is twofold, namely:
a. He should “teach,”
8 that is, he should inform the intellect, in part by the exposition of true dogmas and in part by the refutation of false ones.
b. He should “exhort,”
9 that is, by moving the will, so that what the intellect perceives is carried over into practice, for it is the chief end of theology and its highest apex. For the root word παρακαλεῖν means to call someone to his duty. And since I chiefly call someone in order to rouse him from his lethargy, to spur him on when he is sluggish, to lead him with gentle words, or to comfort him in his grieving, so then the word frequently means “I exhort,” “I plead,” and “I comfort.” And the “Paraclete”
10 is the one who does all these things (John 14:16). Johann Tarnov says in his Four Books of Biblical Exercises, “All these sorts of things breathe the spirit of praxis, yet at this point one should note that the twin duty the apostle desires to be carried out concerning the same object is plural in number: ταῦτα, ‘these things.’ That is, one should point out that theory and praxis must be conjoined not only in the entire body of theology, in such a way that these two, as it were, should constitute the two essential parts of theology, but also in each of its integral parts, in such a way that each article of theology has its own theory as well as its own praxis.”
11
B. An admonition concerning fleeing evil, namely, false teachers and false doctrines. Here the apostle notes three things:
1. False doctrine, of which he teaches four chief criteria
12 by which one may distinguish it from true doctrine:
a. False doctrine teaches something erroneous,
13 that is, it teaches something different or in a different manner than what he in fact personally taught along with the other apostles. That is, false doctrine is whatever is contrary to the apostles and the prophets (Isa. 8:20; Eph. 2:20; Gal. 1:8–9; 6:16).
b. It does not remain in the things they taught
14 (the Vulgate: “it does not rest”),
15 that is, it changes them by adding to them or subtracting from them (Deut. 4:1–2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19).
c. It fails to teach the sound words of Christ or about Christ. This occurs either when it simply does not teach Christ as the power and wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:24) or, if it does teach Christ, when it does not do so soundly, but by peddling the word (2 Cor. 2:17), whether concerning his person, his offices, or his benefits.
d. It does not deliver a doctrine that is “according to godliness.” By contrast
16 to these points, Paul teaches a careful definition of true theology, in which:
i. The genus is “doctrine” because it ought to be taught, by appropriation (John 6:45), while not only any other kind of science but even natural theology is rather learned than taught. And it ought to be taught, I say, not only by men but also by God, not only externally by the Word but also internally by the Spirit, and for this reason let us listen as those taught by the Lord (Isa. 54:13).
17
ii. The difference is in the words “according to godliness.”
18 You might call it the doctrine of rightly worshipping God, which is elsewhere expressed synonymously
19 as living for God through Christ (Rom. 6:11), for which reason theology is called “the word of life” (Acts 5:20). Therefore, it appears that Christian theology is best defined as the doctrine of living for God through Christ. Several things will be said about this in their places.
2. False teachers: “He is puffed up, knowing nothing,” and so forth (1 Tim. 6:4).
3. The fruits and effects of both false doctrines and false teachers: it is from them that envy, contentions, and the like occur, concerning which we have no need to say more in this place.
FIRST THEOREM—The Method of Theology
The Dogmatic Part
Theology must be taught in a certain order.
III. From what has been said, it is apparent by way of introduction, that theology must be taught according to a certain method, and it must be the kind of method in which theory and practice always walk in step together. In fact, they must walk together in such a way that theory precedes and practice follows in every one of theology’s articles. For the apostle commands Timothy (1) to teach just as much as to exhort all the heads of theology. First he should certainly teach, and then he should exhort. For this reason, (2) the covenant is spoken of as a “covenant ordered in every respect”
20 (2 Sam. 23:5); not only is it called such because the covenant of grace is itself most well ordered,
21 but also because its records,
22 in which theology is preserved, present themselves as set down in a most suitable manner. For this reason, (3) the apostle says that the approved “worker”
23 is the one who “rightly divides the Word of truth”
24 (2 Tim. 2:15). But one cannot rightly divide what has not been rightly constructed. (4) The worship that theology propounds is called “reasonable”
25 (Rom. 12:1) because it has been arranged according to the laws of right reason. (5) Many illustrious and remarkable examples of methodical arrangement found throughout the Scriptures argue this main point. If you want to contemplate what must be done, consider the Decalogue, which is striking for its amazing method. If you want to look for what must be petitioned, consider the Lord’s Prayer. If you want to seek what must be believed, then consider not only Hebrews 6:1–2 as a brilliant catechism, but the entire system of theology in most of the Pauline epistles. I would add (6) that the whole biblical text, without doubt, is a “covenant ordered in every respect.” And (7) since the heads of theology are scattered throughout the whole corpus of Scripture, it is surely necessary to gather and arrange them according to a suitable order and method. For this reason, (8) from the very first beginnings of the Christian church, when doctrinal heresies began to creep in, Christian theology immediately began to be arranged methodically into a system, as is evident not only in the more illustrious creeds—the Apostles’, the Nicene, the Ephesian, the Chalcedonian, and others—but also in the individual writings of the first fathers; for example, in the eight books of Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata, the four books of Origen’s On First Principles, the seven books of Lactantius’s Divine Institutes, the five books of Gregory of Nazianzus’s On Theology, the books of Augustine’s On Christian Doctrine and his Enchiridion, Rufinus’s Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed, Theodoret’s Epitome of Divine Dogma, Prosper of Aquitaine’s little book of Sentences, the four books of John of Damascus’s On the Orthodox Faith, the four books of Peter Lombard’s Sentences, and what commentators on those books have written, such as Albert the Great, Thomas Aquinas, Scotus, Bonaventure, and others; see especially Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologiae. And, finally, see the work of those theologians who escaped from the papacy: Zwingli, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin, Bullinger, Musculus, Aretius, Vermigli, Ursinus, Zanchi, and a thousand others who were occupied to the utmost with rendering the heads of theology into systems.
The need for method in theology is confirmed by three reasons.
IV. In addition to the reasons from Scripture, method in theological matters is urgently demanded for the following reasons: (1) The nature of God, who, since he is not a “God of confusion,”
26 has conducted and does conduct all his works in the most orderly way possible, and desires all things to be done “decently and in order”
27 (1 Cor. 14:33, 40). Surely for this reason he conferred on rational creatures the principles of order and method, that he might show that he is the author of all order and method, and also that he might direct us to preserve order and method, certainly in general, but especially in matters of great importance. And without a doubt, theological matters are of this sort. To that end, he also inspired the writing of his Scriptures by amanuenses in an order according to his choice, and yet certain and logical. This order has been shown, by the logical analysis of both testaments provided by learned men, to be clearer than the sun. (2) The nature of this theology, which, since it embraces diverse dogmas scattered throughout the vast corpus of Scripture that are among themselves mutually consistent, ordered, and aiming at the same goal, certainly requires those dogmas to be collected and constructed in a manner mutually consonant with one another. Method consists in this sort of activity. (3) The benefits of this method, which, if they belong to any science, at the least belong to the most outstanding science of all. Then what is a method for? A method brings clarity to the topics that must be taught, and produces understanding when, through a knowledge of logical consequences, it makes it easy to remember since it strings together subjects as with a chain by which something may be recovered easily enough if it should drop out. Additionally, a method produces brilliance and elegance in argument. For without method, there arises, according to Philo, “knowledge without knowledge.”
28 Would you have any right to deny such benefits to theological matters?
29
The sort of method that must be employed is explained.
V. You might ask, by what method, then, is theology most suitably taught? A method is nothing but an apt arrangement of the different topics according to the dependence they have upon each other, first with respect to themselves in how they mutually coexist, and then with respect to us in how we understand them. This is necessary so that the method of theology corresponds not only to the topics that must be taught—by it, for example, more general matters are placed ahead of specific ones and simpler matters ahead of complex ones—but that it corresponds also to the comprehension and use of the students. At this point, different people follow a different method, which we will not criticize. We approve, out of all methods, the one that the apostle not only commends in this text to Timothy, when he wishes that theological matters first be taught and then admonished, that thereby practice be perpetually joined to theory, but also employs everywhere throughout his epistles, especially those he wrote to the Romans, Ephesians, Hebrews, and others. By this method, I say again, practice should be joined to theory, not only in the whole corpus of theology, in such a way that the first place is especially reserved for the things that must be believed and the second for the things that must be done, but also that in each member of theology, practice should walk in step with theory in a continuous agreement.
30 Let me say more precisely what I desire and will pursue, God willing, to the best of my ability, namely, that the heads of theology should be (1) positively proved from the Scriptures, confirmed by reasons, and explicated in all their members, which is like a solid foundation for the entire structure; (2) elenctically vindicated against the artifices of all opponents, for without that vindication the constructed foundation neither stands sufficiently on its own nor becomes sufficiently rooted in the hearts of those who theologize;
31 and (3) practically applied, without which the prior points will be entirely and plainly useless.
32 For just as practice without theory is nothing, so theory without practice is empty and vain. For that reason, in his most wise counsel, the Savior joins them together: “If you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them” (John 13:17).
The Elenctic Part
Must theology be taught according to a certain method?
VI. It is asked, must theology be taught according to a certain method? As an example of excess, the Scholastics, according to their philosophical theology, loved the philosophical method of Aristotle—whether it was his analytic or synthetic method—to the point of distraction. As an example of deficiency, the Anabaptists, enthusiasts, and fanatics, due to ignorance and hatred of philosophy, reckon that all method should be eliminated from theological matters. One after another of our Reformed theologians, in proving their own points, opposed such persons. The Reformed, against the Anabaptists and enthusiasts,
33 demand a method, but not, precisely speaking, a philosophical one. They demand a natural method, that is, a method that is suitable for theological matters, and for assisting the judgment and strengthening the memory—however much that method might otherwise depend on the discretion of the writer. We have previously demonstrated such a method in §§III–V, and in this method we are supported by the continual practice of the God-breathed
34 Scriptures, which follow diverse methods according to the matters arising in them. The enthusiasts raise the following objections: (1) Theology surpasses the capacity of reason and thus also a logical method. I respond that it does indeed surpass the capacity of a corrupted reason, but not the capacity of a reason illuminated by the Word and Spirit, which judges spiritually, and thus also orders and arranges spiritual things (1 Cor. 2:10, 12, 13, 15). (2) Theology transcends all the sciences, and likewise transcends the laws of method. I respond that it does transcend the natural sciences, but does it therefore also transcend all order? Does theology really exclude order? (3) Method detracts from the simplicity of theology, as does the subtlety of artificial logic. I respond that, first, this objection does indeed refute the excess of the Scholastics, but it does not, however, refute the method that is natural to theological matters.
35 Second, this objection is false, for order does not change the matter ordered or detract in any way from its perfection. If the order detracts from theology, it is not the method that is at fault, but the ignorance of the artisan who contorts theology to his own perverse rules rather than prudently adapting his method to theology.
The Practical Part
The first use is for censuring, noting: 1. Those to be censured
VII. Now we turn to practice. In the first place, the sort who deviate from the right path are (1) those who teach theological matters,
36 whether from a professor’s chair or a preacher’s pulpit, without any method; or (2) those who, though they have some kind of method, work hard to hide it, and therefore act as if they have none at all; or (3) those who, although they show some method, it is not suitable to the topic; or (4) even if it is suitable to the topic, nevertheless it is not suitable for the student; or, finally, (5) even if it is suitable for the student, nevertheless it is suitable only to his intellect for speculation, but not to his will for action.
2. Arguments for censuring
Those who deviate in these ways (1) incur the mark of disorder
37 and confusion, which is hated by God (1 Cor. 14:33, 40); (2) deprive their theological discourses of charm and elegance; and (3) render themselves useless
38 to their hearers when they simultaneously hinder their intellect and memory by their lack of method.
39
The second use is for exhortation. 1. The duty
VIII. In the second place, the apostle rightly exhorts all Timothys (that is, all doctors and ministers) to pursue a method by which they equally teach and apply the heads of religion, and moreover that they first teach, then apply. In this manner, (1) they prove that they are sons of God, inasmuch as they are his imitators, since he is the God of order, not of confusion, whereas those of the contrary view prove that they are agents of Satan, who is the author and patron of confusion.
2. Motives
(2) These Timothys show themselves to be workers approved and unashamed,
40 since they can rightly divide
41 the Word of truth (2 Tim. 2:15). (3) By a brilliant and elegant method, they render the doctrine of God pleasing to their hearers. As Philo said in his treatise, The worse attacks the better, “work is not good of itself, but, adorned with art, it is good.”
42 (4) They make the doctrine of God not only pleasing and welcome, but also useful and fruitful. For by the precision
43 of their method, they assist the intellect of their hearers, strengthen their memory, kindle their zeal, and so forth. “For,” according to Fulgentius, “an investigation of the truth deserves a high regard, or at least it does not fail to achieve its desired effect, if the mind strives toward understanding along the right lines.”
44
3. Mode
So that teachers may pursue the method more properly, I would recommend that three things must be observed, namely, that the method be consistent with the following: (1) The topic to be handled. (2) The capacity of the hearers. Thus, a topic is treated in one manner with beginners, using a catechetical method, and in another manner with the more advanced, using a systematic method—that is, partly constructively
45 (by definitions, divisions, canons, and arguments) and partly deconstructively
46 (by the refutation of objectors). It is treated in one way with the mature, using an exegetical and textual method in which catechetics and systematics are applied for searching out the sense of Scripture, and in another way with beginners, that is, only catechetically. (3) Usefulness and godliness, such that all things are carried over into practice and end up there (2 Tim. 3:16).
SECOND THEOREM—The Definitum
47 of Theology
The Dogmatic Part
Only a theoretical-practical Christian theology must be pursued.
IX. Using this very method, we will first investigate the nature and character of theology by its exact definition. Yet before doing so we must set out its definitum, which is Christian theology that is theoretical-practical, which alone is to be taught among Christians. For the apostle commands Timothy to teach “these things,”
48 namely, what he himself taught together with Christ, the prophets, and the other apostles (specifically, Christian theology). He also commands that what can be taught should also be applied, and that doctrine should be according to godliness,
49 that is, theoretical-practical. He also prohibits Timothy from teaching in any other way.
50
It is proved from the Scriptures.
X. The Scriptures everywhere urge the same. Since they commend walking according to this rule (Gal. 6:16), they forbid any other gospel (Gal. 1:6–9). They stress that one is not to turn aside from the true gospel, either to the right or to the left, whether by addition or subtraction (Deut. 4:1–2; 12:32; Rev. 22:18–19; 2 Tim. 1:13), for otherwise God is worshiped in vain (Matt. 15:9), nor can the “dawn” of grace be obtained in any other way (Isa. 8:20).
It is confirmed by three reasons.
XI. (1) For the only theology worthy to offer to Christians is what belongs to the one who alone is the head of his communion (Eph. 1:22–23), who brought his theology down from heaven, from the bosom of the Father (John 1:18), who understands perfectly the method
51 of worshipping God (John 1:18) and who has the power of eternal life (Rev. 1:18), which Christians seek by theology. (2) On the contrary, another theology or that of any other person than Christ is neither heard nor recognized by Christians (John 10:5, 8–10, 12). Specifically, Christ’s theology does not originate from reason, which is blind (1 Cor. 2:14), nor from any man whatsoever (Matt. 23:8; 1 Cor. 3:5–7), for all men are liars (Rom. 3:4). Finally, (3) only his theology must be pursued, into whom Christians are baptized (1 Cor. 1:13) and by whose name they are called Christians (Acts 11:26), and their church and religion are called the sect of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5). Therefore, he alone is the self-authenticating
52 and infallible
53 Teacher
54 of Christians (Matt. 23:7–8).
55
That theology is given
XII. Moreover, (1) not only does the universal consensus of all nations (Rom. 2:15) declare that a certain theology is given, but (2) nature itself teaches that God exists and that he must be glorified (Ps. 19:1; Rom. 1:19–21), and that he in turn will be a rewarder
56 of those who seek him (Heb. 11:6), the method of whose worship we proclaim in theology. (3) Nature teaches that the soul is immortal, burning to have its immortal desire for perpetual beatitude satisfied, and theology is believed to open the path to this satisfaction. (4) Nature also teaches that the rational creature, having been created by God, strives toward God, so that he is satisfied in God alone, to whom theology leads. So then theology is, in our opinion, nothing other than speech about God,
57 about the divine worship, about the immortal blessedness of the immortal soul, and about the method of coming to God and living for him.
Its name
XIII. As to the origin of the term theology, it is without a doubt owed to the pagans. For among the pagans, Pherecydes of Syros, who lived in the time of Cyrus, is considered to be the first to have treated theology. His disciple Pythagoras, and Pythagoras’s own followers, hail Pherecydes as the preeminent
58 theologian. (See Pliny’s book Natural History, ch. 7, and Diogenes Laertius’s life of Pherecydes.)
59 Others point to Musaeus the son of Eumolpus, whom the Platonists emphatically called “the Theologian.”
60 Philostratus testifies in his Heroics that Homer surpassed Orpheus himself in many things pertaining to theology. These pagans
61 call those who discourse about God theologians;
62 what they discuss they call theological matters;
63 and the science of those matters they call theology.
64 These theologians, however, were poets, as Aristotle testifies in his Metaphysics,
65 and Clement of Alexandria in his Stromata.
66 Generally they were writing symbolically,
67 enigmatically,
68 or cryptically concerning the births of their gods, for they asserted that their gods were born. Whatever its origin, the term is not written
69 in the Scriptures. It appears there neither expressly
70 nor by way of analogy.
71 It is uncertain when the term entered the Christian community. It is set forth in the inscription of the book of Revelation, though it is doubtful whether that inscription has canonical authority. This title of theologian is attributed to John for another reason, and in another sense, namely, because he bore witness to the Word of God (Rev. 1:2),
72 or to the deity of Christ. Dionysius the Areopagite uses this term “theologian” in a familiar way, as if it were quite common in his own time, but nearly all agree that that writer was actually from a later time.
73 It first occurs in Origen. Nevertheless, although it is not expressly written
74 in the Scriptures, it should not be immediately eliminated just yet from Christian topics (as many would like), because it conveys what it means with sufficient vigor, and it endures from the very first beginnings of Christianity. Furthermore, it should be retained especially since the derivative
75 “theologian” is attributed to John in the inscription of Revelation, which comes without a doubt from the term theology. The term’s ingredients, God and word,
76 also occur in combination in the Scriptures (Rev. 19:13; 1 Peter 4:11; Rom. 3:2). Moreover, it is designated such because it is not only speech about God but speech that proceeds from God (2 Peter 1:20)—thus also John Owen, On the Nature of Theology, book 1, chapter 1.
77
Its synonyms
XIV. Its synonyms among the Hebrews are “the wisdom of God,”
78 “legal knowledge,”
79 and “the study of the law”;
80 in the Church fathers, “the wisdom of God,”
81 “the fear of God,”
82 and sometimes “the work of God;”
83 in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, “service” or “worship,”
84 that is, of God (Ex. 12:26); in the Scriptures of the New Testament, “the oracles of God”
85 (Rom. 3:2; 1 Peter 4:11; Heb. 5:12), “godliness”
86 (1 Tim. 3:16), “the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13),
87 and “the sound words of Christ” (1 Tim. 6:3);
88 in both testaments, “the way”
89 of God (Ps. 25:4, 12; Matt. 22:16; Acts 24:14); and among the Latin fathers, “religion,” either from “re-reading” (relegendum) or from “binding fast” (religandum).
Homonyms
XV. However, the term theology provides the basis for more than one homonym, insofar as it sometimes denotes the archetype of God’s own knowledge concerning himself and other times its ectype, or a sort of copy of the former. Again, theologians separate ectypal theology into that which belongs to those who comprehend, who are in the home country (that is, in heaven), and that which belongs to pilgrims, who are on earth. Furthermore, the theology of those on earth is either natural or revealed. Concerning these matters, the observations of the common places are readily available.
Christian theology
XVI. But the task at hand for us is not to consider bare theology, but rather to consider specifically Christian theology. This sort of theology is called “revealed theology,” which has been revealed by him who is in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). Our text (1 Tim. 6:3) speaks synonymously
90 of this theology, calling it “the word of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
91 In this designation is included whatever is theological, whether it is made known to us by pure divine inspiration
92 or is taught additionally by nature, though it already is present in the Scriptures. For natural theology does not include anything that Scripture does not include.
Christian theology does not exclude natural theology, of which are taught:A. Its parts
XVII. So Christian, revealed theology does not exclude natural theology, but includes it just as a larger quantity includes a smaller one. Therefore, just as revealed theology is summed up as those matters that must be believed
93 and those that must be done,
94 natural theology, which displays nothing but bits and pieces of revealed theology, consists in things that must be known
95 (which philosophers embrace in their metaphysics and spiritual writings) and things that must be done (which they consider in their ethics, economics, and politics). Therefore, natural theology is on the one hand partly in the intellect, which recognizes a true or false theological point, either theoretically or practically. Scripture grants this recognition even to the most depraved, who have been blessed with some use of their reason (Rom. 1:19–20; Ps. 19:1–2; Acts 17:27; Rom. 2:15). On the other hand, natural theology is partly in the will, which is inclined to the good, understood as such, which, as experience declares, not even savages themselves reject. Nevertheless, natural theology must be carefully distinguished from pagan theology as such, because the latter is false and the former is true.
B. Its fourfold use
XVIII. We note that natural theology has four chief uses. (1) The first has to do with God, who by means of it renders the impious without excuse
96 (Rom. 1:20). (2) The second has to do with the pagans and atheists, who are most powerfully refuted by it (Acts 17:24–26; Ps. 8:2–3; Matt. 6:26). (3) The third has to do with revealed theology, which, at least with regard to us, is confirmed to an amazing degree when we discover that it agrees completely with natural theology. (4) The fourth has to do with us, who root ourselves chiefly in the recognition of revealed truth, that we discern that nature itself applauds it. And this is so even in our pursuit of the good, where nature itself calls us in the same direction as revelation.
C. A threefold abuse
XIX. At the same time, a threefold abuse threatens
97 its use whenever: (1) natural theology replaces revealed theology as the foundation and norm, and thus the mistress is subjugated to her handmaiden when the latter ought to be directed by the former (2 Cor. 10:5–6); (2) a kind of natural theology is devised that suffices for salvation, even though no hope of salvation is revealed outside of Christ, of whom natural theology is ignorant (Acts 4:12); and (3) some kind of common theology is devised by which everyone, even apart from Christ and faith in him, can be saved by the help of reason and nature only. Christ himself contradicts this point (John 14:6; 15:5).
Theoretical-practical theology
XX. For this reason, a Christian theology is required that embraces Christ (John 17:3; Isa. 53:11) and is theoretical-practical. That is to say, it is not theoretical only, resting in some sort of contemplation of the truth, nor practical only, considering the knowledge of the truth to be indifferent (which the Socinians and Arminians maintain, whereby they more conveniently neglect and eliminate faith in Christ and the other fundamentals of religion; in turn, they lure into their society whoever might be devoid of the knowledge of Christ and of Christian fundamentals). Rather, Christian theology unites theory with practice, and is “a knowledge of the truth that is according to godliness”
98 (Titus 1:1). And the doctrine according to godliness, by which we know and do (John 13:17), is composed of faith and love (2 Tim. 1:13), in agreement with the fathers. Cyril of Jerusalem writes: “The method of divine worship consists in these two things: careful concern for pious doctrine and for good works.”
99 Thus, the layman confessor in the Council of Nicaea says, “Simple-mindedness
100 must be preserved by faith and good works.”
101 Even more, each and every part of theology requires its own work, by which, according to the thought of our Savior, whatever we know, we do. “Because,” according to Lactantius, “religion cannot be separated from wisdom, nor wisdom severed from religion, because it is one and the same God who ought to be understood (which is wisdom) and honored (which is religion). But wisdom precedes, then religion follows, because the first thing is to know God, and the result is to worship God. Thus, in these two things there is one driving force, however much they appear to be separated.”
102
The distribution of false religions
XXI. Every false theology and so-called
103 theology is opposed to Christian theology in that it is either ignorant of Christ or speaks falsely about him. The former is professed by unbelievers,
104 such as (1) the pagans, whom Paul separates into barbarians and Scythians (Col. 3:11); (2) the modern Jews, who also hatefully persecute Christ (I say modern, for in reality the ancient Jews thought the same thing concerning Christ as we do); and (3) the Muslims,
105 who are aware of Christ and receive him, but only as an extraordinary prophet, not as the God-man
106 Redeemer, over whom they even prefer that most crafty impostor Muhammad, and substitute his tenets found in the Qur’an for the divine oracles of Christ. The latter is professed by heretics, both the ancient ones, whom Augustine, Epiphanius, Daneau, Schlüsselburg, and others examine, and the more recent and modern ones. Among these modern heretics, (1) the first place belongs to the Socinians, who are the closest to unbelievers and Muslims, because the Socinians attribute to Christ just as much as unbelievers and Muslims do, for both of them deny his deity and satisfaction; (2) the second place belongs to the Anabaptists, who insult the true humanity of Christ and have not quite made up their minds concerning his satisfaction, and who likewise deny baptism to infants and sometimes repeat it for adults; and (3) the third place belongs to the papists,
107 who follow the Antichrist. They generously grant to Christ his deity, of course, and his satisfaction, at least in word, but in substance they more than adequately overthrow the latter when they pile up mediators in his place, and when they substitute their own satisfactions, the merits of good works, papal indulgences, and other similar things for his satisfaction. We add to these heretics the schismatics, who usually end up in heresy. Of this kind are: (1) those who call themselves Lutherans, who state that they chew in their mouths the human nature of Christ, which is either present everywhere, or at least in the elements of the holy synaxis,
108 and (2) those who follow Arminius, also known as Remonstrants, but only the five article men,
109 for we place the Socinianizers
110 or their apologists with Socinus. We do not even enumerate the fanatics, enthusiasts, libertines, and others of that sort because they have a form of atheism rather than a theology.
The Elenctic Part
1. Is the theology of the pagans true?
XXII. First, it is asked whether the theology of the pagans, which we have distinguished from natural theology, is true. The pagan writers who taught about theology and theological matters—Julian,
111 Porphyry, and Celsus being eminent among them—without hesitation answer in the affirmative. Christians, Jews, Muslims, and all those who receive some sort of canonical scripture deny it with one voice. Although we grant that (1) pagan theology contained some true things about God and about divine worship (Rom. 1:19–20; 2:14–15), nevertheless, it did not have the true God, that is, the triune God, and the majority of the things that it held concerning the one God were not true. Also, the common people of the pagans used to enumerate, instead of one God, nearly an infinite number of gods, among whom—besides the sun, moon, and stars—were mere men. Now and then these men were illustrious, but frequently they were the worst and most wicked sorts of people—even devils! We also grant that (2) pagan theology recognized that God must be worshiped and his will obeyed, yet the way of worshipping God, and the will of God that they were responsible to obey, were thoroughly hidden from it. For this reason, it devised for itself childish, impure, and plainly horrendous ways of worshipping God. We grant that (3) it taught some of the virtues, yet it was ignorant of their nature, purposes, and essential ingredients—namely, that they should be devoted to the glorification of God, the advantage of one’s neighbor, and one’s own salvation; that they ought to be arranged according to the prescription of the divine will; and that they ought to be performed not in one’s own strength but in that strength conferred by the grace of God. Instead, pagan theology regulated the virtues for one’s own glory and advantage, according to the prescription of a blinded mind, and in the strength of one’s own nature. We grant that (4) pagan theology had some sort of conception of human misery. Nevertheless, it was plainly ignorant of the origin of this misery and ran after the worst remedies in sacrifices (even human sacrifices!) and the worst sorts of other things. There is hardly anything that the pagans may allege for their theology but that it arose from nature and reason, and coincides with it. But we oppose them: (1) They freely presuppose for no reason that pagan theology corresponds to natural theology, while we have distinguished natural theology from pagan theology by this: the former is true and the latter is false. (2) Even if we should grant that it emanated from nature and reason, we deny that it flowed from uninjured nature and right reason, but rather from corrupted nature and blind reason. Indeed, (3) on the contrary we assert that nature contradicts polytheism, and that right reason does not allow people to have any gods they please, to claim religious worship for them, or to worship their gods in the way that pagan theology prescribes, all of which we have taught before.
2. Is any kind of natural theology allowed? The divergence of opinions
XXIII. Second, it is asked whether any natural theology, whether innate or acquired, is allowed. Some, who attribute too much to natural theology, err in excess at this point, just as the Scholastics among the papists do when, since they are helpless to sustain their doctrine of transubstantiation and other superstitions by revealed theology, they flee to their own philosophical theology, the closest thing to natural theology. We will treat these things a little further on. Others dream of a kind of common theology by which anyone can be saved in his own religion. For an example of this, see Tomasso Campanella, from whom the Socinians do not differ very much when they require that a person must believe only a very few things about God and Christ in order to be saved.
112 There are others who, drawing on Plato, teach that the ideas of all things, even theological things, are innate in man. They direct all our study toward the contemplation and awakening of those ideas in such a way that, as they suppose, nothing is to be admitted as truth that is not found in those ideas by clear and distinct perception. We have disputed with them elswhere in our Gangrene of the Cartesian Innovations.
113 The Socinians, on the other hand, err in defect on this point. Socinus, Ostorodt,
114 and others absolutely deny all natural theology, whether innate or acquired, for this reason, so that they would not be compelled to admit that man had an original righteousness which involved a knowledge of divine things (Col. 3:10). Here also, in agreement with Socinus, Jan Crell (and many others of the same persuasion) denies innate theology. However, he not only acknowledges acquired theology but painstakingly defends it with heaped-up arguments.
115 The Reformed certainly accept both innate and acquired natural theology, but in this way: they neither mean that such theology is actual (that is, actually present in each and every person, including infants and the mentally handicapped), nor that it is sufficient for salvation. Rather, by natural theology they mean a theology that arises spontaneously, without any revelation, from the rational nature concreated in all, in much the same way that reasoning is said to be innate to human beings. The following four things refute those who deny this sort of natural theology: (1) Scripture (Rom. 1:19–20; 2:14–15; Ps. 19:2–3; 104; Acts 14:15), whenever it teaches that divine things are observed by pagans by their reason apart from revelation; (2) conscience, naturally excusing and condemning either good or evil deeds (Rom. 2:15); (3) the consent of the nations, which is most evident from the voyages of the Portuguese, the English, and the Dutch; and (4) experience, which is obvious in the great many spiritual, ethical, economic, and political writings of the pagans. The objections of opponents
116 refute only the kind of natural theology that would actually and always exist in each and every person by nature, or the kind that would be sufficient for salvation, but even we do not accept such a natural theology. Or, the objectors, when they hear of a mouth that denies the existence of God, a heart that desires his nonexistence, and a life that rejects God, deduce that it is a given that all are completely devoid of a sense of deity (cf. Ps. 10:4; 14:1;
117 Titus 1:16).
3. Is natural theology sufficient for salvation?
XXIV. Third, someone may ask whether natural theology is sufficient for salvation. There are those on one side who do not think it is useful at all. Thus Socinus, together with his followers, denies natural theology, and the Anabaptists are in basic agreement with him through their hatred of philosophy. There are those on the other side who make so much of natural theology that it is seen as sufficient for salvation. In this group are the pagans, and formerly the Pelagians, since they taught that the patriarchs were saved by natural law alone, and Campanella, as well as the Libertines, who openly profess it. The Reformed certainly acknowledge that natural theology is useful for refuting atheists, for demonstrating a deity, for some kind of worship of God (Rom. 1:19–20), and for rendering the pagans, including the philosophers, without excuse
118 (Rom. 1:21–24, 32; Acts 17:24ff.; 1 Cor. 11:13–14), but they consider it in no way sufficient for salvation. They hold this because (1) a knowledge of Christ is required for justification (Isa. 53:10), and likewise (2) for eternal life (John 17:3), such that (3) outside of Christ, there is no salvation (Acts 4:12; John 14:6); and (4) insofar as Paul condemns and rejects philosophy as vain deception
119 (Col. 2:8), the spirit of this world (1 Cor. 2:12), worldly wisdom proper to natural men
120 who do not understand the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:13–14), and the wisdom of the flesh
121 (1 Cor. 2:14), which does not submit itself to the divine law and cannot do so (Rom. 8:6–7). Moreover, (5) what is born of nature and reason, which is corrupted, dim-sighted, and blind, cannot offer us a theology that is sufficient for salvation. Nevertheless, the same Reformed do not deny that natural theology as it existed in the state of man as originally instituted, or in the state of integrity, was sufficient for the attainment of eternal life by the covenant of nature, because at that time human nature was still whole, owing to the wisdom of original righteousness. Nor also do they deny that while sin was absent, a mediator who is revealed by theology was not necessary.
Objections
If the Libertines could say anything to the contrary, it would be (1) that Acts 10:35 says, “Anyone from whatever people who fears God is accepted by him,” including the one who is imbued only with natural theology. But it would have to be demonstrated that one can truly fear God apart from Christ (who is offered only in revealed theology) since without Christ we can do absolutely nothing (John 15:5). If they should stand on (2) the example of Cornelius the centurion, arguing that a Gentile, while yet outside of Christ, is called a pious person who feared God, abundantly gave alms, and constantly called upon God, then we will respond that he was indeed by nationality a Gentile, but by profession he was a Jew who believed in the Messiah by means of the revealed theology of the Jews, although he was yet ignorant of who that Messiah was, about whom Peter would thoroughly instruct him. (3) Natural theology, they say, is true and good; and of course, it originates from God. We will repeat that, in itself, it is not at all sufficient for the salvation of a sinner.
4. What should we think about scholastic theology?
XXV. Fourth, someone may ask what we should think about scholastic theology, which is a middle way between natural and revealed theology inasmuch as it teaches revealed things by natural method and arguments. By “scholastic theology” we do not understand here revealed theology as it is taught in the familiar manner of the schools—which is the sense our Alsted meant when he published his scholastic theology—but rather that philosophical theology that is held in the schools of the papists in order to sustain their doctrine of transubstantiation and other sorts of superstitions. This philosophical theology was born under Lanfranc of Pavia while he was contending with Berengar over transubstantiation. In that dispute, at every point Lanfranc lacked the authority of both Augustine and Scripture, insofar as nothing in Augustine or Scripture presents itself in favor of transubstantiation. At least at that time this philosophical theology was more modest, but afterward, when quite dreadful philosophical terms were contrived, gradually it became more impudent, all the way up to Peter Lombard in his Four Books of Sentences, and from there to Albert the Great and his disciple Thomas Aquinas. By Aquinas, without any shame, not only were those quite dreadful philosophical terms augmented to an enormous extent, but also, disregarding the Scriptures, the heads of the faith began to be demonstrated by philosophical reasons, and even Aristotle, Averroes, and others began to be considered equal to the Scriptures, if not preferred over them. Concerning this kind of scholastic theology, it is now asked, what should we think?
Confirming arguments
Since the papists generally find nothing in the Scriptures to reinforce their positions on transubstantiation, the absolute rule
122 of the pope, their own satisfactions and merits, and all other kinds of papal doctrines, they commonly flee to philosophical subtleties and to the thickets of quite dreadful terms. The Reformed generally think, for the reasons already noted, that the aforementioned type of scholastic theology ought to be rigidly proscribed, and in substance agree with the more discriminating of the papists, such as Desiderius Erasmus, Melchior Canus, Denis Pétau, and others. Nevertheless, there are among the Reformed those who think we should take the middle way, that scholastic theology ought to be neither entirely preserved nor entirely eliminated, but that it ought to be purged of its blemishes, and only then can it be preserved.
The sources of the solutions
Scholastic theology is useful (1) in controversies with the papists, since you cannot engage very soundly and fruitfully with them if you are unfamiliar with their style, tricks, and thickets; (2) in refuting pagans and atheists; (3) in building up souls concerning revealed truth itself; and especially (4) in those questions that border on theology on one side and philosophy on the other.
The Practical Part
The first point of practice, examination. Its motives
XXVI. Therefore, since only Christian theology ought to be impressed upon Christians, and since so many kinds of false theology and so-called
123 theology surround it on all sides,
124 it is, in the first place, a duty incumbent on us that we cautiously distinguish the latter from the former. This duty is (1) prescribed by Scripture (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 John 4:1; Heb. 5:14; Phil. 1:9–10); (2) recommended by the matter itself, inasmuch as it is most shameful, and equally pernicious, to be deceived and swayed in a matter of such great importance (Eph. 4:14); and (3) induced by the danger of error and of seduction, which threatens on every side. This threat of danger comes from Satan the seducer, who blinds (2 Cor. 4:4; 11:3); from false prophets, who are the agents of Satan (Matt. 7:15); from the inconstancy, blindness, and sluggishness of one’s own mind (1 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 4:14); and from the variety and deceit of errors, which bear a “form of religion”
125 or of genuine theology (2 Tim. 3:5). So the most disciplined senses are required here to discern good from evil
126 (Heb. 5:14), as well as “knowledge and all discernment for testing those things that differ”
127 (Phil. 1:9–10). (4) We also are bound to this duty by the importance of distinguishing between true and false theology, upon which hangs either the eternal destruction or the eternal salvation of the soul (2 Peter 2:1; John 6:68).
The signs and mode of examination
But that this scrutiny might happen as desired, it is required first that we have Scripture at hand as our touchstone (Isa. 8:20; Gal. 6:16), and, second, the analogy of faith (Rom. 12:6) and “the pattern of sound words”
128 (2 Tim. 1:13). In addition, we should have, third, certain particular criteria,
129 which hardly anyone has described more accurately than our text (cf. II.B.1), compared with which any so-called
130 theology will be discovered to be (1) unscriptural or “teaching differently,”
131 or (2) inadequate, not “agreeing with the sound words of Christ,”
132 either by addition, which is the chief reason that popery collapses, since it has added to these sound words an infinite number of traditions, or by subtraction, which is the reason Socinianism fails, since it takes away the Trinity, satisfaction, and other fundamentals. Or, false theology will be (3) apart from Christ, that is, not teaching the words about Christ,
133 for which reason heathenism, Judaism, and Islam fail, since they do not hold to the words about Christ. Or, it will be (4) insufficiently “according to godliness,”
134 which is especially problematic for the schismatic theology of the Lutherans and Arminians, since they either excessively extol man and his will, his works, his perfection, and disparage God’s grace and mercy in Christ—which Arminianism does along with the Pelagians, papists, and Socinians—or they present an opportunity for despairing by setting up, in their teaching on absolute perfection
135 and the total apostasy of the saints, perpetual doubts about salvation. Even Lutheranism participates in this last error: along with what was just pointed out, at least regarding the total apostasy of the saints, they also give rein to carnal security either by a universal grace of God, a universal satisfaction of Christ—which they apply to all equally, for which reason, with the rest, the Lutheran faith is especially troubled—or by widening the path of salvation, which agrees little with either the justice or mercy of God. In this way, by setting mercy against justice, Lutheranism follows the Socinian path to its own ruin. Therefore, Reformed theology is the most exact of all in agreeing
136 with those apostolic marks of orthodoxy, as what is evident to our eyes testifies. For more on the truth of the Christian religion, see Pierre Mornay, Juan Luis Vives, Hugo Grotius, and recently Pierre-Daniel Huet in his Evangelical Demonstration.
137
The second point of practice: shunning any false theology
XXVII. But since it is not sufficient merely to have distinguished true theology from a spurious one, it is necessary, in the second place, for everyone, when he has discovered any so-called
138 theology, to strive according to his station to cast it out. As for what we understand by false theology, we presuppose here the definition from the preceding paragraph, namely, “any different doctrine.”
139
Who is obligated?
This duty is incumbent on (1) preachers of Christian truth (Titus 3:10–11; Acts 15:2; Gal. 2:11, 14); (2) the magistrate (2 Kings 10:25), to whom it was formerly prescribed to resist false theology, even with capital punishment (Deut. 13:5; 18:20; 1 Kings 18:40); and (3) whoever has professed Christian truth (Matt. 7:15; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:14; 2 Tim. 2:16–17; Titus 3:10–11; 2 John 10).
Reasons for these things
Indeed, false theology must be resisted because it (1) strives to overturn the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:7); (2) blasphemes the way of truth (2 Peter 2:2); (3) bewitches people so that they do not yield to the truth (Gal. 3:1); (4) ransacks churches (Acts 15:24; Gal. 1:7; 5:10, 12); (5) is destructive (2 Peter 2:2–3); and (6) is hateful to Christ (Rev. 2:6, 15).
The mode and means by which it is shunned
For this reason, it is especially incumbent upon ministers to watch over the flock (Acts 20:29–31; Rev. 2:2, 6) by (1) refuting those who teach different doctrines
140 (2 Tim. 2:16, 25; Titus 1:9), according to the examples of Stephen (Acts 6:9ff.), Paul (Acts 9:22), Paul and Barnabas (Acts 15:2), Apollos (Acts 18:28), and Peter (2 Peter 3:4ff.); (2) strengthening their own flock in Christian truth (Acts 14:19, 22); and (3) calling back home those who have been led astray (Gal. 1:6–7).
141 It is incumbent upon magistrates to restrain false theology by political authority and force, as we taught above, and act as nursing fathers of the church (Isa. 49:23). Finally, it is incumbent upon all to guard themselves carefully (Matt. 7:15) and to fix their minds in the truth against errors, so that they may not, like children, vacillate and be carried about by every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). Let them keep in mind the analogy of faith, the “pattern of sound words,”
142 and the catechetical heads well fortified by passages of Scripture (2 Tim. 1:13, etc.).
The third point of practice: the study of true theology, in which there are degrees of knowledge
XXVIII. Third, when any false theology has been cast out, it is then necessary that an indefatigable concern for and study of true Christian theology should advance among all who profess Christ. For although the knowledge of theological matters that anyone obtains now, at least compared to the knowledge obtained in the future, is only “in part”
143 and as if “in a mirror, in an enigma”
144 (1 Cor. 13:12), nevertheless it admits of degrees. According to these degrees of knowledge we are called infants or adults (1 Cor. 3:1–2; Heb. 5:12–14), that is, in proportion to (1) times and degrees of illumination, for which reason a higher degree is demanded now under the New Testament than formerly under the Old Testament (Joel 2:28–29; 1 Cor. 3:12–13; Isa. 11:9; Jer. 31:34, 36);
145 (2) the means of gaining knowledge, in which one location surpasses another (Col. 3:16; Heb. 5:12–14), for which reason a higher degree of knowledge is demanded of us Europeans than of the Indians, or of the Reformed than (for example) the papists; (3) persons and offices; a greater and higher degree is demanded among teachers and pastors than among others (Mal. 2:7; Hos. 4:6); and finally, (4) theological matters themselves, since some are clearly more fundamental than others (Heb. 6:1; 1 Cor. 3:1–2). For this reason theological matters are separated into the heads of faith, which concern being a Christian, and the heads of theology, which promote a Christian’s well-being. Although I assert for these reasons that we must by all means grant that there are degrees of knowledge, yet it is incumbent upon each and every person to consider and to gain for himself a knowledge of the fundamental and catechetical heads of doctrine (Jer. 31:34), and to strive more and more to make progress and to be rooted in these doctrines (Col. 2:6–7; Heb. 5:12; 1 Cor. 14:20).
Its quality
But not just any sort of knowledge of Christian matters will suffice. For there exists (1) a perverse knowledge (1 Tim. 1:4; 6:20) that is born for contention (1 Tim. 6:4–5); (2) a vain, bookish, speculative knowledge that only wanders about in the brain and does not penetrate into the heart, except perhaps to puff it up (1 Cor. 13:1; 8:1); and (3) a saving, experimental, practical knowledge that strives earnestly for the inner man so that from there it might bring forth the practical application of what is known (John 13:17; Phil. 3:8, 10; 4:9; Col. 1:9–10), in the words of the apostle, the “knowledge of the truth according to godliness”
146 (Titus 1:1).
Its subjects: (1) Ministers
Therefore, everyone should strive toward this knowledge with all his strength. By “everyone” I mean the following: Teachers and ministers, who should preserve theology (1 Cor. 2:2; Mal. 2:7; Hos. 4:6), teach theology (1 Tim. 6:2; 2 Tim. 4:2), expound theology (2 Tim. 2:15), defend theology (Titus 1:9), and apply theology (1 Tim. 4:2), according to the variety of persons and situations (Titus 2:2; 1 Tim. 6:17).
(2) Magistrates
Magistrates, who should know theology and should have the law before their eyes (Deut. 17:18–20; Josh. 1:8; Psalm 19), prescribe it for their subordinates (2 Chron. 17:7–9; Josh. 24:14ff.), protect it against enemies, as nursing fathers of the church (Isa. 49:23; 60:16) and as guardians of both tables of the law, and propagate it (Gen. 18:19).
147 In sum they should, in all these ways, kiss Christ (Ps. 2:10–12), so that their polity becomes a theocracy, that is, a Christocracy.
(3) All Christians
Finally, all Christians, who should acknowledge Christian truth (Col. 3:16), take care to advance in it more and more (John 5:39; Ps. 1:2), to rest upon it (2 Peter 1:19), and, each according to his ability, to offer it to others (Col. 3:16).
Motives for the study of Christian theology
XXIX. The most effective reasons to persuade all to study theology are:
Its excellence
First, the excellence of theology, in which it leaves any other discipline behind by a thousand miles (Eph. 3:19; 1 Cor. 2:2). It obtains this excellence: (1) From its own heavenly and divine birth and origin (Gal. 1:1), for it is “the wisdom from above”
148 (James 3:17); even more, from the mode of its birth, which is plainly glorious (2 Cor. 4:6). (2) From the majesty of its subject matter, which is God and Christ, for which reason it is called the “wisdom of God”
149 (1 Cor. 2:6–7; Prov. 2:5) and “the surpassing greatness of the knowledge of Christ,”
150 on account of which the apostle counted all things as loss and dung
151 (Phil. 3:8) and also viewed all other knowledge with indifference (1 Cor. 2:2). Furthermore, it is the method of living for God (Rom. 6:11), for which reason it is called the words of life (Acts 5:20; John 6:68). (3) From its end and use, since it directs a person to live for God, to glorify God, and to pursue blessed immortality, and since it directs all the particular ends of all things to the one common and highest end, without which everything would fly off track. (4) From its unmoved certainty, which indeed itself rests on the faithfulness of the God who never lies
152 and embraces all things according to their formal cause (as they say), their infallibility (1 Cor. 15:15; John 3:33), since all other kinds of knowledge are acquired and advanced by experience and reasoning, which are frequently uncertain. (5) From its purity and holiness (James 3:17), which is so great and of such a kind that it also renders the possessor of it holy and pure (Ps. 19:8–9).
Its delightfulness
The second reason is the sweetness and pleasantness of theology, with which the mind is marvelously flooded when it possesses it (Ps. 19:8; 119:103; Prov. 2:10; 24:13–14; Job 23:12), and which arises first from the excellence of its object, and then from the certainty of its knowledge.
Its usefulness
The third reason is the usefulness of theology, which is so diverse and distinguished that here you could use Christ’s maxim: theology is the “one thing necessary”
153 (Luke 10:42); or the apostle’s: it is “useful for all things,” indeed, “having promise for this life and the life to come”
154 (1 Tim. 4:8).
Its necessity
The fourth reason is the plainly absolute necessity of theology, to the extent that without it, you are not able to obtain either justification here (Isa. 53:11) or life hereafter (John 17:3). On the contrary, any of your studies, if they wander away from their highest goal, will prove entirely useless. In this way, it is not without cause that the psalmist makes every kind of human happiness depend upon this study (Ps. 1:1–2).
The evils of ignorance
The fifth reason is the evils of the ignorance of theology, by which we are rendered strangers to the life of God (Eph. 4:18–19) and to the covenant of grace (Jer. 31:33–34), and made liable to divine wrath (Ps. 79:6), likewise to the most serious temporal judgments of God (Amos 4:6), and even to eternal condemnation (2 Thess. 1:8–9; 2 Cor. 4:3).
Examples
All of these reasons motivated the saints in both Testaments. By their study of divine matters, the patriarchs and prophets under the Old Testament (1 Peter 1:10–11), and the apostles and evangelists under the New Testament (2 Tim. 3:15; Acts 18:24)—indeed even the heavenly angels (1 Peter 1:12; Eph. 3:10)—light the way by their own example.
The means of obtaining theology
XXX. But, in order that, given such a great mass of reasons, we may not recommend the study of theology or religion in vain, we must explicitly add the means of acquiring it.
1. Let us seek it from its author.
Therefore, first and foremost it must be recognized that theology’s supreme author and first source is: God (James 3:17), for which reason theology is the “wisdom of God”
155 (1 Cor. 2:6–7) because it is first about God, and then from God; Christ, for which reason theology is called the “words of Christ”
156 (1 Tim. 6:3); and the Holy Spirit, for which reason he is called “the Spirit of wisdom” (Isa. 11:2; Eph. 1:17). From these designations we gather that theology exists by the revelation of the Father (Matt. 16:17), the Son (John 1:18), and the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:21), by illumination for perceiving revealed truth (Eph. 1:18), and by guidance in the truth that has been perceived (John 16:13; Ps. 25:5; 143:10). Therefore, let us entreat him with the most fervent prayers (James 1:5; 1 Kings 3:9), that he would give the Spirit to us (John 16:13) and anoint the eyes of our minds with salve (Rev. 3:18), that thus we might see marvelous things in the law of God (Ps. 119:18, 27).
2. Let us be instructed in the things that theology requires.
Then, second, in order to pursue theology more certainly, let us attend to ourselves as we give our attention to theology so that we may be reconciled to God as his friends (John 15:15), be God-fearers (Ps. 25:12), humble in heart (1 Peter 5:5; Ps. 25:9; Matt. 11:25), and fools to this world (1 Cor. 3:18).
3. Let us keep the instruments in view.
Being prepared in this way, third, let us keep the instruments in view: the book of nature that is spread out before us, inwardly through the conscience (Rom. 2:14–15) and externally through the contemplation of created things (Rom. 1:20; Ps. 19:1); the book of Scripture that will spread theology before us, specifically Christian and revealed theology (Ps. 19:7–8); and the ministry of scholastic and ecclesiastical instruction (Mal. 2:7; Eph. 4:11–14).
4. Let us use them carefully, guarding against these things.
Then, fourth, let these be banished: (1) contrived ignorance (2 Peter 3:5; Prov. 1:22; 29:7); (2) vain curiosity and “what is falsely called knowledge”
157 (1 Tim. 6:20; 2 Tim. 2:23; Titus 3:9), by which, on the one hand, we would wrongly concern ourselves with investigating the secret things of God (Deut. 29:29), or the things that do not concern us (John 21:22; Acts 1:6–7), or that are less necessary to know (1 Cor. 14:1), or on the other hand, we neglect the basics to pursue deeper things (Heb. 6:1), or we do not rest in those things God has said unless they agree with our reason (Luke 1:34; Rom. 9:19–20); (3) pride (1 Cor. 8:1); (4) fleshly wisdom (1 Cor. 2:14; 3:18–19); (5) and fleshly desires that blind the mind (Eph. 4:18) by disturbing, enticing, and darkening it.
Things to be employed
Finally, the following should be employed with regard to the divine Word (Ps. 19:7–8; 119:130; 2 Tim. 3:15–17): reading it (1 Tim. 4:15), hearing it (Luke 11:28), meditating upon it (Ps. 1:2), discussing it with others (Luke 24:15), and practicing it (John 7:17; James 1:25; Ps. 119:99–100; Rev. 22:7; John 13:17; cf. William Ames, Cases of Conscience, bk. 3, ch. 2).
158
Eleven Rules of Academic Study
XXXI. Regarding the academic study of theology, we will touch, as with a pin, on only a few particulars: (1) Both from what has been said and what will be said, we plainly presuppose the excellence, usefulness, necessity, sanctity, grandeur, and even the difficulty of theology. (2) In the student, the requisite theological character
159 is to be teachable, industrious, pious, and suitable for theology. This character results from a skillfulness of judgment, which can discern
160 spiritual things; a reliability of memory, in which so many and such a variety of things can be grasped; and an orderliness
161 of affections in purity and constancy, with which one inclines toward holy things not reluctantly, but with a certain holy proclivity. (3) The student has a theological goal set before him, not wealth, glory, pleasures, or leisure, but rather the glory of God, the edification of the church, and his own salvation. Additionally, (4) in his own study, a three-part introductory curriculum ought to come first: philology, consisting of the Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Latin languages; philosophy, consisting of logic, physics, metaphysics, mathematics, and practical philosophy; and history, which includes geography and chronology as if they were its two wings. (5) Biblical study should follow these preparations, or rather join them. It should be as much a cursory study constantly sprinkled into other studies as an exegetical and careful one—in which the context is investigated, the difficulties are noted and clarified, and conclusions are drawn, both theoretical and practical. At the same time, (6) a dogmatic and positive theology should be added, just as much a catechetical theology as a systematic theology of commonplaces. (7) An elenctic theology should follow. This consists of both a general polemic, which engages with many opponents, and a particular one, which engages with each individually—with unbelievers (pagans, Muslims, Jews, and atheists), heretics (Socinians, Anabaptists, papists, and fanatics), and schismatics (Arminians, Lutherans, Brownists, Independents, Colemanists, and others). And there should also be (8) a practical theology that is moral (concerning virtues and vices), ascetic (concerning the exercises of piety), casuistic (concerning cases of conscience), and political (concerning the government of the church). Next is (9) antiquarian theology, which traces ecclesiastical history and considers the church fathers and the councils, each in their own time. Furthermore, (10) in all these things, let the student occupy himself with hearing, reading, meditating, praying, and disputing. And (11) this study should divide up the duties according to a certain order through the years, days, and hours. It should suffice to have touched on these things that are explained in their proper breadth
162 by others, such as Erasmus, Hyperius, Crocius, Alsted, and the one to be considered above all, Voetius.
The fourth use: the study of practical theology
XXXII. Indeed, the study of theology, to the extent that it is true theology, is not sufficient, unless, fourth, it is earnestly devoted to practical theology and to practice. For this reason our theorem does not urge a merely Christian theology, but rather a specifically theoretical-practical theology. By this, however, we understand that this theology is not any of the following: the pagan theology of Socrates, Plato, Scipio, Aristides, Cato, or Seneca; the philosophical theology that is summed up in the exercises of ethics, economics, and politics; the Pharisaical theology (about which Josephus remarks in Jewish Antiquities) which professed celibacy, frequent fasts, prayers, alms, and which abstained only from shameful acts and was vigilant in the external exercises of godliness with great austerity;
163 the Essene theology, which even surpassed the Pharisaical theology in precision
164 (as a witness see Josephus, bk. 18);
165 the monastic and eremitic theology; or any sort of hypocritical theology. All of these have a “form of religion but deny its power”
166 (2 Tim. 3:5). We will perhaps treat this expressly in a chapter concerning hypocrisy.
167
Marks
XXXIII. But for practical theology, in all these and infinite other duties, and especially those that are internal, to be truly “according to godliness,”
168 it must: (1) not stop at externals, but flow from the inner heart (Ps. 51:6; Rom. 2:28–29), which must indeed be endowed with a true and living faith (Rom. 14:23; Gal. 5:6); (2) strive not for its own advantages, honor, and wealth (Matt. 6:1–5), but rather for the glory of God (1 Cor. 10:31), the edification of its neighbor (Matt. 5:16), and its own salvation (1 Peter 1:9); (3) proceed not according to its own pleasures (Matt. 15:9), but according to divine precept (Gal. 6:16); finally, (4) not be produced by the strength of nature (John 3), but by the Spirit of God (Gal. 5:22).
Motives
XXXIV. Many things urge the serious study of practical theology and theological practice. (1) Christian theology is not theoretical, or theoretical-practical (though because of how we discuss it we do designate it that way), but rather, it is purely and preeminently
169 practical. This presupposition will be demonstrated and proved in its own place.
170 (2) Not only is the whole of theology said to be the “doctrine according to godliness”
171 (1 Tim. 6:3) and the “knowledge of the truth according to godliness”
172 (Titus 1:1), and to pertain to teaching, correction, and training in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfectly equipped
173 for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16–17), but also, its individual parts are each joined together with their own practice, as we will show, Lord willing, throughout the whole corpus of theology, such that “faith and love”
174 (2 Tim. 1:13), hearing and doing (James 1:22–23)
175 agree, and the end of the “commandment”
176 is said to be charity that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience (1 Tim. 1:5), and the “obedience of faith”
177 (Rom. 1:5) arises; it then in practice becomes the “power of godliness”
178 (that is, of theology), since bare theory offers nothing but its “form”
179 (2 Tim. 3:5). (3) On practice hangs salvation, which is denied to bare theory (John 13:17; James 1:22).
180 (4) On practice likewise depends the refutation of gainsayers,
181 more than on theory (James 2:18–19), and this is true even with regard to their conversion (1 Peter 3:1–2), and indeed, conversion is more safe, proven, and stable, when it is born from love of practice than from theory alone. I will not press the point that (5) by the study of practical theology and of theological practice, we check as effectively as possible the calumnies of the Arminians and the papists by which our theology is accused of being useless, vain, and merely theoretical. And, furthermore, (6) Satan and his followers resist matters of practice with a no less vigorous attack than matters of theory. In fact, day by day he hatches all kinds of new and novel plans (1 Tim. 3:6) to shut off practical study and the practice of study.
The means of obtaining a practical theology
XXXV. The supports for obtaining and propagating this practical theology may be found, with the necessary changes being made, in §XXX. Nevertheless, let us add a few more that are more specific to practical study.
First
First, an assiduous and practical study of the divine word is exceedingly conducive to this end, that the man of God may be perfectly equipped
182 for every good work (2 Tim. 3:17), if by this study one seeks most of all not merely a knowledge of the truth, but also its force and efficacy, and if in addition one reads certain authors, both old and more recent ones, especially the most practical
183 Dutch and English authors, and arranges them into common places.
Second
The second support is an experimental study of theology in which we not only understand, but also experience the force and efficacy of each theological head. For this reason the apostle conjoins “knowledge and all insight”
184 (Phil. 1:9), by which we taste and see how good the Lord is, and how blessed the one who hopes in him (Ps. 34:8). Nor do I think that the masters of theology have pursued practice more successfully than when they have rightly equipped their minds with the experience of theological truths, compared what they experienced with Scripture, and then put down both on paper. For this reason, Luther declared those sermons best in which the preacher experiences what he says and says what he experiences.
Third
The third support is an exemplary study of theology, in which you not only experience it for yourself, but also set an example for others so that they also may experience it. This is what the apostle commends to ministers especially, that above all they should present themselves as an example of good works in their teaching (Titus 2:7). Nor does anything, according to Luther, penetrate the heart more deeply than that which springs from the depths of the heart.
Fourth
Fourth, in their expositions of the theological heads, theologians should expressly teach not only dogmatic and elenctic matters, but also practical ones.
Fifth
I will add, fifth, that in the examinations of candidates, we should require evidence not only of dogmatic and elenctic theology, but also of practical theology and of practice.
