Prolegomena
Foundations
Revelation, canon and authority, hermeneutics, theological method
Theology begins with the question of revelation: how does God make himself known? The answer given to it governs all that follows: the doctrine of Scripture, ecclesiology, and theological method itself.
General and special revelation
| Type | Content | Scope | Texts |
|---|---|---|---|
| General revelation | God makes himself known through creation, moral conscience and history — accessible to all. | Sufficient to leave humanity without excuse (Rom 1:20), insufficient for salvation. | Ps 19:1-4 ; Rom 1:18-20 ; 2:14-15 ; Acts 14:17 ; 17:26-28 |
| Special revelation | God reveals himself through his Word: the prophets, Scripture, and above all the incarnation of the Son. | The only way of salvation. Christ is the definitive revelation (Heb 1:1-2). | Heb 1:1-2 ; John 1:18 ; 14:9 ; 2 Tim 3:16-17 |
The Barth–Brunner controversy of 1934
Emil Brunner published Natur und Gnade in 1934, defending a “point of contact” (Anknüpfungspunkt) between natural humanity and revelation: the imago Dei formally survives the fall, leaving human beings capable of hearing the Word. Barth answered with Nein! Antwort an Emil Brunner — a categorical refusal. Any natural theology, he argued, opens the door to other “revelations” in the Volk, in race, in history — precisely the error of the “German Christians”. The context of 1934, the year of Barmen, accounts for the vehemence of the exchange. Classical Reformed theology (Calvin, Institutes I.3-5) does allow a natural sensus divinitatis, while insisting that sin corrupts it into idolatry.
The canon and the authority of Scripture
Formation of the canon
| Stage | Date | Content |
|---|---|---|
| Marcion’s canon | ca. 140 | An expurgated Luke plus ten Pauline letters; total rejection of the Old Testament. It provoked the Church’s response. |
| Muratorian Fragment | ca. 170-200 | Oldest surviving canon list: four gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline letters, Jude, 1-2 John, Revelation. |
| Origen, Eusebius | 3rd-4th c. | The distinction between homologoumena (universally received), antilegomena (disputed: James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Revelation) and notha (spurious). |
| Athanasius, 39th Festal Letter | 367 | First list of the twenty-seven New Testament books as we now have them. |
| Councils of Hippo and Carthage | 393, 397 | Confirmation of the canon in the West. |
The deuterocanonical question
The deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1-2 Maccabees, together with the additions to Daniel and Esther) — stand in the Septuagint but not in the Masoretic Hebrew canon. Trent declared them canonical in 1546. Protestants follow the Hebrew canon and classify them as apocrypha: profitable to read, but not normative for doctrine (Article VI of the Thirty-Nine Articles; Westminster I §3). Orthodoxy receives them as anagignoskomena, “to be read”, with a status slightly below the protocanonical books.
Hermeneutics: principles of interpretation
| Principle | Formulation | Origin |
|---|---|---|
| Scriptura sui ipsius interpres | Scripture interprets itself: obscure passages are illuminated by clear ones. | Luther, Assertio omnium articulorum (1520) |
| Analogia fidei | Every interpretation must cohere with the whole of scriptural teaching (Rom 12:6). | Westminster I §9 |
| The literal sense | The sense intended by the author in its grammatical and historical context — not a flat literalism, but the natural sense of the literary genre employed. | The Reformation, against the medieval fourfold sense |
| Perspicuity (claritas) | Scripture is sufficiently clear in what is necessary for salvation to be understood by the ordinary believer. | Luther, De servo arbitrio (1525); Westminster I §7 |
| Testimonium Spiritus Sancti | The Holy Spirit inwardly attests the divine authority of Scripture — certainty is neither rational nor ecclesiastical. | Calvin, Institutes I.7.4-5 |
The medieval fourfold sense (Quadriga)
The medieval method distinguished the literal sense (historical), the allegorical (what is to be believed), the tropological (what is to be done) and the anagogical (what is to be hoped for), summarised in the mnemonic Littera gesta docet, quid credas allegoria, moralis quid agas, quo tendas anagogia. The Reformers rejected the method as arbitrary: it allows any meaning to be drawn from the text and removes Scripture from the reach of the ordinary reader. The literal-historical sense became normative again.
Theological method: the sources
| Model | Sources | Ordering |
|---|---|---|
| Sola Scriptura (Reformed) | Scripture alone as norma normans non normata. Tradition, reason and experience are subordinate instruments. | Scripture ≫ confessions > tradition > reason |
| Wesleyan quadrilateral | Scripture, tradition, reason and experience in dialogue, Scripture remaining primary. | Scripture > tradition = reason = experience |
| Catholic | Scripture and apostolic Tradition, authentically interpreted by the Magisterium. | The Magisterium interprets Scripture and Tradition, held as equal sources |
| Orthodox | Tradition, of which Scripture is the heart — liturgy, Fathers, councils, icons and the lives of the saints form an indivisible whole. | Living, encompassing Tradition; reception by the Church |
The four theological disciplines
Academic theology is classically divided into four disciplines. Biblical theology covers exegesis and the theology of the Old and New Testaments in their historical diversity. Systematic or dogmatic theology articulates Christian doctrine coherently. Historical theology treats the history of the Church and of dogma. Practical theology covers homiletics, catechetics, liturgy, pastoral care and missiology. The relation between biblical and dogmatic theology remains permanently contested: does dogmatics impose its categories on the text, or does exegesis supply the raw material of dogmatics?
Bibliography
- Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion I.1-9 (1559). LCC 20. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1960.
- Barth, Karl. Natural Theology, comprising “Nature and Grace” by Emil Brunner and the reply “No!” by Karl Barth. London: Geoffrey Bles, 1946.
- Metzger, Bruce M. The Canon of the New Testament. Oxford: Clarendon, 1987.
- Vanhoozer, Kevin J. Is There a Meaning in This Text? Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.
- Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics. Vol. 1: Prolegomena. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.
Quiz — Foundations
What is Barth’s thesis in Nein! (1934), against Brunner?
- That the imago Dei formally survives the fall
- That any natural theology opens the door to other “revelations” — Volk, race, history
- That general revelation suffices for the salvation of non-Christians
- That Scripture must be demythologised to address modern humanity
Barth, Nein! Antwort an Emil Brunner (1934); the context of Barmen