Abraham Kuyper.

Encyclopedia of sacred theology : its principles ... online

. (page 22 of 64)
Online LibraryAbraham KuyperEncyclopedia of sacred theology : its principles ... → online text (page 22 of 64)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

of religion, to annex another study, which seeks after God,
feels after Him that it may find Him, tries to prove His
existence and to establish knowledge concerning Him. But
he who ignores the facts of the fall and palingenesis, must
always reckon with the denial of God by so many thou-
sands, for which reason he can never attain unto a positive
knowledge, nor ever produce anything that falls outside of
the scope of Philosophy. From this naturalistic point of
view the five faculties must be reduced to four. The faculty
of Theology, Avhose supposed object must still be sought, falls


away. And everything that relates to religion, in its phe-
nomena as well as in the postulates that produce these phe-
nomena, as a department of study, goes to the Philological
faculty. The so-called history of religions is classed with
history, more appropriately with the science of countries
and nations. Religion as a psychological phenomenon is
relegated to the psychological sciences. And finally the
assumptions to which religion leads find their place in specu-
lative philosophy, which here finds a point of support for its
favorite monistic conclusions.

This whole matter assumes an entirely different phase,
however, when palingenesis is taken as the starting-point.
For then it ceases to be a problem whether there is a God ;
that the knowledge of God can be obtained is certain ; and
in the revelation which corresponds to this palingenesis there
is presented of itself an ohjectum sui generis^ which cannot
be subserved under any of the other faculties; this im-
pels the human mind to a very serious scientific investiga-
tion, which is of the utmost importance to practical life.
Then every necessary claim, for the emergence of Theol-
ogy as a proper de]3artment of science, is fully met; and
its right to a special faculty is entirely indisputable. He
who knows from personal experience that there is such a pal-
ingenesis, and conceives something of the important change
wrought by this fact in our entire sensibility, cannot remain
in the suspense of this vague impression, but feels impelled
to explain it to his consciousness, and to give himself an
intelligent account of all the consequences which flow from
it and which are bound to affect his entire world- and
life- view. And since this fact does not stand by itself in
him, but corresponds to similar facts in the spiritual exist-
ence of others, and to analogous facts in the cosmos and in
history, the demand of the human spirit is absolute, that
these facts, in him as well as outside of him, must be in-
vestigated and placed in relation and in order. And this
no other science can do ; hence a special science must be
found to do this ; since the object to be investigated bears an
entirely independent character. The further exposition of


tins will be the task of the following chapters. But at this
point let us briefly consider the relation which, from the
view-point of palingenesis, must exist between the Theologi-
cal faculty and the other faculties.

All prosecution of science which starts out from natural-
istic premises denies the subjective fact of palingenesis, as
well as the objective fact of a special revelation, which
immediately corresponds to this. Even though the incon-
sistency is committed of maintaining from this point of view
a Theological faculty, no influence worth the mention can
ever be exerted by this faculty upon the other faculties.
Religion, which as a phenomenon is the object to be inves-
tigated by this faculty, is and remains an expression of the
life of the emotions, which, however strong its hold may
be upon life, either remains unexplained, or allows itself to
be classed in the common scope. Alongside of the ethical
and testhetical life, there is also a religious life ; but the
study of that religious life imposes no claims upon the
studies of the other sciences, nor does it exercise an influ-
ence upon their methods.

This, of course, is altogether different, when in palin-
genesis we recognize a critical and a restorative fact, which
both subjectively and objectively places all things, along
with their origin and issue, before us in an entirely differ-
ent light. In the Holy Scriptures palingenesis is a general
conception, which is applied to the subject of science {vide
Tit. iii. 5), as well as to the object of science (vide Matt,
xix. 28). It assumes a first genesis, which by a departure
of the process of life from its principle has led to death, and
now it declares that a repetition of the genesis takes place,
but this time as a springing up again of that which went
down, and that in this restoration the method of genesis
repeats itself, viz. the development from a germ. This is
applied to man in all his inward life, but will sometime be
applied as well to man's somatical existence, as to the whole
cosmos outside of him, as far as this also has shared in the
false process. Hence palingenesis is now operative in the
human mind ; and, analogous to this, palingenesis will here-


after appear in the somatical and cosmical life. This palin-
genesis is introduced spiritually by an act of God's Spirit
in the spiritual life of humanity (inspiration in its broadest
sense), and somatically by an act of the power of God in the
natural life of the world (miracles in their widest interpre-
tation). From which it follows that all study of science,
where the investigator occupies the view-point of palingen-
esis, must reckon with the four phenomena: (1) of personal
regeneration ; and (2) of its corresponding inspiration ;
(3) of the final restoration of all things; and (4) of its
corresponding manifestation of God's power in miracles
{NiphleotK). These four phenomena have no existence to
the scientist who starts out from naturalistic premises. On
the contrary, his principle and starting-point compel him to
cancel these phenomena, or, where this is not possible, to ex-
plain them naturalistically. He, on the other hand, who has
personally been taken up into this powerful, all-dominat-
ing activity of palingenesis, finds his starting-point in these
very phenomena, and mistrusts every result of investiga-
tion which does not entirely correspond to them. If now
this palingenesis applied only to the religious life, one could
say that the faculty of Theology alone is bound to deal with
it. But this is not at all the case. Palingenesis is a uni-
versal conception which dominates your whole person, and
all of life about you ; moreover, palingenesis is a power that
exerts an influence not merely in your religious, but equally
in your ethical, sesthetical, and intellectual life. A Jurist, a
Physician, a Philologian, and a Physicist, who have person-
ally come under the action of this palingenesis, experience
its influence as well as the Theologian, and not only in
their emotional but in their intellectual life. This, indeed,
has been too much overlooked in earlier periods; where-
fore the consequences of palingenesis have been looked for
in Tlieology alone, and thus the mischievous demand has
been imposed upon the other sciences that they should
subject themselves to the utterances of Theology in those
points also which did not pertain to its object of investiga-
tion. The Reformed alone have established the rule with


reference to the magistracy, that it shoukl not ask the
Church to interpret God's ordinances regarding the duties
of its life, but that the magistrates shoukl study them out
independently for themselves from nature and from the
word of God. In this way homage was paid to the prin-
ciple that every one who shares this palingenesis should
exercise independent judgment in all his own affairs. If
this principle, which is the only true one, were applied to
all the sciences, it would readily be seen that Theology is
by no means called upon to arbitrate in every domain of sci-
ence ; while, on the other hand, also, it would be seen that
a twofold study must develop itself of all the sciences, —
one, by those who must deny palingenesis, and the other
by those who must reckon with it.

This, however, does not take away the fact, that the other
sciences must leave Theology the task of investigating palin-
genesis. For this is its appointed task. Theology alone is
called to do this. If there were no palingenesis, there would
be no other than a natural knowledge of God, which belongs
in the Philological faculty to the philosophical, and more
especially to the psychological and ontological, sciences.
Since, on the contrary, palingenesis has come in as an uni-
versal phenomenon, dominating all things, a faculty of its
own had to be created for Theology, and it is the task of
Theology to take the four above-mentioned phenomena as
the object of its independent investigation. It must exam-
ine : (1) inspiration, as the introductory fact to psychical
palingenesis ; (2) the psychical palingenesis itself ; (3) the
manifestation that operates introductory to the cosmical pal-
ingenesis ; and (4) the cosmical palingenesis. Later on it
will be shown why this entire study must be drawn from
the Holy Scriptures as the principium of Theology, and how
it owes its unity just to this common principium. For the
present, let it suffice that we simply assume this as a fact, and
conclude from it that the investigation here to be instituted
forms a special, well-defined ground, and that the other facul-
ties must leave this investigation to Theology. And as, in
virtue of the mutual relations of the sciences, one adopts


its borrowed data (Lehnsatze) from the other whenever it is
necessary, so that the Juridical science, for instance, does not
compose a psychology for itself, and does not teach a pll3^sics
of its own in economics, but borrows as much material as it
requires from the philological and physical sciences ; so also
is the relation here. No one of the other faculties can insti-
tute an investigation of its own of palingenesis, but must
borrow its data for this from Theology. And as to their
own ground of investigations, they operate from the con-
sciousness of palingenesis, as far as this refers to their own
department ; and they cannot rest until with their own
method they have brought the insight and the knowledge of
their own object into harmony with the study of palingenesis.






§ 56. The Name

In the answer to what we are to understand by Theology,
even the name is in our time too superficially explained.
The reason is that men are in some perplexity about the
name. Having broken away from old-time Theology, and
having displaced it by something else, the old name is
merely kept to maintain in a moral and formal sense an
hereditary right to the heritage of Sacrosanct Theology.
This is only arbitrary, unless one can prove, genetically at
least, his relation to old-time Theology. If this cannot be
done, it does not infringe the right to abandon what has
become unfit for use, and to replace it by a new complex of
studies entirely differently understood, but in that case the
old name should be discarded. For then the name becomes
a false label, and its retention would be dishonest. Our
going back to the name of Theology is therefore no anti-
quarian predilection, but is demanded by the method that
must guide us in defining the conception of Theology. The
effort more and more put forth in the second half of this
century, either in the psychologic-empiric line of Schleier-
macher, or in the speculative track of Hegel, or in both, to
form a certain idea of the departments taught in the Theo-
logical faculty, to translate this idea into a conception, and


CuAr. I] § 56. THE NAME 229

to take this conception as the definition of Theology, is a
method which can stand no testing, because in this way tlie
certainty that the object of this science remains the same
is altogether wanting. In his Cratylus Plato does not
say in vain: "To teach a thing rightly it is necessary first
to define its name." Even in itself, therefore, a study of
the name of Theology is demanded ; but this is much more
necessary now since a genealogical proof must be furnished
by those who claim hereditary right, and this hereditary
right to the Theological inheritance must be disputed with
more than one contestant.

For the right understanding of the name Theology the
etymology and the usage of the word claim our attention.
With respect to the etymology three questions arise : In
what sense is -logia to be interpreted? In what sense ^eo'??
And in this connection is ^eo<? to be taken actively or
passively ? The addition -logia occurs, just as the allied
terms, in the sense of speaking about something, as well
as in the sense of thinking about something. Aoyeloy wan in
Athens what we call the platform, and deoXoyelov was the
place on the stage from which they spoke who represented
the gods as speaking. The conception of speaking, there-
fore, and not of thinking, stands here clearly in the fore-
ground. In oa-TeoXoyia, (pvaioXoyia, and other combinations,
on the other hand, -logia has the sense of tracing, investigat-
ing. In itself, therefore, OeoXoyca could indicate etymologi-
cally the action of a 6eo\6yo<i, i.e. of one who speaks about
God, as well as the thinking about God. The only thing that
serves as a more precise indication here is the age of tlie word
and the object to which -Xoyia is coupled. The root of Xeyetv
(to speak) with Homer almost always means " to gather,"
with or without choice. Only later on it obtains the sense
of speaking. And only later still, in its last development, the
utterajice of the thought is put in the background, in order to
cause the thought itself to appear in the front. Since now
the word deoXoyia occurs already in Plato, the first under-
standing of -Xoyia has the choice ; a choice which is con-
firmed by Plato's own words. In his de Re Publ. Lib. II.,

230 § 56. THE NAME [Div. Ill

p. 379", he writes : " We, O Adimantos, are at this moment
no poets (TTOiT^rat ), but speak as founders of a city (ot/cicrrat
TToXeo)?), and as such we should understand the forms (rviroi,}
in which tlie poets must tell their legend." The question
is then asked, " What should be the forms (types) of Theol-
ogy?" upon which the answer follows that the gods must
be proclaimed as they are, whether they are spoken of in
"epics, in lyrics, or in tragedy" (e'y eVeo-t, iv /xeXecrLv or iv
rpayoiSia^. This statement admits of no doubt. In this
place at least -Xoyia is used in the sense of speaking. And
with reference to its composition with ^eo-, it is evident
that the idea of investigatmg the being of God must have
originated much later than the necessity of speaking about
the gods. Hence our first conclusion is that -\o<yLa in this I
combination was originally used in the sense of speaking.
The second question, what 6eo- in this combination means,
the gods in general or the only true God, can likewise be
answered by the above citation from Plato. Plato himself
interchanges ' theology ' with a speaking of the gods in
epics, in lyrics, or in tragedy. Concerning the third ques-
tion, however, whether in this combination 6eo- is object or
subject, we must grant the possibility of both. In 6eo86cno<i,
OeofjLTjVLa, Oeo/cpaTM^ OeoKpicria^ Oeoyafjbta, OeoTrpa^ia, OeoTrpoTria,
etc., a god is meant who gives, who is angry, who rules,
judges, marries, acts, speaks, and thus 6eo- is the subject.
On the other hand, in Beoa-e^eia, OeofiifirjcrLa, 0€OK\vr-t]cn<;,
OeoXarpeia, etc., it is a god who is feared, imitated, in-
voked, and honored, hence Oeo- is the object. SeoXoyca,
therefore, can mean etymologically the speaking of God,
as well as the speaking about God. Or if you take
deoXojLa in the later sense of knowledge, then it indicates
a knowledge which God Himself has, as well as a knowledge
which we have of God. Finally, in the last-mentioned sense
OeoXoya seems to be older than deoXoyetv., and it appears
that deoXoyelv as well as OeoXoyia are derived from it. The
result therefore is that Theology etymologically is no com-
bination of ^eJ? and Xo'709, but means originally a speaking
of or about a god or gods ; and that only with the further

Chap. I] § 56. THE NAME 231

development of the word logos, which at first indicated a
collected mass, then a word, and only later reason or thought,
^eoXo'709, 6eo\oyeiv^ and deoXo'yCa also were conceived as a
knowledge of or concerning a god or the gods.

Since the etymology admits so many possibilities, the
more accurate knowledge of the term "Theologia" should be
gleaned from the usage of the word. With Lucian and
Plutarch deoXojo'i occurs in the general sense of one Avho
treats of the gods, and Augustine declares in de Civ. Dei,
XVIII., c. 14: "During the same j)eriod of time arose the
poets, who were also called theologians, because they made
hymns about the gods." With Aristotle OeoXoyelv indi-
cates, to be a theologian, or to act as a theologian. ''E'maTTJfir]
OeoXo^LKrj means with Aristotle QMetaph. X. 6) a knowledge
concerning the divine ; while with Plato, " theology " occurs
as a speaking about the gods, and with Aristotle in the
plural number, " Theologies " were investigations into divine
things QMetereol. 2. 1). Thus far in all these combinations
the general conception was implied of engaging oneself with
the matter of the gods or deity, either in consultation with
tradition, or in reflection for the sake of a more accurate
understanding. With the name "Theology," this general
conception has been adopted by Christian writers, modified
according to the requirements of their point of view, and
carried out upon a large scale. He who reads the exhaustive
explanation of Suicer, Thes. graec, under the words 6eo\6<yo<i,
deoXoyia, and OeoXoyelv perceives at once how greatly the use
of these words was increased and how much more deeply the
thinking consciousness entered into the sense of these words,
than with the classical writers. That the apostle John was
early ctdled the Theologian (o ^€0X0709), even in the title of
the Apocalypse, cannot properly be exjolained from his refer-
ence to the Logos in the prologue to his Gospel and in his
first Epistle ; but indicates that John was esteemed to be more
versed in the divine mysteries than any other apostle. This
readily accounts for the fact that he is indicated as such in
the title of the Apocalypse and not in the title of his Gospel.
In a like sense all the writers of the Old and New Testaments,

232 § 56. THE NAME [Div. Ill

but more especially the prophets and apostles, are called theolo-
gians. Thus Athanasius says, Oratlo de mearnatione Verbi, L,
p. 62, ravra Be koI Trapa tmv avrov roi) 'S.(OTr]po<; deoXoycov av-
Spcov TTLarevcrdaL Ti? hvvaraL., ivTvyx^dvcov rol<; eKelvcov ypdfi/jiaaiv ;
i.e. one thing and another concerning the Saviour you can
also confirm by an appeal to the theologians if you turn to
their writings. But shortly after this follows the signifi-
cance of theological investigations of ecclesiastical questions.
Thus Gregory of Nazianzus was called "the Theologian," not
to place him on a level with John, as though to him also divine
mysteries had been revealed, but because in the treatment of
dogma he always ascended to God, and thus, as Gregory the
Presbyter writes, reached the height of dogma (u-v^09 Soyixd-
TOiv). (See Suicer, I., p. 1360.)

If thus the word " theologos " itself admitted of a twofold
meaning, that of " a speaker in the name of God," and that
of "a thinker who in his thinking ascends to God," the
word " theologein " was still more pliable. This also signi-
fied at first to speak in the name of God; for instance, irepl
TovTcov TMV Soj/xdrcov deoXoyel 'Hcraia?, i.e. concerning these
things Isaiah speaks as commanded by God. Secondly, to
explain any point theologically; for instance, Aojov direv Xva
Ti]V reXetav virap^tv croi rov 'Irjcrov deoXoyT^aj), i.e. he names
Christ the Logos, in order to explain the absolute relation
of Jesus to the very essence of God, — a use of this word
which already with Justin Martyr obtained more general
currency to indicate an investigation which was instituted
with a certain dignity/ of form. Thus, for instance, in his
Dial. c. Tr. (ed. von Otto, Jens, 1876, I. 400 B), "Do
you inquire in the spirit of theological discussion why
one ' a ' was added to the name of Abraham, and ask with
an air of importance why one ' r ' was added to the name
of Sarah ? " (Ata rt ixkv ev d\<^a irpdiTcp TrpoaeTeOt] rco 'A^paafi
omfxari., deoXojel'i, Kal Sta rl ev pco rep ^dppa<i oPO/xaTi^ ofxoico'i
KOfjLTToXoyei'i^ ; where from the coupling of KOfx-iroXoyelv and
OeoXoyecv it clearly appears, that in both cases a dignity, a
gravity, and a rhetoric are implied, which did not corre-
spond to the unimportance of the question. But besides

Chai-. I] § 56. THE NAME 233

these two meanings, which ran parallel with these of "theo-
logos," the great Fathers of the Christological conflict also
used, in the footsteps of Justin, the word " theologein " in
the sense of proclaiming one to be God, of announcing one as
God. Justin Martyr wrote in his Dial. c. Tryph. (ed. von
Otto, Jente, 1876, I., p. 104 C), with the Messianic prophecy
in Psalm xlv. 6 sq. in mind, " If, therefore, you say that
the Holy Spirit calls any other God (deoXo'^elv) and Lord
(KvpLoXoyelv^ except the Father of all the Universe and
his Christ," — which manner of speech, both by the sense
and by the addition of KvpioXo'yelv, leaves no doubt but
that OeoXoyeiv is taken in the sense of calling one God.
Thus also we read in Athanasius (Tom. I., p. 1030) : 'Ev
airaa-iv oh Bo^d^erat 6 Trarrjp OeoXoyovfjbevo';, iv avrol'i So^cO^erai
Kol 6 vi6<i fcal TO TTvev/jia to dyiov, i.e. " In all points in which
the Father is glorified b}^ being spoken of as God, the same
also takes place Avitli the Son and with the Holy Ghost."
For the sake of still greater clearness, the word Oeov is even
added, deoXoyelv Tiva 6e6v^ as for instance, in Philostorgius,
Hist. Eecl. XIV., p. 103, to ^i/3\lov OeoXoyel Oeov top . . .
8r)/xiovpyov diravToav., i.e. This book, the Gospel of John, calls
the author of all things God. Thus also Csesarius, Quest.
22, p. 44, says of the Christ, "also Avhen he is incarnate,
nevertheless virb tcov 7rpocf)'i]TO)u OeoXoyetTai, i.e. is he called
God by the prophets ; the Latin praedicare Beum."' And
finally there was developed from this the more general sig-
nificance of deifying something or making it to he God. For
instance, ov irdvTa kutu (f>v(nv yiveTai, iva firj OeoXo^rjOri rj
(f)vcn<; (Chrysostom, V., p. 891), i.e. "It is by Divine appoint-
ment that all things do not happen in accordance with nature,
lest nature be taken for God."

In this way only can we understand the history of the
word "theology" in Patristic literature. If a theologian
is one who speaks in the name of God, and theologein
the act itself of speaking in the name of God, then we
understand how "Theology" could mean the Old and the Netu
Testament : Tr)? 7raXaia<; 0€oXo<yta<i Kal Trj<; V6a<; deoXoyia'i tj-jv
^vficjicovLuv 6p(ov, Oavi.Lda€Tai Trjv dXrjdeiap, i.e. "Seeing the

234 § 56. THE NAME [Div. Ill

harmony of the Old and New Testament, one marvels at the
truth" (Theodor. Therap. See Suicer, I., p. 1359). For
the word of God comes to us in these two Testaments. If
in the second place the word theologein means to explain
a point so fully as to trace it back to God, then it is clear
how " Theology " could mean • reduction to the mystery
of the essence of God. Thus says Theodoret (^Qucest. in
Crenes. I., p. 3), tl SrJTrore /J-rj TrporeVa^j^e tt)? rcov oXcov Srj-
/xiovpyLa<; deoXoyiav ; i.e. " Why did not Moses preface the
creation-narrative with an introduction on the mystery of
the essence of God ? " If, in the third place, " theolog-ein "
was used in the sense of "to declare some one God," then
it follows also that " Theology " could signify : the divine
appellation. Thus says Pachymeres in his note on Diony-
sius Areopagita (Suicer, I., p. 300), ra kolvm^ rrj 6eia (pvaei
dpfjLo^ovra ovofiara rjvcofxevrjv eTnypdcjiet, OeoXoyiav, i.e. the
names which in general belong to the divine nature, he
calls theologia unita. And since in the bitter conflict against

Online LibraryAbraham KuyperEncyclopedia of sacred theology : its principles ... → online text (page 22 of 64)