DRIVERS OF THEOLOGIES

Domenic Marbaniang

Systematic theologies usually begin either with

Theology Proper (the Doctrine of God) or Bibliology (the
Doctrine of Revelation). The Classical method (chiefly of
the rationalists) was to begin with the doctrine of God,
first by establishing the existence of God through some
rational argumentation. On the other hand, the Fideist
method held that theology didnt need to begin with
reason at all; theology began from the Bible, Gods selfrevelation to humanity. So, they usually began with
establishing first the doctrine of divine revelation, i.e.
with Bibliology.
But, the inescapable problem again emerges: to try to
establish the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible
based on its own self-testimony would mean engaging
in the informal question-begging fallacy: I believe that
the Bible is true because it is Gods Word, and what it
says about itself as being Gods Word is true. A
question-begging fallacy doesnt establish anything; it is
like a man who tries to get higher by climbing over his
own parachute. The external-evidence issue seems
crucial at such moments. However, people like Plantinga
have argued that this neednt be the case. Internal
evidences and testimonies equally count as valid,
especially when they qualify as basic beliefs. Blaise
Pascal had gone further to state that rationalism itself
was founded upon a faith on reason; or else, what
credibility does reason possess than itself in order to
avoid the circular argument? Thus, the reductionism of
sources to themselves seems unavoidable.
Thus, the disagreement is more about being rational
than about being dogmatic. In his Escape from Reason,

Schaeffer tried to historically demonstrate that the focus

on the superiority of reason could hijack theology and
cut it off from true faith. The sequential departure of
systematic theologies from Faith in the West, especially
following the Enlightenment was quoted as illustrative
of the lower storey eating up of the upper storey (natural
theology eating up revelatory theology). This progress of
estrangement was arrested by the anti-liberal neoorthodox movement theologically super-headed by
Barth and his group of theologians. The neo-orthodox
theologians tried to snatch away theology from the
hands of the liberals by re-affirming sola fide (faith alone)
over both reason and historical experience.
On the other hand, historical evidentialism was another
frame of reference that challenged both faith and reason
to accommodate to it; thus, we find the emergence of
responses like Bultmanns demythologizationism and
Chalmers gap theory. People like Whitehead attempted
to take the rationalist line and wed reason to history;
others like Pannenberg wove revelation into history. In
recent times, narrative theologians have decided to do
away with the rational dimension of theology altogether;
another example of the rational-empirical conflict. But,
certainly the solution to the conflict doesnt lie in opting
for one over the other. Zenos paradoxes are not solved
by choosing empirical phenomena above rational
analysis , or vice versa.
The nature of a theological enterprise usually
determines the method of doing theology. For instance,
an apologetic kind of theology would seek to construct
theology in a way that Faith is heavily guarded and
defended. However, the irony is that apologetic
theology is not primary theology at all. It comes after
Faith has been meticulously adumbrated by a previous
theological enterprise. Dogmatic theology, on the other

hand, proceeds from sole belief in the Scriptures and

uses the exegetical method, though at times the
pendulum swings to extremities in order to combat the
prevalent concepts of theology that the dogmatist
considers to be false; in this light, we can understand
Calvins opposition of anything that the Catholic can use
to accentuate the primacy of the Pope, including the
doctrine of the continuity of the charismatic gifts (Calvin
said that the healing gift didnt continue; the papacy was
only misleading the masses by claiming that the gift
continued). Utilitarian theologies only try to use
theological categories for the proclamation of
philosophically constructed ideas. Such utilitarian
theologies dont derive theology from the Scriptures but
read the Scriptures in light of secular philosophy (See
Thieselton, Two Horizons). But, real theology is not
eisogetic (reading into the text) but exogetic (reading out
of the text). Systematic theologies have to choose
between epistemic assumptions: whether to begin from
reason, from experience, or from faith. To people like
Aquinas, the rational becomes important and reasoning
is the method; to those like Sadhu Sundar Singh, the
empirical is prior and narrative is the method; to those
like Calvin, faith is prior and exegesis is the method.
Yet, one cannot even regard the dogmatic to be
foolproof. The dogmatist vision is also colored by certain
prejudices that s/he uses to resolve conflict of
statements in the Bible. For instance, in the Calvinist
doctrine, the foundation is the doctrine of Sovereignty of
God and of His grace. Thus, wherever scriptural
statements are in conflict, the arbitrator is the dogmatic
basic; but, where the conflict is with science, reason, or
history, the dogmatist chooses dogma over science. But,
what is the basis of this dogma? It is not always right to
also go by the popularity appeal (for instance, that if
there are more texts to support a particular doctrine,

then the conflict of passages is resolved by majority

consensusthis is fallacious, seeing that one evidence is
enough to falsify a theory). Also, dogmatism might
become the rationale for blind faithpeople of
conflicting faiths may have no common platform to
discuss their claims. However, the neo-orthodox
theologians have argued that dogmatism is not blind
when it comes to the Scriptures, because Scriptures are
self-authenticating to the one who encounters God in the
Word. But, again, that only allows full room for other
conflicting claims to assert themselves as subjectively
self-authenticating. The empiricists, however, anticipate
conflicts, not just among faiths but also in Scripture; to
them the idea of uniformity of revelation is not
axiomatic; thus, theological conflict and dialecticism is
anticipatedabsolute dogma is impossible. But, if
absolute truth doesnt exist with regard to doctrine, then
pluralism will become inevitable, in face of which
theology becomes non-sensical; therefore, the modern
quest for the narrative.
Obviously, attempting to emphasize any one of the three
sources of knowledge (reason, experience, or revelation)
over the others makes theological construction offbalanced. Divine revelation comes in empirical language
and submits to the laws of reason. A verbal testimony
that doesnt submit to the rules of logic becomes
linguistically meaningless and, as such will not qualify
as revelation at all. Therefore, our construction of
theology must carefully use both the eyes of reason and
experience in order to see the revelation of God.