History of Theology.

 As that which is said about God, theology is given by God himself through Scripture. But this primary, authoritative theology evinces a human response in the form of theological study and formulation, i.e. the exposition of the primary theology, reflection upon it, and its presentation and application. Hence theological thought and practice arise which call for constant review, evaluation and correction in the light of the biblical norm. In this process four historical groupings may be discerned: the patristic, medieval, Reformed, and modern.

Patristic
    The reference here is to the period of theological study which began with the apostolic fathers, reached a climax with the great age of Trinitarian and Christological formulation, and ended with the decline of Rome.
    After fragmentary efforts, converted philosophers took the first considered theological steps as in the form of apologies (cf. Justin) they tried to present the gospel to rulers and the educated classes. Contacts with pagan thought carried the dangers of Gnosticism and speculation which even Clement and Origen in Alexandria did not wholly avoid as they pursued similar goals in a catechetical setting. The teaching office exercised by Irenaeus, Tertullian and Hippolytus proved to be a more stabilizing if no less formative influence. Supported by the formulation of the canon and the appeal to the historical ministry and tradition, their work gave early shape to the church’s thinking in Christology and soteriology.
    Preoccupation followed with the problems posed by the basic confession of Jesus as Lord. Every conceivable deviation and overemphasis emerged during the long debate, as theologians adjusted their inherited metaphysical vocabulary (e.g. such terms as nature, person and substance) to the biblical data. Out of the strife and confusion the church eventually forged the Nicene and Chalcedonian statements in a process in which conciliar discussion played a vital theological part. To the related debates we owe some of the best of patristic theology contributed by such bishop- or presbyter-theologians as Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Cyril of Alexandra and Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 315–86), and Jerome, whether in a pastoral, polemical, confessional or catechetical context.
    At the same time the Pelagian and Donatist controversies testify to the anthropological and ecclesiological concerns of the church even in the thick of Christological debate. These issues enabled Augustine in particular to develop both a strong doctrine of original sin and electing grace on the one side and a more rigid doctrine of the church and sacraments on the other. The Pelagian episode also heralded the emergence of monasticism as a context of theological [310] reflection; this was an important development in view of the later role of the monasteries in preserving Scripture and caring for theological education. Behind other issues lay always the central question of the atonement, which might be presented in different forms, especially that of a ransom, but which gave urgency to what might otherwise seem to be abstruse debates. After all, it was because of his mediating work that Christ’s deity needed to be asserted against the Arians, his unity against the Nestorians, and his humanity against the Apollinarians and Eutychians (see Monophysitism). The Bible, which supplied the primary data, formed a permanent centre of interest in the various forms of textual study, translation, exposition and catechetical and homiletical application. Of particular significance was the distinction between the allegorical exposition of Alexandria (cf. Origen) and the more natural exegesis of Antioch (see Hermeneutics).
    In view of its range and variety, the patristic age resists facile generalization. It produced outstanding figures who used the tools available to do theology of lasting worth. In general it remained faithful to Scripture, which it prized highly and studied with great assiduity. It established for all succeeding generations essential biblical doctrines even if it couched them in what is often an alien vocabulary. Yet philosophical and ascetic influences militated against the more authentic biblical understanding which in the main was best preserved in pastoral, confessional and catechetical circles. In particular much of patristic theology lay exposed to the dangers of rationalistic and dualistic intrusion. Even pastoral and catechetical theology, while better preserving the basic Christian deposit, opened the door to subversion in the forms of a new legalism and ecclesiasticism. In such ways the patristic age prepared the ground for the growth of many evils in later thought and practice.

Medieval
    The patristic era ended with Gregory the Great in the West and John of Damascus in the East. A comparatively less influential period followed in which orthodoxy hardened in the East, the barbarians created a need for new beginnings in the West, and schism separated the two, the Filioque forming a narrow point of doctrinal division. During the confused age of readjustment in the West the monasteries and cathedral schools played a vital part by copying manuscripts, training the clergy and producing fine scholars like Bede (c. 673–735) and Alcuin (c. 735–804). The predestinarian debate flared up briefly with Gottschalk, and Radbertus and Ratramnus at Corbie engaged in a discussion of the eucharistic presence which would be renewed more fiercely between Berengar and Lanfranc (c. 1005–89) in the 11th century and re-emerge in the Reformation period (e.g. in Edwardian and Marian England).
    The more developed medieval period saw the initiative pass from the monastic and cathedral schools to the newly forming universities with teaching faculties devoted specifically to theological study and courses leading to recognized qualifications in divinity. Anselm, it is true, came from a monastic setting at Bec with bis fresh attempt at faith seeking understanding in such matters as the existence of God and the rationale of the incarnation and atonement. But Abelard with his questing rationalism belonged to the heady formative period of the new learning of the schools. The rediscovery of Greek philosophy gave urgency at this time to the whole question of faith and reason. Later nominalists like William of Ockham tended to magnify the role of faith in submission to the divine sovereignty. Thomas Aquinas, however, took the middle ground which would finally have so potent an influence. He admitted that philosophy can give some knowledge of God, and made liberal use of its resources. Yet he still attributed the true content of Christian knowledge to revelation apprehended in faith.
    Scholasticism absorbed rather than crushed the older forms of theological study, drawing much of its strength from the monastic orders, the newly founded Dominicans and Franciscans, and the support of the hierarchy as well as the secular authorities. Its superiority of method and organization ensured its success both practically and in its application to the whole range of theological problems. Its contribution was not wholly beneficial, for, in concert with official promulgations such as those of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215, it helped to establish various perverted ideas, e.g. purgatory, penance, infused grace, implicit faith, transubstantiation, and the eucbaristic sacrifice. Nevertheless [311] its valuable aspects include the transmission of historic doctrines and seminal thinking on the atonement, whether in the form of Anselm’s satisfaction theory, Abelard’s subjective approach, the Christological orientation of Bernard of Clairvaux, or the balanced presentation of Thomas Aquinas. It sensed the need for a biblical commitment, as may be seen in the extensive commentaries, the use of proof texts, and the more direct appeal of Wyclif and Hus. Allegorical exegesis plagued much of the biblical work, but natural exegesis had its champions, and Aquinas drew careful limits for the allegorical method. Scholasticism also preserved the doctrines of grace, even if at times in a more rationalistic, semi-Pelagian, or exaggeratedly sacramentalistic form. It maintained a good spirit of enquiry which only in the later stages could degenerate into tediously formal quibbling. These virtues do much to offset the problems which ultimately jeopardized the scholastic enterprise, and which included, at the practical level, the enhancement of theological education for the few at the expense of the many, and the resultant decline in theological knowledge at the common level of priest and people.

Reformed
    By the 15th century scholasticism, although retaining its subtlety, had lost constructive force. But new influences were either infiltrating older universities (e.g. Cambridge) or inspiring the founding of new ones (e.g. Wittenberg). Recovery of the biblical languages, more direct exegesis, publishing of the fathers and the development of printing combined to produce a shift in theological curriculum and a reorientation to the simplified piety of Erasmus or the deeper biblical theology of Luther. For all the differences between the Lutherans, the Reformed, and even the Radicals on the fringe, their biblically centred theology has enough homogeneity to justify the title of ‘Reformed’.
    Primarily it was a biblical theology in the direct sense. Philosophy might hover in the background but did not form the basis or framework. The exposition of the original Scriptures as the supreme rule of faith came first on the agenda. To think or talk about God one must be taught by God. Study of the text, sustained by prayer and illumined by the Spirit, must inform and correct all reflection. Reason had a role only as orientated to the Bible and put to biblical use. Commentaries based on the natural sense served as the basis rather than the crown of theological study in the work of Luther, Calvin and Bullinger. The biblical focus of Reformed theology quickly enabled it to expose false methodology, to dethrone competing authority, and to correct doctrinal and practical aberration.
    Being biblical, Reformed theology recaptured essential evangelical verities. It was Christological, not just in the sense of retaining established dogmas, but in that of finding in Christ alone the ground of acceptance. Luther, Zwingli, Calvin and the Radicals shared the perception of Christ himself as the basis, centre and theme of the message. It was a theology of faith in Christ as our only wisdom and righteousness. Going to Christ in faith, it became a theology of gospel, if not without some dialectic of law (see Law and Gospel). Luther recovered an understanding of justification, Calvin finely related it to sanctification, and all Reformers stressed the impotence of sinners and God’s omnipotence in electing grace and reconciliation. If the ministry and sacraments also received due weight as the means of grace, they did so only in the context of the supreme ministry of the Spirit. Yet they did so also in practical application. Here was theology that reformed the schools but did not remain in them. It flowed over into the pulpit and from the pulpit to Christian life, transforming piety by the elimination of masses, pilgrimages, relics and the like, and fashioning conduct appropriate to the freedom and power of the gospel as these were now opened up by the translation and exposition of Scripture.
    The Reformers did not enjoy the infallibility they denied to others. They came under contemporary influences, made mistakes, squabbled over important and less important matters, missed essential truths and overemphasized others. Yet they revitalized theological study by doing theology’s proper work, giving it a true basis, achieving a happy blend of academic, spiritual and practical power, promoting the normativity of Scripture, and accepting the need to submit all faith and practice to its scrutiny.

Modern
    Unfortunately much of the West, as well as the East, resisted the Reformed correction, [312] although not without initiating some significant reforms. The modern period has consequently seen two separate if interacting forces, each with its own tensions, and each coming into increasing contact with the East.
    As regards Roman Catholicism, theology continued in the schools, within the orders, and in the new seminaries. Much of it took a polemical turn (cf. Bellarmine). The renewed Augustinianism of Jansenism brought an abortive attempt at reconstruction in the 17th century, and missionary enterprise opened up debate about the relationship between Christianity and culture. Liberalism encountered stern resistance in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Ultramontanism (see Papacy), with a stress on the church and its teaching office, resulted in the infallibility decree of 1870, and resurgent Mariology brought the decrees of Mary’s immaculate conception (1854) and bodily assumption (1950). Rejuvenated biblical study culminated in Vatican II (1962–65) with its practical reforms, redefinitions, and relativizing of traditional formulations. The drawing of Roman Catholics into ecumenical discussion formed part of this more hopeful trend.
    In the non-Roman sphere, the university theologians of the 17th century fashioned Reformed and Lutheran orthodoxies in mutual debate and in response to Roman Catholics, Radicals and Arminians. The Carolines in England developed their own via media, while the Puritans added a practical concern, combined with the Scots to bring confessional theology to a climax at the Westminster Assembly, and made perhaps the most significant contribution to American theology in Jonathan Edwards. With the 18th century, which brought further university expansion, stress on biblical study took a more rationalistic and empiricist turn. This provoked questioning of Scripture but brought immense gains in knowledge of its human context. The various movements of liberal Protestantism tried to fill the resultant gap with natural religion (the deists), subjective experientialism (Schleiermacher), moralism (Ritschl), and the social gospel (Walter Rauschenbusch, 1861–1918). Yet countermovements also developed in the concern for holiness, the Princetonian stress on biblical inerrancy (Hodge and Warfield), the attempted integration of liberal Catholicism (Gore), and the new biblical and Christological concentration of Barth.
    The 20th century has had both a negative and a positive side. Liberalism, dominant in older schools, has dissolved in successive movements, e.g. Bultmann’s demythologizing, death-of-God theology, liberation teaching, and the attenuated Roman Catholicism of Küng. Yet biblical, historical and hermeneutical theology has enjoyed healthy growth, Barth’s work has revived dogmatic interest, ecumenical dialogue has been a fruitful mode of theological study, and through seminaries, publications, and individual scholars Evangelicalism has begun to make a significant contribution to theological teaching, literature, thought and dissemination.
    Throughout the modern period theology has suffered either from over-rigid formulation or from the intrusion of alien forces. Nevertheless it has experienced unparalleled expansion of biblical knowledge, continuing witness to the biblical norm and reconstructions comparable to those of any age for force and grandeur. If the situation is ambivalent, theological study, vigorously pursued in many forms, holds the promise of results genuinely informed by Scripture and faithful, under the Spirit, to God’s revelation of himself and his reconciling work in Christ.