Notes on Systematic Theology: Definition, Object, and Theological Knowledge
Overview: subdisciplines and the fourfold division
Christian theology is often taught as four historical subdisciplines within the broader field of Christian theology:
Biblical studies
Historical theology
Practical theology (pastoral theology)
Systematic theology
The fourfold division originated in the University of Berlin in the early nineteenth century and reflects a historical development in how universities organized religious studies.
Why this division matters: it has shaped how people view the discipline, but it can be problematic because it risks isolating conversations that ought to be interconnected (e.g., how the doctrine of the Trinity should be joined with how biblical scholars read the Bible and how practical theology applies doctrine to life and ministry).
The basic question to resolve: what is the distinction between systematic theology and the other subdisciplines?
Systematic theology is marked by a) attention to the whole theological domain with reference to God, b) attention to the relationships and proportions among doctrines, and c) attention to definitions and distinctions.
A practical illustration used in class: the three basic acts of God, which help show how doctrine is organized and how neglecting one area can distort others.
The three basic acts of God (theological triad)
The three most general acts of God in the world, often used to structure doctrinal discussion:
Creation (God’s act of creating)
Redemption (God’s act of redeeming fallen humanity)
Consummation/Glorification/Perfection (God’s ultimate end and completion of all things; sometimes discussed together with destruction or punishment in certain contexts)
Some theologies emphasize two of these three; dropping one can distort other doctrines:
Dropping creation can obscure the reality of human life as God’s creature in ordinary life.
Dropping redemption can lead to redemption language swelling to cover areas better understood under creation or glorification.
The point about proportion and connection: how we balance these three acts affects the shape of theology and its pastoral relevance.
Two main tasks for the morning
Task 1: Define Christian theology.
Task 2: Explain what makes knowledge theological rather than merely philosophical, historical, or sociological.
How do we define Christian theology? (Section 2 on the handout)
Why define theology? Because 1) it clarifies what students are actually doing, and 2) definitions have been contested across different traditions and periods.
Historical contrast: Schleiermacher’s definition of theology
Schleiermacher is often called the father of modern liberalism.
He defined theology as primarily an extension of theological anthropology: the core data are the feeling of dependence on God, the sense that there is an ultimate reference point, a higher reality, and that feeling guides theological thinking.
He described dogmatic theology as the science that systematizes the doctrine prevalent in a Christian church at a given time.
Critique of Schleiermacher’s definition (as presented in the lecture):
It is highly historical/temporal and shifts with each age; theology seems to change from one era to the next (e.g., today’s theology may differ from tomorrow’s).
It is contingent upon the church rather than grounded in God; there is no explicit reference to divine agency or transcendent reality in a universal sense.
It risks implying that theology doesn’t necessarily refer to God as an actual object of knowledge beyond human feelings or church tradition.
Contrast: John Webster’s definition of Christian theology
Webster defines Christian theology as a work of regenerate intelligence awakened and illuminated by divine instruction to consider a twofold object:
First object: God himself in the unsurpassed perfection of his inner being and in his outer operations (Father, Son, and Spirit; inner life and outer works).
Second object: All other things relative to God (the things that exist relative to him).
Key features to note in Webster’s definition:
The object is God; theology has a unified, God-centered subject matter.
God is considered in his inner being (nature, attributes) and in his outer operations (creative, redemptive, providential activities; church life, etc.).
“All other things relative to God” means theology can discuss any aspect of reality, but always in relation to God as origin/end; it does not treat those realities as autonomous peers to theology.
Theology’s object is twofold: God in himself and his works; and all things relative to God.
The human factor in theology is a regenerate intelligence: understanding that has been redeemed by God; theology is thus prayerful, dependent on divine guidance, and grounded in revelation.
Key questions raised by Webster’s definition (as discussed by students):
Why does the definition start with God doing something (divine agency) rather than merely describing human feelings or church practice?
How does the distinction between God in himself and God’s outer operations work in practice?
What does “all other things relative to God” entail for disciplines outside theology (e.g., biology, sociology, political theory)?
What does “regenerate intelligence” imply for methodology (prayerfulness, dependence on revelation, humility)?
The single-object claim in theology (as contrasted with Schleiermacher):
Theology has a single primary object: God.
Schleiermacher’s approach centers on human feelings about God, which is a different and more anthropocentric starting point than Webster’s God-centered object.
The object of study determines the field’s methods and aims.
The general methodological takeaway:
Theology can speak about everything by relating it to God’s origin and end, but it does not claim to provide the same kind of knowledge as the natural or social sciences for those things.
Theology of environment, politics, or culture is still theology when it asks how those realities relate to God, but it remains distinct from secular disciplines (not a blanket claim to explain everything as such).
The insistence that theology is not about everything in itself but about everything relative to God helps maintain theological integrity while allowing fruitful dialogue with other disciplines.
The object and aim of theology: implications for practice
The object-focused approach implies a primary goal: knowledge of God. God should be the summit and the ultimate reference point for all theological work.
Practical implication: never displace God as the end or telos of theology or Christian life; ministry, ethics, and pastoral practice must be ordered to knowing God, not treated as mere means to a separate end.
The twofold object also implies that theology can discuss any part of reality (environment, politics, etc.) but always in relation to God; this does not reduce other disciplines to theology, but positions them within a theological frame of reference.
The discussion emphasizes the importance of revelation: theology does not simply arise from human reason or feeling; it relies on what God has disclosed to humanity and requires the regenerate intellect to understand and interpret that disclosure.
Archetypal vs. ectypal knowledge (brief note): theology will engage with archetypal knowledge (divine, perfect form) and ectypal knowledge (how finite creatures know and express what God has disclosed); theological knowledge is shaped by revelation and falls within a distinctive epistemic order.
What makes knowledge theological? (Summary of the contrast with non-theological fields)
If you study how stars move and die, you would call that astronomy, not theology.
If you study the natural order reflecting God’s origin and end, you approach it theologically, because you frame it in relationship to God.
The same underlying phenomena (e.g., health outcomes, religious vs. nonreligious communities) can be studied by other disciplines (sociology, medicine, anthropology) or by theology, depending on the question asked:
A non-theological framing might focus on sociological or health consequences without reference to God.
A theological framing would assess how religious belief and sanctification relate to God, even when studying similar populations.
The key methodological distinction: theology is not claiming to know everything about every domain; it claims to know creation in relation to God and to interpret phenomena through revelation and the divine purposes.
Final caveat discussed in class: theology cannot experiment on God or claim universal access to transcendence beyond what God reveals; it is constrained by divine revelation and the limits of human cognitive receptivity.
Epistemic implications: revelation, archetypes, and knowledge claims
Revelation is essential: theological knowledge rests on what God has disclosed and made known through divine instruction to the regenerate intellect.
The critique points to a distinctive epistemology: theology proceeds from God’s self-disclosure rather than from autonomous human speculation about God.
The discussion signals a broader debate about how theological knowledge relates to other forms of knowledge (philosophical, scientific, historical) and how to preserve both theological distinctiveness and productive conversation with other disciplines.
Practical takeaways for study and application
When studying theology, begin with the object: God in himself and in his outer works, and consider how all things relate to God.
Always attend to the threefold mark of systematic theology: the whole domain, the relationships among doctrines, and careful definitions/distinctions.
Be mindful of how your chosen definition of theology shapes your approach to doctrine, church history, and pastoral practice.
Recognize the value and limits of different definitions (Schleiermacher vs. Webster) and the reasons scholars favor a God-centered, revelatory approach.
Remember the didactic goal: cultivate a regenerate intelligence that seeks God’s glory and aims to know God as the summit of all things, rather than using theology merely to justify ministry goals or other pursuits.
Quick reference notes and key phrases
Fourfold division (historical subdisciplines): Biblical studies; Historical theology; Practical theology; Systematic theology.
Systematic theology: focus on the whole domain with reference to God; relationships among doctrines; definitions and distinctions.
Acts of God (threefold): ext{Creation}, ext{Redemption}, ext{Consummation (Glorification)}} (often discussed as ; some writers include as a related emphasis).
Luther quote (illustrative): the doctrine of justification as the doctrine by which the church stands or falls.
Schleiermacher: theology as extension of theological anthropology; dogmatic theology as science of church doctrine at a given time; critique: chronologically contingent and anthropocentric.
John Webster: theology as a work of regenerate intelligence illuminated by divine instruction; twofold object: God in himself (inner being, and outer operations) and all other things relative to God.
Inner vs outer: God in himself (inner life) vs God’s outer operations (creation, providence, redemption, sanctification, church life).
All things relative to God: theology can discuss anything, but it remains distinct from other knowledge disciplines.
Regenerate intelligence: the understanding that has been redeemed by God; theology as a prayerful, divine-revelation-guided activity.
Archetypal vs. ectypal knowledge: theological knowledge grounded in revelation and finite human reception of God’s truth.
Policy implication: Do not displace God as the ultimate goal of theology or life; all pursuits should be ordered to knowing God.
Questions to reflect on (for study group or exam prep)
How does the fourfold division influence the way theologians approach doctrinal issues? What are the potential benefits and drawbacks?
In what ways does Webster’s definition ground theology in divine agency and revelation, and how does that contrast with Schleiermacher’s anthropology-centered view?
Why is the concept of a single object (God) important for systematic theology? How does this affect its method and scope?
How can theology engage with other disciplines without collapsing into them or claiming to explain everything?
What does it mean for knowledge to be regenerate intelligence, and how should this shape religious education and pastoral ministry?
How should theologians handle the relationship between doctrinal articulation (definitions and distinctions) and practical application (life, ministry, ethics)?