Autor: Lonergan, Bernard J.F.

Buch: The Trinune God: Systematics

Titel: The Triune God: Systematics

Stichwort: Glaube - Vernunft; Schlussfolgerungen aus Glaubensgeheimnissen vs. Verstehen derselben;
"Schlusstheologie" (conclusions theology)

Kurzinhalt: What happens when deductions are made from revealed mysteries is that the problems clearly and distinctly emerge. The more numerous and the more exact the deductions ...

Textausschnitt: 55d Again, the way in which this understanding of mysteries is compared to conclusions, whether pure or mixed, is also not in the least obscure. What happens when deductions are made from revealed mysteries is that the problems clearly and distinctly emerge. The more numerous and the more exact the deductions, the more numerous and the more difficult are the problems that emerge; and since the problems stand forth the way they do because the premises of the deductions tell of divine mysteries, the problems can never be solved unless some understanding of the mysteries is attained.1 (Fs) (notabene)

55e Again, when this understanding is attained 'from the analogy of what the mind knows naturally,' a certain hypothetical element is introduced. Materially speaking, it is possible that the same analogy is hinted at, insinuated, or suggested in the sources of revelation; it may even be clearly indicated. But one can never prove that the formally identical analogy along with all its systematic implications is present in the sources. (Fs)

55f It follows that the idea that theology deals only with pure and mixed conclusions is simply mistaken. Logic applied to revealed mysteries leads to problems, the solutions of which can come only through some understanding of the mysteries. When these solutions introduce a hypothetical element (and at least the system virtually contained in a fruitful understanding is hypothetical), then there is posited a specifically theological principle that comes neither from faith alone nor from reason alone, but from reason enlightened by faith and inquiring diligently, reverently, and judiciously. (Fs)

57a We need, then, to indicate the extent to which 'conclusions theology' does harm to theology as a science. (Fs)
57b First, it fosters a tendency to impose on earlier authors the systematic discoveries of a later time. Those who love system and know no other method of verification but deduction from the sources generally find their system in the scriptural, patristic, or medieval sources. (Fs)

Second, since not all systematic theologians are of one mind and heart, in the end not one but many different systems will be read into the sources. (Fs)

Third, since the real criterion of the validity of a system is not deduction from the sources, then if 'conclusions theology' prevails, it will hardly be possible to refute inept systems and seriously argue the case for more adequate ones. (Fs)

Fourth, now that scriptural exegesis, patristics, and medieval historical studies abound, theologians who deduce systems generally earn criticism for their ignorance of the scriptures, the Fathers, and medieval history. (Fs)

Fifth, as long as scripture scholars, patristic scholars, and medievalists are aware of no kind of systematic verification other than deduction from the sources, they will regard every system as so much empty speculation. (Fs)

57c On the other hand, if we abandon the idea that theology is about pure or mixed conclusions, not only will there be no real conflict between positive theologians and systematic theologians, but they will actually be of enormous assistance to one another. Understanding a doctrine is really not that far removed from understanding the history of the doctrine. If the doctrine is always the same, that is, the same dogma, the same meaning, the same view, and if moreover understanding, knowledge, and wisdom about the same doctrine grow and progress from age to age, then no valid reason remains why positive and systematic theologians should oppose one another. What is now understood by systematic theologians has been a long time in preparation, and so by understanding the history, systematic theologians will come to understand their task fully and exactly, just as by understanding later solutions positive theologians will be able to grasp more clearly and judge more accurately what really were the earlier states of affairs and in what direction they tended. (Fs)