Theology is wisdom above all, not mere knowledge

[DialecticSkeptic]

Is theology entitled to be referred to as a science? If so, with what does this science concern itself? Another way of putting this question is to ask whether theology deals with knowledge and, if so, in what sense? Until the 13th century, the term science was not applied to theology. Augustine preferred the term supientia (wisdom) to scientia (knowledge). Sciences dealt with temporal things, wisdom related to the eternal matters, specifically to God as the highest good.

Science and knowledge could lead to wisdom. For this to happen, however, the truths acquired by the specific sciences would have to be ordered in relation to the highest good. Thus wisdom, including philosophy and theology, can serve as an organizing principle for knowledge.
​

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd edition (Baker Book House, 1998), pp. 33-34.

 

[makesends]

​

Is theology entitled to be referred to as a science? If so, with what does this science concern itself? Another way of putting this question is to ask whether theology deals with knowledge and, if so, in what sense? Until the 13th century, the term science was not applied to theology. Augustine preferred the term supientia (wisdom) to scientia (knowledge). Sciences dealt with temporal things, wisdom related to the eternal matters, specifically to God as the highest good.​

​

Science and knowledge could lead to wisdom. For this to happen, however, the truths acquired by the specific sciences would have to be ordered in relation to the highest good. Thus wisdom, including philosophy and theology, can serve as an organizing principle for knowledge.​

​

Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd edition (Baker Book House, 1998), pp. 33-34.

Bolded in your quote above, Highest good according to man? Social good? I'm not sure what that paragraph is saying.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Bolded in your quote above, Highest good according to man? Social good? I'm not sure what that paragraph is saying.

It was defined in the preceding paragraph of the quoted material:

Sciences dealt with temporal things, wisdom related to the eternal matters, specifically to God as the highest good.
​

"Man is not the highest good in the universe, or the highest measure of truth and value," Erickson said elsewhere. "Good, truth, and value are not determined by the shifting flux of this world and human opinion" (p. 317).

 

[makesends]

It was defined in the preceding paragraph of the quoted material:

​

Sciences dealt with temporal things, wisdom related to the eternal matters, specifically to God as the highest good.​

​

"Man is not the highest good in the universe, or the highest measure of truth and value," Erickson said elsewhere. "Good, truth, and value are not determined by the shifting flux of this world and human opinion" (p. 317).

My bad. I took you to be referring to modern day science, which rejects consideration of God pretty much 'universally' (haha, see what I did there?) --thus, 'highest good' no longer referring to God.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

My bad.

No worries.

I took you to be referring to modern-day science, which rejects consideration of God pretty much universally—Haha! See what I did there?—with "highest good" thus no longer referring to God.

Well, the referring was done by Millard Erickson, not me.

And he very well could be referring to modern-day science. Allow me to use physics to illustrate my point. Erickson said that, in order for knowledge (scientia) to lead to wisdom (supientia), "the truths acquired by the specific sciences"—in this case, physics—"would have to be ordered in relation to the highest good," which is God himself. Apart from that organizing principle, knowledge never leads to wisdom.

That is true whether we are talking about 13th century science or 21st century science.