Stephen Wolfe posting on X quoting Francis Turretin (whose Dogmatic theology I’ve read),
“Turretin distinguishing theology from the other systems:”
Dr. Stephen Wolfe
“Although [theology] does not prescribe to other systems [e.g., politics and ethics] principles and objects, yet it so far rules over them (because it establishes their limits that they neither dare to hold any object opposed to theology, nor to use their principles against it).”
Francis Turretin
Institutes of Elenctic Theology 1. 6.7
We have to note that Turretin is just in error here. The error is found in the fact that all disciplines have foundational issues they have to deal with. Political Philosophy, ethics, economics, arts, education (Turretin’s “other systems”) each and all have to deal with a-priori issues like teleology, epistemology, ontology, axiology, anthropology etc. All of these foundational issues, as taken up by the various disciplines, are only as good as they are consistent with what Christian theology prescribes to these other various disciplines as answers. Let’s take political philosophy as an example. Political philosophy must have a notion of the common good that it is going to serve. What standard for the “common good” will Political philosophy use for its “common good,” except the standard prescribed to it by what God has revealed in Scripture? Certainly, no one is going to argue that “right reason and natural law,” will prescribe a standard for “the common good” in Political philosophy since Political philosophy does not have it within itself, absent revealed theology, the ability to provide a “common good.” If Political philosophy will not use revealed theology to prescribe to it the common good, then Political philosophy will, by necessity be man-centered to in finding some other prescription for the “common good.” All disciplines that are not theology, need theology to prescribe for it, its “principles and objects.” This is why our fathers referred to theology as “The Queen of the Sciences.”
So, theology, contra Turretin, does indeed prescribe to the other disciplines their principles. It is only in Christian theology as drawn from the Word of God where we can find the answers to the questions that the other disciplines must first answer before they can be about their business. Epistemology, axiology, teleology, ontology, anthropology are all principles that the other disciplines must deal with and they can only arrive at a correct position on these issues by looking to theology. If they are incorrect on these issues then the whole discipline will suck.
Take the University as an example here. The original logic behind the University was the fact that there could be sundry disciplines taught thus providing the diversity with the proviso that there would be a overarching unity to those diverse disciplines as provided by the Queen of the Sciences … theology. Originally, it was Christian theology that was to provide the Uni in University. Christian theology was to be the integration point for all truth, regardless of the various disciplines. In such a way the idea of “The One and the Many” was satisfied. Dr. Wolfe is all about the many, but he lacks an Objective One in order to give a “Uni” to his “Versity.”
However, with the passage of time theology has been cast aside and the concept of University has been cast aside for our modern Multi-versities. There is not Uni that is serving as an integration point to all other disciplines.
Two Kingdom projects, whether of the R2K variety or the W2K (Wolfe 2K) variety reinforces this abandonment of the Uni in University in favor of the Multi-versity. With the 2K’s desire to cordon theologically informed truth from the various disciplines such as politics, economics, history, arts, education, etc. what occurs is some other theology entering a vaccuum in order to be the theology that provides the Uni in the University. Most often this Uni is some form of Humanism. However, given the various competing forms of Humanism, Multi-versity is what results.
2K schools of thought will counter by marching out Natural law so as to be the Uni in the University. However, the problem here is that Natural Law has as many readings as Carter’s has liver pills. There is no stability in appealing to Natural Law as the theological point of integration when Natural Law has proven to be a moving target over the centuries depending upon which non Christian philosophical school is in the ascendency. Now, the response here is something like, “Well, we are talking about ‘Christian Natural Law,’ but that doesn’t solve the equation because the same subjectivity arises. Whose Christian Natural Law? Unless Christian Natural Law is based upon Scripture we arrive at Natural Laws that are completely subjective. If Christian Natural Law is based on Scripture then why do we need Natural Law?
2K thinking guarantees the Multi-Versity phenomenon both in the University and in the broader culture. When 2K resists the fact that theology must be the integration point for all truth 2K guarantees a fractured multi-verse where each man interprets what is right in his own eyes
