Introduction
Having discussed the extension of the term theology, we will not turn back to the comprehension of the term by giving a causal definition, stating its object (or the matter with which the discipline deals with), and giving its genus. Classical authors typically gave definition through the four causes: material, formal, efficient, and final. By this type of definition, the concept is more perfectly defined and better understood. To truly know and grasp a thing at hand, one must know each of the causes that make the thing what it actually is. Furthermore, giving the object of a discipline relegates the study to a specific purpose and subject matter. Finally, the genus of theology addresses the intellectual habit of which theology principally relates to. Each area will use heavily scholastic language that is sometime hard to get through. I will try to explain them to the best of my abilities; however, I know I will do so insufficiently. Through discussion of these three areas, we will fully comprehend the term theology, and therefore know the subject which we wish to expound.
The Causes of Theology
Firstly, a definition and division is necessary for the four causes. The causes are divided into intrinsic and extrinsic with the material and formal being of the former and the efficient and final being of the latter. By intrinsic we mean that which is within the object itself and by extrinsic we mean that which is outside the object. For example, water being made of hydrogen and oxygen is an intrinsic cause while water being used for drinking is an extrinsic cause. The material cause is here defined as the cause out of which a thing is made and which exists in it, e.g. a table is made out of wood. Secondly, the formal cause is defined as an intrinsic principle by which a thing is determined to a certain mode of being and is constituted in its species. It is intrinsic and therefore distinguished from efficient and final cause. By determining the mode of being and the specific kind of thing the object is, we call it a specifying cause and therefore differs from the material cause which does not specify. Thus, the formal cause actuates the matter which is the potency which receives the act. For example, wood by itself has the potency to be a table; however, it not yet actually a table. Wood only becomes a table (constituted in its species) when it receives an act (the formal cause). Both the material (potentiality) and formal (actuality) causes constitute what a specific thing is. Aside from the intrinsic causes, the efficient cause is defined as the first positive extrinsic principle of motion. By the term first it is distinguished from final. Also, positive distinguishes it from privation and extrinsic from intrinsic. Here, motion means any union of potency and act. Thus, the efficient cause of the table is the agent using a tool (which would be the instrumental cause) to form wood into a table (the matter unites to the form by means of the efficient cause). Lastly, the final cause is the purpose for which a thing tends toward and terminates in. So, in the example of the table, the final cause is that it holds up food to eat.
Having defined each cause, we will now apply it to the term theology which is more abstract than the example of a table but will work the same way. The material cause of theology is divine matters, or rather God and all things in relation to him. It principally treats of God, and so the study of God specifically is designated theology proper. All things in relation to him are his works which can be divided into ad intra (decrees) and ad extra (creation and providence). Secondly, the formal cause of theology is divine truth. It is revealed theology insofar as it conforms to its exemplar, namely archetypal theology. Thirdly, the efficient cause considered in se is God, the one who reveals himself. The efficient cause of theology considered in the subject (the acquisition of theology) is God and meditating upon the divine Word. The instrumental cause is the Word of God considered in itself or as revealed through the inspired human authors. Lastly, the final cause of theology is either primary or secondary. The primary end of theology is God’s glory and the secondary end is the salvation of man and the good of the elect. Having a causal definition of theology now allows us to better comprehend the subject.
The Object of Theology
To better determine a given discipline, three objects of a specific subject can be discussed: the material object, the formal object quod, and the formal object quo. The material object is that with which the science is concerned with. The formal object quod is what is attained by the science while the formal object quo is the means of such attainment. Thus, the material object is God and all things in relation to him. Secondly, the formal object quod is God and all things under the aspect of Deity. That is, God and creatures are considered as the subject insofar as they are divine or related to the divine as an end. So, although God and creatures are different objects, theology remains as a unified science under the one formal object-the aspect of Deity. The formal object quo, i.e. the specific lens under which the discipline is viewed, is God and all things in relation to him as revealed in supernatural revelation. Think of the phrase “as revealed in supernatural revelation” as a formality which determines something into its kind/species. It determines and specifies. Therefore, all of which we will treat is either deity or related to deity as an end which is attained under the light of supernatural revelation.
The Genus of Theology
Next, we must determine the intellectual habit which theology resides in. There are five intellectual habits as Aristotle explains: intelligentia (intuition), scientia (science), sapientia (wisdom), ars (art), and prudentia (prudence). These five intellectual habits denote five different genera of knowing an object. Intuition is the habit of knowing self-evident principles without demonstration (common sense). Science is certain knowledge drawn forth from self-evident principles in conclusions. Wisdom is the knowledge of both principles and conclusions and also considered the knowledge of ultimate causes. Prudence is the knowledge of how one should practically act in contingent circumstances. Art is the knowledge of rules that bring about an effect or an exterior matter. Here, we will opt for a mixed genus of scientia and sapientia. Theology is scientia not in the strict sense, but as a subalternate science which Thomas Aquinas notes. Since theology does not operate off self-evident principles it cannot strictly be considered a science. However, it does rest on higher principles, namely archetypal theology and in that sense theology can be considered a subalternate science. Furthermore, the assent of divine faith has certitude and therefore fits with the definition of scientia. We also denote it as sapientia to better indicate theology as knowledge of the highest things, both principles and conclusions. Therefore, there is not huge disagreement between those that want scientia instead of sapientia (or vice versa) to be the genus of theology. It is further supported by Scripture using the terms knowledge and wisdom to denote the intellectual habit of theology (see Isa. 53:11; Jer. 3:15; Jn. 17:3; 2 Cor. 8:7; 1 Cor. 1:21). However, others, even within the Reformed tradition, have opted with the genus of art or prudence. We object to using these genera here because it overly subjectivizes the study of theology, making theology about our own actions rather than about knowing who God is. Taking the genus as science and wisdom moves the viewpoint to God rather than reducing it to our actions which the genera of art and prudence seem to do. It is further asked where theology is a theoretical or practical science. A theoretical science has for its end the knowledge of truth while a practical science has for its end some action. Some have taken theology to be purely theoretical or purely practical while others have taken that it is mixed. The latter position expresses the discipline better. Firstly, theology is theoretical since it concerns itself with the knowledge of who God is for the sake of knowing who God is. However, this doctrine of God is always in accordance with right action (1 Tim. 3:4), therefore making the discipline partly practical. Furthermore, a true knowledge of God always entices one to worship him more. Yet again though, the primary focus of theology is upon God and creatures in relation to him, not about the way humans act which ethics concerns itself with. Therefore, I think it right that theology is mainly theoretical. The reason for this is the same as my reasons for not giving theology the genus of art or prudence. Namely, if theology is mainly a practical science, then it turns the focus upon creaturely action rather than principally being about who God is.
Conclusion
Through a causal definition, and discussion of the object and genus of the science, we now have a more fully comprehension of the discipline. It treats of God and creatures (material cause/object) under the aspect of deity (formal object quod) insofar as it conforms to the divine intellect (formal cause) under the light of supernatural revelation (formal object quo) in order to glorify God and bring forth good for mankind (final cause) all of which is given by God through his Son and by the Spirit (efficient cause) inspiring human authors to right down the Word of God (instrumental cause). It is a science and wisdom since it is certain knowledge of the highest things resting on higher principles (archetypal theology). Moreover, it is partly theoretical and partly practical for it concerns itself with the knowledge of God for the sake of knowing God but also entices us to live out a life in conformity to the moral law. Next, we will discuss the use of philosophy and reason in theology and its relation to other sciences through discussion of mixed syllogisms, necessary consequences, and the queen of the sciences.