Introduction
We now finally come to the end of the prolegomena in the systematic theology. Here, we will address the nature and various distinctions that arise in the topic of fundamental articles. Moreover, we will discuss the principles upon which the whole of the system lies. After a discussion of these two topics, every matter necessary in the prolegomena will have been treated.
Fundamental Articles
Fundamental articles are those teachings that, without knowledge of them, there is no hope of salvation. Stated positively, they are biblical teachings that are necessary for salvation. Thus, there are some doctrinal disputes that do not rise to the importance of the fundamentals as Calvin notes: “not all topics of true doctrine are of the same kind. Some are necessary to be known, that al must hold them to be fixed and undoubted as the proper essentials of religion: for instance, that God is one, that Christ is God, and the Son of God, that our salvation depends on the mercy of God, and the like. Others, again, which are the subject of controversy among the churches, do not destroy the unity of the faith; for why should it be regarded as a ground of dissension between churches, if one, without any spirit of contention or perverseness in dogmatizing, hold that the soul quitting the body flies to heaven, and another, without venturing to speak positively as to the abode, holds it for certain that it lives with the Lord” (Institutes, IV.i.12). On this topic, some err in excess by attributing too many doctrines to the status of fundamental articles as the Romanists do (e.g. Marian dogmas) while others err in defect by attributing too little doctrines to the status of fundamental articles as the Socinians once did and many modern people do today (e.g. the Trinity is not a necessary belief). The Reformed hold to a golden mean by not attributing too much nor too little to the category of fundamentals. Many distinctions can be made surrounding the articles. Firstly, we can distinguish necessity into three categories: necessary unto salvation, necessary for the right practice of religion, and necessary for the church. Fundamental articles only concern the first. Secondly, we can distinguish based on the subjective knowledge of such articles. It can be distinctly known (people who are able to teach, draw out implications, define, etc.) or confusedly known (know the substance of it but not all the implications, divisions, etc.). So, there are degrees of clarity on the articles within the subject. Furthermore, we can relate different knowledge to the theological genres we learned earlier in the prolegomena. There is a catechetical understanding and a scholastic understanding which requires distinctions and rigorous argumentation. Thirdly, we can distinguish the culpability of understanding the articles based on the historical dispensation a subject finds himself within. Thus, under the New Testament, believers are held to a higher amount of knowledge than Old Testament believers, i.e. the necessity of knowledge increases in proportion to the revelation given. Also, we can consider the fundamental articles from three different points of views. Firstly, considered objectively, the articles are looked at in and of themselves. The necessity of the articles considered objectively can be further divided into necessary being of the church or necessary to salvation of believers. Secondly, considered subjectively, the articles are viewed in relation to the disposition of believing or disbelieving. This can be further divided into errors of ignorance or errors arising from opposition to the truth (heretical). Finally, considered from the judgments of the church, certain articles are either tolerated (as judgment made by particular churches) or must be accepted (as judgment is made by the catholic church). Three further distinctions can be made regarding the very nature of articles. Firstly, they are either immediate and primary (doctrines immediately arising from Scripture) or secondary and mediate (doctrines developed by logical derivation which has already been proven as valid). Next, they are either explicit and formal (explicitly found in Scripture) or implicit and virtual (virtually in Scripture as the conclusion is virtually in premises). Finally, they are either positive (affirmative statements) or negative (falsehoods rejected). Negative articles can be further divided into immediate (directly contradicts fundamentals) or secondary (arising from improper logical derivation). With the proper distinctions laid out we can now discuss an enumeration of fundamental articles. There are three criteria: catholic, foundational, and ignorance or opposition of such doctrines bring damnation. If a doctrine fulfills these three criteria, it can be rightfully placed in the category of fundamental articles. However, an explicit list of fundamental articles is unnecessary since Scripture does not give us such a list and people that usually err in one err in many. In opposition to true doctrine, three types of errors arise. Firstly, an error can be against a fundamental articles (denial of Trinity). Secondly, it can be an indirect contradiction of fundamental articles (denial of providence results in denial of God). And finally, errors can be beyond fundamentals. Despite an explicit list being unnecessary, we can list some obvious ones here: there is one God who is creator of all things, this one God exists as three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, all of which are equally divine, humans are made in the image of God and rebelled against God bringing sin into the world, Christ the second person of the Trinity became fully man and died on a cross to satisfy the punishment of sin, he ascended and will return to judge the world, he also sent the Spirit who applies salvation to us, preached through the Apostles, and built the Christian Church. By our discussion of fundamental articles, we can determine the truths that must be defended without any cowardice or fear of dissention.
Principia
Fundamental articles are not the principles themselves but rather rest on something higher. Any scientific discipline must identify its principles upon which it relies on. These principles are of two kinds: principle of being or an ontological principle and principle of knowing or an epistemological principle. The division follows from the two must foundational questions to any given discipline. Does it exist? And, can we know it? Without these foundations, the whole of the discipline becomes futile. Without such principia, even the fundamental articles of the faith fall apart. Richard Muller succinctly states the whole matter of identifying the principia of theology: “These principia or foundations of theology are argued by the Protestant scholastics according to to basic patterns. The majority simply point to the logic of the situation: theology has been shown to exist and anything that exists and is also capable of analysis must have two foundations or ground–an essential foundation that guarantees its existence and a cognitive foundation that makes knowledge of it possible. Thus theology which both is and is known must have an essential foundation (principium essendi) and a cognitive foundation (principium cognoscendi).” The principium essendi is God himself, the archetype of our theology. The principium congoscendi is supernatural revelation. Regarding the essential foundation, the highest science (archetypal theology) founds the conclusions in the subalternate science (ectypal theology). The way in which the fulness (insofar as the creature is capable) of the divine archetype is revealed is through Scripture and therefore is the epistemic principle. Rather than the principium being revelation in general, it is specifically supernatural revelation since supernatural theology’s end transcends nature. So, reason is left out of the principia and allocated to an instrument alone. Since reason cannot attain the divine archetype and the fact that the end is not of nature, it is rightfully denied the status of principium against rationalists. Having established fundamental articles and principia, our distribution of false theology makes more sense. People who err on the principia are classified as infidels or unbelievers. People who err on fundamental articles are classified as heretics. Finally, people who err over minor disputes are classified as schismatics. With the two principles of the system established, we have finished the necessary topics addressed in the prolegomena.
Conclusion
All of the prolegomena comes together here. The relation between archetypal and ectypal theology comes up in the ontic principium. The division between supernatural and natural revelation appears in the discussion on the epistemic principle. In discussion on errors aimed at either the principia or fundamentals our division of false theology arises. The themes of balancing ontological objectivity and epistemological subjectivity rears its head again. Our definition of theology as a subalternate science is useful in explaining principia. The rigorous scholastic method is on full display. And, the use of reason is placed in its rightful boundaries. How can modern systematic theologies leave out such a rich topic? The whole foundation of the following system has been laid. We have rightly founded theology as a true discipline. Moving on in the system, it is only correct to first address bibliology (study of Scripture) which has been identified as the principle of knowing. After, it follows that the ontic principle is addressed in theology proper (study of God) which again calls back to our discussion of synthetic ordering. In the conclusion you have just read, every topic discussed in the prolegomena came back to the forefront, showing how important each step was. We can now finally proceed to the study of Scripture!