A guest post from a friend, NoblemanPH, a student of IRBS Theological Seminary.

Theology and its Principium Cognoscendi

Having established that the infinite God is the object of our divine contemplation, the next question is: "How do we know God?" This question will lead us to the epistemological route of our knowledge of God. Also known as the principle of knowing, principium cognoscendi simply means the ground or basis on which God is known.1

Circling back to our maxim, since the principium essendi of theology is God, who is infinite, we could assert that the epistemological preconditions of theology are different than other lower natural sciences. As Herman Bavinck puts it, "Since religion is an independent phenomenon in a class by itself, we may expect that the certainty attainable in this area has a character of its own and is acquired in a way peculiar to it."2 Typically, the certainty of natural sciences can be acquired either by personal observation, through the witness of credible persons, and through reasoning and proofs.3 Out of these three paths of certainty of knowledge, and by treating theology as the queen of all sciences distinct from others, Bavinck excludes the first and third paths4 and elevates only the second path of certainty in acquiring theological knowledge:

If religion is to be what it is said to be, viz., the service of God with all one's mind, heart, and strength then it must be grounded in revelation, in a word from God that comes with his authority. Divine authority is the foundation of all religion and therefore the source and basis of theology as well. All this is naturally implied on the concept and essence of religion.5

Accordingly, it can be asserted that the source of our theology depends on what God reveals to us. In other words, our knowledge of God depends on His gratuitous revelation to us concerning Himself. Thus, the principium cognoscendi of theology is grounded by none other than the revelation of God. As the infinite One, God is the sole giver of the knowledge of God, and finite human beings are only the recipients, rather than the producers of such knowledge.

Under this lens, we would then argue that God reveals Himself to us via two modes of revelation: natural and supernatural. Natural revelation is God's revelation of Himself through the light of nature and the created world. Supernatural revelation, on the other hand, is God's revelation of Himself through the special revelation of the Scriptures. Arising from these two modes of revelation are two modes of theology: natural and supernatural theology. Natural theology is our knowledge of God that can be discovered through natural principles. In this theology, human beings can know truths about God through the external cognitive principle of nature and with the internal cognitive principle of reason. These natural principles are intrinsic in creatures themselves and can be acquired through the pure and unaided use of human reason. On the other hand, supernatural theology is our knowledge about God that can be discovered by supernatural principles. In this theology, human beings can know truths about God through the external cognitive principle of the Scriptures and with the internal cognitive principle of the Holy Spirit. These supernatural principles are extrinsic to creatures and can only be acquired through faith.

A few points must be noted to appropriately apply these truths to our theological method. First, supernatural theology should not be placed in complete opposition with natural theology. It has become a widespread trend within the broad Reformed Evangelical movement today to demonize natural theology, especially the use of philosophy, in favor of the unbalanced and unchecked elevation of supernatural theology in the guise of "Sola Scriptura". Granted that supernatural theology through supernatural revelation is the only knowledge that is salvific, natural theology nevertheless is an excellent aid in articulating and defending the articles of the Faith. As Thomas Aquinas rightly puts it, "Even though the natural light of the human mind is inadequate to make known what is revealed by faith, nevertheless what is divinely taught to us by faith cannot be contrary to what we are endowed with by nature."6 It must be remembered that even though the tasks of natural and supernatural theology are different, they work under the same principle, and both "theologies" are derived directly from God. Thus, the two must work together, utilizing reason as the handmaiden of faith in our theological reasoning for the glory of God. Second, since the Scriptures are the triune God's written revelation for the salvation of sinful men through the salvific work of the Lord Jesus Christ, we must read His divine revelation with the proper lens of the maxim finitum non capax infiniti. Because God is infinite, and we are not, we must read God in the Scriptures not primarily as the God pro nobis (God acting on our behalf), but as God in se (God as He is in Himself, transcending creatures). As we use this lens when reading His Word, we again rightly maintain the biblical Creator-creature distinction throughout our theological reflections, avoiding the pitfalls of misinterpreting God's nature and attributes.7 Third, seeing that our knowledge of God is dependent only upon His gratuitous revelation, this must lead us to humility and an increasing growth in our theological virtues. As John Webster comments, "To respond to the gratuity with which God in revelation makes himself accessible to us is to confess, to acknowledge, to repent, to praise—all modes of the ecstasy of faith. And revelation, therefore, comes to do battle with us: to overcome our refusal to confess the sheer overwhelming goodness, beauty, and truth of God."8

Theology and Tradition

Now that we have demonstrated that theology is grounded in divine revelation, both natural and supernatural, we must also consider the role of tradition in our theological discourse. Theology, in its purpose and goal, is never an isolated endeavor. While it begins with God's self-revelation, it is received, preserved, and articulated within the communion of saints — the ecclesia, the body of Christ. The Holy Spirit, who inspired the Scriptures (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:21), also indwells the Church, guiding her into all truth (John 16:13). Tradition, then, is the Spirit-led outcome, by which the Church receives, interprets, and transmits the deposit of divine revelation — Scripture — within the communal life of God's people.

Tradition, properly speaking, is an additional subordinate cognitive principle of theology. By this we mean firstly that as helpful as it is, tradition "which are called ecclesiastical commandments, are binding upon us only in so far as they are based on and commanded by God's Word."9 Similarly, Webster would argue that "the tradition is opened to correction by the attentiveness to the gospel…And attentiveness to the gospel always involves attention to Holy Scripture as the appointed testimony to the gospel."10 Tradition, therefore, is not infallible; it should continue to be challenged by the divine authority of the Scriptures. Furthermore, tradition is open for revision, while the Scriptures are not. Scriptures are norma normans (the rule that rules), while Tradition is norma normata (a rule that is ruled). It must be noted that the reason why tradition can and has erred is not because of the Holy Spirit (for the Holy Spirit is the true Teacher and cannot err), but rather, because of the subjects (redeemed mankind) who are fallible and still susceptible to sinning.

Nevertheless, tradition, as the faith that was once for all handed down to the saints (Jude 3), bears authority over the ecclesia because it signifies the Spirit's presence in the school of Christ, teaching the Church about Christ. In this light, Michael Allen writes:

Scripture is the final source and authority for knowing God, but there is a catholic shape and context that involves the fullness of the church's life as the matrix within which the Scriptures are read and received. The worship of the people of God is the way in which the Bible present to the church, as Scripture is prayed, sung, read, preached, and sacramentally practiced.11

To reject tradition is to ignore the presence of the Spirit in Christian culture and to succumb to the illusion of theological autonomy, as if each generation, or worse, each theologian, could reinvent Christianity anew. Though open for modification, the dogmas of the church are not open to endless revision, as "Christianity is one and not many and is not capable of continuous radical reinterpretation."12

In our theological inquiry, appropriating the contributions of the whole Christian culture entails being informed by the preaching and teaching of the Word, as expressed in biblical commentaries, theological tracts, disputations, creeds, confessions, hymns, and the liturgy of the ecclesiastical tradition. As theologians, we should consider these as "natural signs and instruments of the Spirit's illuminating presence."13 It functions analogously to a hermeneutical lens — finite, fallible, and derivative, yet sanctified by its participation in the economy of divine wisdom. It guards us against new and false interpretations of the Bible. The very nature of creaturely finitude (finitum non capax infiniti) demands this mediatorial role for tradition, since no single generation can exhaustively grasp or articulate the mysteries of faith apart from the collective wisdom of those who have wrestled with Scripture before us. This humbles us by reminding us that we are not the first Christians who have existed.

Conclusion

If we understand what theology is and how it must be done, then no theologian can ever become 'overfamiliar' with the Scriptures. True theology is not about attaining exhaustive knowledge but growing in reverence, humility, and love for the God who remains infinitely beyond us yet graciously makes Himself known. Adequately understood, theology is not an exercise in mastery but a humble contemplation of God's self-revelation in nature, Scriptures, and tradition — always received in faith, never fully comprehended.

Footnotes

  1. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017). Under the entry principium essendi / principium cognoscendi. ↩

  2. Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 1:77. ↩

  3. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:77. ↩

  4. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, vol. 1. By excluding the 1st and 3rd paths of certainties, Bavinck does not reject the idea that theology is a science that can be demonstrated by personal observation and through proof and reasoning. Looking closely, his exclusion of the two other paths is in the context of his rejection of the idea that theology can be acquired through the history of religions and psychological methods, which he argued against in the preceding paragraphs. ↩

  5. Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 1:77. ↩

  6. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on the De Trinitate of Boethius, Q.2, Art. 3. ↩

  7. See more of this methodology in Chapter 13, written by Dr. Richard Barcellos. Matthew Barrett, On Classical Trinitarianism: Retrieving the Nicene Doctrine of the Triune God, 1st ed. (Westmont: InterVarsity Press, 2024), 212–73. ↩

  8. John Webster, The Culture of Theology, ed. Ivor J. Davidson and Alden C. McCray (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2019), Chapter 5. ↩

  9. Michael Allen and Scott Swain, Reformed Catholicity: The Promise of Retrieval for Theology and Biblical Interpretation (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2015), Chapter 2. ↩

  10. Webster, The Culture of Theology, Chapter 3. ↩

  11. Allen and Swain, Reformed Catholicity, Chapter 2. ↩

  12. Allen and Swain, Reformed Catholicity, Chapter 4. ↩

  13. Allen and Swain, Reformed Catholicity, Chapter 1. ↩