Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Dissertations Graduate Research 2012 The Meaning and Function of System in Theology Timothy Watson Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations Part of the Religious Thought, Theology and Philosophy of Religion Commons Recommended Citation Watson, Timothy, "The Meaning and Function of System in Theology" (2012). Dissertations. 165. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/dissertations/165 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF SYSTEM IN THEOLOGY by Timothy Watson Adviser: Fernando Canale ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Dissertation Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF SYSTEM IN THEOLOGY Name of researcher: Timothy Watson Name and degree of faculty adviser: Fernando Canale, Ph.D. Date completed: March 2012 Topic Due to the nature of the discipline, the importance of our understanding of the meaning of the term “system” in systematic theology cannot be gainsaid. Unfortunately, however, there seems to be little discussion or critique to how this term is being used and its meaning is often taken for granted, even though it seems to mean different things to different authors. Purpose To address this ambiguity, this study takes a close look at the etymological development of this word in its various linguistic forms as it has been used in theology through history. Then, based on this etymological analysis, an intensional definition is proposed with analysis of each element represented in that definition (whole, parts, and articulation) to clarify the meaning of this term as it has been used in theology. Finally, from that definition and its isolated elements, an instrument of analysis (the architectonic analysis) is designed and applied to two examples of theological systems to demonstrate the function of this idea in theology. Sources For the etymological survey, this study focused primarily on theological and philosophical works in history that address the meaning of the word “system” with its Greek (συστημα) and Latin (systema) roots. These sources begin with the introduction of the word into theological usage with Bartholomew Keckermann’s Systema logicae (1600) and trickle off shortly after Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (1807), with particular attention to John Heinrich Lambert, Immanuel Kant, and Soren Kierkegaard. In additional to my own bibliographical research, I was indebted to Otto Ritschl’s System und systematische Methode in der Geschichte des wissenschaftlichen Sprachgebrauchs und der philosophischen Methodologie (1906). For the application of the architectonic analysis on specific examples, I chose the iconic works of Thomas Aquinas’s Summa Theologica and Karl Barth’s Church Dogmatics. Conclusions After applying the architectonic analysis to the works of Aquinas and Barth, the definition proposed—‘A theological system is a cognitive whole of articulated theological doctrines’—was found adequate to account for the structures represented by the Summa Theologica and Church Dogmatics. That is, based on the meaning of system as it is used in theology, these two works can confidently be called “systems.” Also, in addition to confirming the meaning of this word and demonstrating its function in these great works, the architectonic analysis proposed here exposed the essential element of a conditioning, transcendental principle in anything properly called a system. That is, a system will always include at least one independent, necessary part, which provides the basis for both the whole expected and the articulation of its parts. Additionally, reminiscent of Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, this part is axiomatic and transcendent, and can not be validated or invalidated by the system in which it is found, but separately, as a dependent part in a greater system. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF SYSTEM IN THEOLOGY A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy by Timothy Watson March 2012 Copyright by Timothy Watson 2012 All Rights Reserved THE MEANING AND FUNCTION OF SYSTEM IN THEOLOGY A dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy by Timothy Watson APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE: __________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Faculty Adviser, Director of Ph.D. in Religion/ ThD Programs Fernando F. Canale Tom Shepherd Professor of Theology and Philosophy __________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Miroslav Kiš Dean, SDA Theological Seminary Professor of Ethics Denis Fortin __________________________________________ Martin Hanna Associate Professor of Historical Theology __________________________________________ Ante Jeroncic Associate Professor of Theology __________________________________________ _____________________________________________ Norman R. Gulley Date approved Research Professor of Systematic Theology Southern Adventist University TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS . vi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS. vii Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION. 1 Background to the Problem . 1 Basic Approach of This Study. 2 Scope and Limitations. 5 2. THE MEANING OF “SYSTEM” IN THEOLOGY: ETYMOLOGY AND DEFINITION . 8 Overview and Methodology. 8 Historical and Etymological Development of the Term “System” in Theology . 9 Scope and Source Considerations . 9 Bartholomew Keckermann and the Introduction of the Word “System” into Theological and Philosophical Methodology . 11 System before Keckermann . 12 Background and Milieu of Keckermann’s Theological Development . 16 Keckermann’s Life and Career. 21 Influences. 22 System in Keckermann’s Writings. 25 Summary of Keckermann’s Contribution . 37 Developments in the Meaning of “System” in Theology and Philosophy since Keckermann. 39 Keckermann’s Contemporaries. 39 Keckermann’s Theological Legacy. 42 System in the Age of Criticism. 46 Detractors from System. 76 Summary of the Usage of the Term “System” since Keckermann . 83 Intensional Definition of “System” in Theology . 85 Whole . 87 Parts . 94 iii Articulation . 95 Summary . 100 Recommended Instrument: Architectonic Analysis . 100 Systematicity: Is the Work in Consideration a Cognitive Theological System? . 102 Whole: What Expectation Is to Be Fulfilled by This System? . 104 Parts: What are the Nature and Role(s) of the Parts of This System? . 106 Articulation: What Is/Are the Principle(s) of Articulation in the Internal Structure of This System? . 108 Summary and Conclusions . 110 3. ARCHITECTONIC ANALYSIS OF ST. THOMAS AQUINAS’S SUMMA THEOLOGICA. 111 Systematicity: Is the Summa Theologica a Cognitive Theological System?. 112 Statements by Aquinas . 112 Secondary Source Statements. 115 Whole: What Expectation Is to Be Fulfilled by This System?. 122 The ST as Structure . 123 The ST as Process. 124 Parts: What Are the Nature and Role(s) of the Parts of This System? . 127 The Nature of the Parts . 127 The Roles of the Parts. 129 The Role of the Parts of the ST as Structure . 130 The Role of the Parts of the ST as Process. 137 Articulation: What Is/Are the Principle(s) of Articulation in the Internal Structure of This System?. 142 Articulation of the Parts as Ordo Disciplinae . 142 Articulation of the Parts as Sacra Doctrinae . 144 Sacra Doctrinae and Aristotelianism . 145 Sacra Doctrinae and the Four Causes . 147 Sacra Doctrinae and Being. 149 Sacra Doctrinae and Circulatio . 150 Summary and Conclusions . 158 4. ARCHITECTONIC ANALYSIS OF KARL BARTH’S CHURCH DOGMATICS . 163 Systematicity: Is the Church Dogmatics a Cognitive Theological System?. 164 Barth’s Definition of “System”. 165 The Unity of the CD . 174 Secondary Source Statements about the Systematicity of the CD . 175 Whole: What Expectation Is to Be Fulfilled by this System? . 177 iv The CD as Structure. 178 The CD as Process . 180 What Is to be Examined? . 181 Who Can Conduct This Examination? . 184 How Is This Examination Conducted? . 185 What Will Be the Result? . 186 Parts: What Are the Nature and Role(s) of the Parts of this System? . 188 The Nature of the Parts . 188 The Roles of the Parts. 193 The Role of the Parts of the CD as Structure . 194 The Role of the Parts of the CD as Process. 200 Articulation: What Is/Are the Principle(s) of Articulation in the Internal Structure of This System? . 206 Articulation of the Parts as “Dogmatics” . 206 Articulation of the Parts as “Dogma” . 208 The Principle of Articulation as Person . 209 The Principle of Articulation as the Event of Revelation . 213 The Articulation of the CD as “Barth’s System” . 223 Summary and Conclusions . 227 5. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . 231 Summary . 231 Conclusions . 237 The Conditioned Nature of Theological Systems. 237 The a priori Conditions to Theological Systems . 239 The Transcendental Meaning of System .