How would you chart Special Revelation, General Revelation, Theology, and other sciences (e.g. Psychology)?


Would Special and General be on the same level, Special above General?

Would Theology be on the same level as Psychology as another type of man's interpretation? Or would Theology be over all sciences?

Please feel free to specify why you charted what you charted the way you did. I have been wrestling over how to chart these things the past few days.

__________________
Andrew Barnes
Husband of Dena
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

General Revelation is that innate ability all of us have to know that God's law and moral laws are undeniable. Roman's 1. Fallen man perverts them, ignores them, or denies them outright.

Special Revelation is God's revelation of Himself to us personally.

Charting them from Narrow to Broad you would chart Special down to General wouldn't you? Depends on where your going with it.

Isn't Theology considered the Mother of all sciences? Or maybe I should say: it use to be considered the mother of all sciences.

__________________
~ Steven Bradford ~
Member Covenant Presbyterian, Chattanooga, TN

Yeah that is what I am running into with many people: Theology is no longer considered the mother of all sciences (it isn't a science anymore b/c science is mostly defined by scientific method)...so?

__________________
Andrew Barnes
Husband of Dena
Pastor of Tchula Presbyterian Church

It would probably,for organizational purposes, be best to chart Revelation as a heading and place General/Natural and Special under it, but on the same level beside one another. They would break down even further to mediate and immediate on the next level and so on. Check out some systematic theology works like those from Aquinas, Hodge (who coined the phrase General Revelation), Grudem, Boice, etc... . Those who like everything to fit neatly into a category will love the way these works organize the subject of revelation. Don't know if this helps but this is the way I can keep things clear and concise in my own mind.
As far as categorizing theology and the other sciences we would all agree that theology is supreme. All the others sciences find thier validity and clarification in proper theology. Revelation is a subject within the realm of theology. Psychology would find its best exposition within the confines of anthropology another subject within theology.

As for psychology, unless the practitioner has mastered Owen's work on Indwelling Sin, I think I'd place it in the category slightly higher (but not much higher) than astrology.

__________________
R.Vic Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

__________________
Scott - Dallas, Texas - PCA

"It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do; but what humanity, reason, and justice tell me I ought to do." - Edmund Burke

Theology is still the queen of all the sciences. Just because many don't study it doesn't mean it's not important to do it. And often today it's a faulty or unbelieving theology that governs "science" though this theology is usually left unstated or assumed. You can't study anything without presupposing a theology. We are just more honest about it, and understand that all feilds of study, no matter what they are, are subservient to the glory of God.

I think you need to be careful too in this discussion to clarify terms. If by "psychology" you mean the study of human behavior, then I think know one will object to it as a science since even Scripture has much to say on that field of study. If by "psychology" you mean the secular humanistic pop self-help nonsense then of course it is not science at all but just an unbelieving philosophy stated and applied.

A "science," simply defined, is a study of the feild of interest by observation with the purpose of gaining understanding and applications. I don't think any Bible believing Christian will be opposed to science so defined. When you define "science" as a mixture of this study along with unbelieving presuppositions held by many researchers, then of course we oppose it, because it is no longer a true science but a religious worldview opposed to Christ.

__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.

"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.