Basic HTML Version
43
the world round about us to the idea of a first Cause, from the contemplation of creation, to
the idea of an almighty Creator, and from the observation of the moral government of the
world, to the idea of a powerful and wise Ruler. By way of negation we remove from our idea of
God all the imperfections seen in His creatures, as inconsistent with the idea of a Perfect Being,
and ascribe to Him the opposite perfection. In reliance on that principle we speak of God as
independent, infinite, incorporeal, immense, immortal, and incomprehensible. And finally, by
way of eminence we ascribe to God in the most eminent manner the relative perfections which
we discover in man, according to the principle that what exists in an effect, pre-exists in its
cause, and even in the most absolute sense in God as the most perfect Being. This method may
appeal to some, because it proceeds from the known to the unknown, but is not the proper
method of dogmatic theology. It takes its startingpoint in man, and concludes from what it finds
in man to what is found in God. And in so far as it does this it makes man the measure of God.
This is certainly not a theological method of procedure. Moreover, it bases its knowledge of
God on human conclusions rather than on the self-revelation of God in His divine Word. And
yet this is the only adequate source of the knowledge of God. While that method might be
followed in a so-called natural theology, it does not fit in a theology of revelation.
The same may be said of the methods suggested by modern representatives of experimental
theology. A typical example of this may be found in Macintosh’s Theology as an Empirical
Science.[p. 159 ff.] He also speaks of three methods of procedure. We may begin with our
intuitions of the reality of God, those unreasoned certitudes which are firmly rooted in
immediate experience. One of these is that the Object of our religious dependence is absolutely
sufficient for our imperative needs. Especially may deductions be drawn from the life of Jesus
and the “Christlike” everywhere. We may also take our starting point, not in man’s certainties,
but in his needs. The practically necessary postulate is that God is absolutely sufficient and
absolutely dependable with reference to the religious needs of man. On that basis man can
build up his doctrine of the attributes of God. And, finally, it is also possible to follow a more
pragmatic method, which rests on the principle that we can learn to a certain extent what
things and persons are, beyond what they are immediately perceived to be, by observing what
they do. Macintosh finds it necessary to make use of all three methods.
Ritschl wants us to start with the idea that God is love, and would have us ask what is involved
in this most characteristic thought of God. Since love is personal, it implies the personality of
God, and thus affords us a principle for the interpretation of the world and of the life of man.
The thought that God is love also carries with it the conviction that He can achieve His purpose
of love, that is, that His will is supremely effective in the world. This yields the idea of an
almighty Creator. And by virtue of this basic thought we also affirm God’s eternity, since, in
controlling all things for the realization of His Kingdom, He sees the end from the beginning. In