Johannes Marck’s Marrow of Christian Theology, Didactic-Elenctic I
James Dodson
[Page 1]
Chapter I
On the Word Theology, and Its Definition
I. The name theology, from its origin, θεολογία [theology], denotes discourse, or the Word of God; and so our doctrine is especially called this, both because it treats of God, and because it is derived from the revelation of God.
II. This word is not read in Scripture. Indeed, the title Theologian in the inscription of the Apocalypse seems to have been given to John by the doctors of the ancient Church rather than by the Holy Spirit Himself.
III. Yet there are words in Scripture from which this name is composed: both τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ [the oracles of God], which were entrusted to the Jews, Rom. 3:2, compared with 1 Pet. 4:11; and ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ [the Word of God]. This latter is often the personal name of the Son of God, Ps. 33:6: “By the Word of Jehovah the heavens were made,” etc.; John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word,” etc.
[Page 2]
IV. But this name also often expresses the Word of God brought forth by mouth or pen, 1 Thess. 2:13: “You received it not as the word of men, but as it truly is, λόγον Θεοῦ [the Word of God],” etc.; 1 Pet. 1:23: “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, διὰ λόγου ζῶντος Θεοῦ, καὶ μένοντος εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα [through the living Word of God, and abiding forever],” etc. Therefore the designation theology ought not to be rejected as plainly ἄγραφος [unwritten / unscriptural].
V. There are many other synonyms: the doctrine of God, of Christ, good doctrine, sound doctrine, the pattern of doctrine, the form of sound words, etc.; and these indeed are ἔνθεα [divinely inspired / God-given].
VI. Theology is either true or false. The latter is chiefly fourfold: the pseudo-Christian theology of heretics, Mohammedan theology, modern Jewish theology, and Gentile theology. Again, they distinguish the theology of the Gentiles into the fabulous theology of poets, the natural theology of philosophers, and the civil theology of priests and the people.
VII. True theology is either archetypal, which is very well defined as that knowledge of Himself in God which He decreed to manifest to man. Matt. 11:27: “No one knows the Son except the Father, nor does anyone know the Father except the Son,” etc., compared with 1 Cor. 2:7: “We speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, hidden, ἣν προώρισεν ὁ Θεὸς πρὸ τῶν αἰώνων εἰς δόξαν ἡμῶν [which God ordained before the ages for our glory].”
VIII. Or theology is ectypal, which is the expressed image of the former in creatures, as wholly answering to the divine decree. And it is again divided into the theology of union, of vision, and of the present state. The theology of union is attributed to Christ according to His human nature, united to the λόγος [Word] in the same person; and hence it is not infinite, but anointed with the most abundant grace of the Spirit.
[Page 3]
Ps. 45:8: “Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” John 3:34: “He whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God, οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μέτρου δίδωσιν ὁ Θεὸς τὸ πνεῦμα [for God does not give the Spirit by measure].”
IX. The theology of vision belongs to the good angels, who in heaven always behold the face of Christ’s Father in heaven, Matt. 18:10; and to the other blessed heavenly ones, 1 Cor. 13:12: “Now we see through a glass in an enigma, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον [but then face to face]; now I know in part, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην [but then I shall know even as I have been known].” This exceeds our theology on earth much in perfection.
X. The theology of the present state is the theology of men on this earth, which is also called that of wayfarers and of study; and it is always imperfect, although in many things sufficient for obtaining the perfection of heaven.
XI. Experience clearly teaches some theology of the present state, as does the universal consent of peoples. The atheists vainly derive this from the empty tradition of parents or from political craft, since the sense of deity is impressed on minds far more deeply and commonly than that it could be derived from such a source.
XII. The theology of the present state is either natural or revealed. Natural theology again is called either implanted, namely that which flows from the innate faculty and instinct of the mind, together with the use of reason. This is proved by Rom. 1:19: διότι τὸ γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ φανερόν ἐστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς, ὁ γὰρ Θεὸς αὐτοῖς ἐφανέρωσε [because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has manifested it to them]; Rom. 2:15–16: “For when the Gentiles, not having the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves; who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or also excusing one another,” with which compare the conscience of each person.
[Page 4]
XIII. Or it is acquired theology, which is sought from creatures by discourse, in a threefold way: causality, eminence, and negation. This is treated in many places: Ps. 19:2–3: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows the work of His hands,” etc.; Acts 14:17: “Although He did not leave Himself ἀμάρτυρον [without witness], doing good, giving us rains from heaven and fruitful seasons,” etc.; Acts 17:25, 27: “He Himself gives to all life and breath and all things,” etc., “that they should seek the Lord, if perhaps they might feel after Him and find Him, although He is not far from each one of us.” Rom. 1:20: “For His invisible things, being understood by the works of creation, are seen, ἥ τε ἀΐδιος αὐτοῦ δύναμις καὶ θειότης [both His eternal power and deity],” etc.
XIV. For the acquisition of this theology, universal doubt ought not to be advised, even concerning the very existence of God. For this, by whatever pretext it is cloaked, is useless, impossible, impious, as withdrawing one for a time from the worship of God, and finally most perilous, since after it man often does not admit the arguments for deity, nor does he even sufficiently and happily perceive them.
XV. The idea of God, if it is taken for an innate faculty of knowing God in some way, ought not to be denied; but if it expresses an actual and adequate representation of God, even from birth, it is altogether to be rejected. Moreover, the argument from the universal dictate of conscience is solid for proving the existence of God; but from my singular perception, or idea, it scarcely proceeds, since my mind imagines many things which do not exist, and often attributes to things qualities which do not belong to them.
XVI. Natural theology in the state of integrity—
[Page 5]
—was far more perfect than it is now in the state of the fall. Nor should it be doubted that Adam, in integrity, even apart from special revelation, knew the Trinity, since the image of God and true wisdom were natural to him, and he could not have known or worshiped the true God properly unless he knew Him as triune.
XVII. The Socinians deny implanted natural theology, and sometimes acquired natural theology also; and they object:
1. That it is the fool who says in his heart that there is no God, from Ps. 14:1.
Reply: That saying must be understood both of the desire of the ungodly and of the providence of God.
2. That one must believe that God is, from Heb. 11:6.
Reply: The same thing is known from nature, though more fully from revelation, and thus so far is also believed.
3. That infants lack theology.
Reply: They have this, not indeed in act, but in faculty, as they have walking, speech, and other things.
4. That there are nations which acknowledge no deity.
Reply: This is refuted by most ancient experience, and cannot be demonstrated by the negative testimony of a few.
5. That atheist men are always and everywhere found.
Reply: None are found who theoretically and naturally are ignorant of every deity, even if many do not acknowledge the true God, nor worship God properly, nor wish to persuade themselves and others that God exists. Indeed, some perhaps, by the special judgment of God, may at times be deprived of natural light.
XVIII. Natural theology extends itself not only to the existence of God, but also to His essence, attributes, natural works, and even the law in part; these are called τὰ γνωστὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ [the things known of God], Rom. 1:19. But it does not extend to the Trinity of Persons, or to Christ the Mediator, Matt. 16:17: “Flesh and blood—”
[Page 6]
“—hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.” 1 Cor. 2:14: “The ψυχικὸς [natural / soulish] man does not receive the things which are of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness to him,” etc.
XIX. This theology is insufficient for salvation:
1. Because it does not teach who the true God is, as in John 17:3: “This is eternal life, that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent.”
2. Because it does not teach Christ, compared with Acts 4:12: “Neither is there salvation in any other, nor is there any other name under heaven given among men in which we must be saved,” etc.
3. Because the Gentiles are said formerly to have lived without hope of salvation, ἄθεοι [without God], Eph. 2:12.
4. Because no justification from works is given, and the Gospel is not naturally evident to anyone.
XX. Yet the Pelagians and Socinians say it is sufficient, and object:
1. That everything which can be known of God is evident through it, from Rom. 1:19.
Reply: Yet not that which must be believed or understood from revelation.
2. That men are made inexcusable through it, from Rom. 1:20.
Reply: Not every vain pretext is taken away, but a solid pretext, or one which has even some appearance of solidity.
3. That it leads to repentance, from Rom. 2:4.
Reply: Not, however, to saving repentance; or rather, it impels, rather than leads there as by a conveniently shown way. Besides, that passage seems to treat of supernatural kindness toward the Jews.
4. That excusing thoughts arise from it, from Rom. 2:15.
Reply: Not as though they always, and in every respect, rightly excuse.
5. That God can be found through it, from Acts 17:27.
Reply: His existence, but not gracious communion with Him.
XXI. Natural theology in the abstract does not—
[Page 7]
—conflict with revealed theology, because truth is not contrary to truth. But since that theology in the abstract exists nowhere, while revealed theology can be read pure in the Scriptures, it must yield to this as the higher and more certain wherever any conflict is found.
XXII. Its end is not salvation, but chiefly the conviction of men, εἰς τὸ εἶναι αὐτοὺς ἀναπολογήτους [so that they are without excuse], Rom. 1:20; and a greater restraint in external society.
XXIII. The insufficiency of natural theology teaches, and once taught even the Gentiles themselves, the necessity of revealed theology.
XXIV. Revealed theology is called either habitual or systematic. It is a supernatural habit; not simple, but composite. Hence it has various names: knowledge, wisdom, and prudence. 2 Pet. 3:18; Jas. 3:17; Deut. 4:6, etc.
XXV. Systematic theology is variously distributed with respect to its parts and mode of treatment, chiefly into didactic and elenctic; also into positive and scholastic. The former is not so strictly bound to logical rules; the latter proceeds by a more disciplinary method, by a most useful and most ancient institution.
XXVI. Yet scholastic theology is more specifically so called: that which has prevailed in the schools of the Papists for several centuries, and is deservedly hateful together with its authors: because of the introduced authority of the Fathers and philosophers; because of the curiosity or falsity of its argument; because of barbarous and obscure terms; and because of the obscuring of Scripture and the neglect of it which has been produced. Although it has certain praiseworthy philosophical reasonings, βραχυλογίας [concise expressions], and even mixed testimonies of heavenly truth.
XXVII. We define our theology—
[Page 8]
—as doctrine which, from the revelation of God, delivers true religion to sinful man, for the salvation of man and the glory of God.
XXVIII. It is called doctrine from John 7:16–17: “My doctrine, ἡ ἐμὴ διδαχὴ [my teaching], is not Mine, but His who sent Me,” etc.; Tit. 1:9: “Holding fast τῆς κατὰ διδαχὴν πιστοῦ λόγου [the faithful word according to doctrine], that he may be able to exhort ἐν τῇ διδασκαλίᾳ τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ [in sound doctrine].” And it is practical rather than theoretical, because all knowledge leads to and regards practice. John 13:17: “If ye know these things, blessed are ye if ye do them.” 1 Tim. 1:5: “The end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned.”
Objection I. It is called knowledge, John 17:3.
Reply: It is knowledge joined with practice, and so practical.
Objection II. The object, which is God, is not πρακτόν [a thing to be done], or something made by man.
Reply: The knowledge and worship of God are altogether πρακτά [things to be done].
Objection III. The method of theology is synthetic.
Reply: This is arbitrary, and varies among different authors.
XXIX. Theology is also dianoetic doctrine, because of the consequences employed, which we prove:
1. From the example of Christ and the apostles, Matt. 22:31–32: “Concerning the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” 1 Cor. 15:12: “If Christ is preached that He was raised from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?”
2. From the command to search, John 5:39: ἐρευνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς [search the Scriptures].
3. From the uses of Scripture, which cannot be obtained without consequences. 2 Tim. 3:16: “All Scripture is θεόπνευστος [God-breathed], and profitable πρὸς διδασκαλίαν, πρὸς ἔλεγ— [for doctrine, for reproof—]
[Page 9]
—χον, πρὸς ἐπανόρθωσιν, πρὸς παιδείαν τὴν ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ [for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness], etc.
The Anabaptists wrongly object that Paul rejects reason and philosophy, 2 Cor. 10:5; Col. 2:8, etc., since those passages are plainly restricted to corrupt reason and philosophy. Yet the Lutherans and Papists partly agree with them, rejecting our later consequences because we are private men, whereas Peter rejects not the interpretation of private men, but one’s own ἰδίαν [private / one’s own] interpretation, or one resting upon the mere judgment of men, 2 Pet. 1:20.
XXX. Other principal objections are these:
1. Consequences are not revealed.
Reply: Not explicitly and formally, but implicitly and materially.
2. They rest upon the principle of reason, which is fallible.
Reply: They do not rest only on the instrument of reason; nor is reason fallible in all things.
3. Reason is blind.
Reply: We speak of reason enlightened by the Spirit from the Scriptures.
4. The people do not grasp consequences.
Reply: This is false concerning legitimate and near consequences, which natural logic teaches all men.
XXXI. The distinction between theological conclusions and conclusions of faith, such as the Papists inculcate, is not to be admitted, since all truths rightly drawn from the Scriptures by anyone whatsoever must be believed, although they are not equally necessary to salvation.
XXXII. The sole principle of theology is the Word of God: not the decrees of synods, the sayings of the Fathers, the testimony of the senses, or human reason. Yet these have much use in theology:
1. A ministerial use, especially threefold: illative in necessary consequences, collative, and illustrative.
2. A more principal use—
[Page 10]
—in asserting dogmas which are also evident from nature, and in establishing the probability and possibility of the mysteries of faith.
XXXIII. For the principle of theology must be of absolute infallibility and independent authority. Moreover, the revelation of the divine Word was made in various ways: either through angels, or through bodily appearance, or through an audible voice, or through ecstatic vision, or through dreams, or through illumination of the mind, or through Urim and Thummim; and now it is made to us by Scripture.
XXXIV. The object of theology is true religion, or the knowledge and worship of God, to which also the other just works of God, and man himself, have respect.
XXXV. The subject is man, now fallen from the state of integrity. Ps. 19:8: “The law of Jehovah is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of Jehovah is faithful, giving wisdom to the simple.” 2 Tim. 3:17: “That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto every good work.”
XXXVI. Finally, the end is both the glory of God, Prov. 16:4: “Jehovah hath made all things for Himself,” or for His answer; 1 Pet. 2:9: “that ye should declare the virtues of Him who hath called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”; and the salvation of men, John 20:31: “These are written that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing ye might have life in His name”; Tit. 1:2: ἐπʼ ἐλπίδι ζωῆς αἰωνίου [in hope of eternal life], etc.