Theology is an important science that affects everyone’s life in more ways than just spiritually. The study of God gives humans the answer to questions such as why are we here, how did we get here, and what is our purpose. When talking about theology there are a lot of aspects that need to be considered. The way different people define, practice, and apply theology varies from on theologian to the next. The difference from one theologian to another is modeled by two theologians Karl Barth and T.F. Torrance. First off, the method a person uses to study theology is important. How someone goes about studying God can ultimately affect how much they learn about the creator of the Universe. As far as methods go almost all real theologians agree that
…show more content…
Karl Barth had a very interesting view on the theological task. He described it as something that had to be done, but ultimately could not be fulfilled. When describing the task that many theologians face he referred to it as basically the process of speaking about God. Whether it be in a church, academic, or spiritual setting the goal of theology is to speak about God. Karl Barth believed that the task was impossible stating “As theologians, we ought to speak of God. But we are humans and as such cannot speak of God. We ought to do both… precisely in this way give God the glory” (Barth 2011 p.177) mostly because humans being created by God cannot fully understand him. However, he believed that to not speak about him is not the answer either. By admitting to the inability to speak about God would in return give Him all the glory in what theologians would be able to say about him. The theological task according to Karl Barth is to fully understand that it is impossible to fully explain God, but is the job of a theologian to give glory to him by speaking what he can about him …show more content…
Torrance’s methodology for studying God was similar and different to Karl Barth. T.F. Torrance’s methodology was similar to Karl Barth’s in that they both believed that God reveals himself to us through His word and to begin to know God is to read the Scriptures. Torrance even used a lot of Barth’s lecture methods. However, Torrance differs from Barth when it comes to the connection between science and Theology. As Barth was completely against connect nature and theology Torrance was all for it. Torrance was so for using science with the bible to understand God that he even spent twenty years studying science. He is not completely wrong in his thinking, Romans 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV). He even got to a point where he was so knowledgeable about both fields of study that he was offered a job at Princeton University to teach theology from a scientific perspective. Although Torrance and Barth both stressed that the Bible was ultimate source of knowledge when it came to theology, Torrance went a step further in his methods by affirming what the Bible taught be connecting it to
Karl Barth had a very interesting view on the theological task. He described it as something that had to be done, but ultimately could not be fulfilled. When describing the task that many theologians face he referred to it as basically the process of speaking about God. Whether it be in a church, academic, or spiritual setting the goal of theology is to speak about God. Karl Barth believed that the task was impossible stating “As theologians, we ought to speak of God. But we are humans and as such cannot speak of God. We ought to do both… precisely in this way give God the glory” (Barth 2011 p.177) mostly because humans being created by God cannot fully understand him. However, he believed that to not speak about him is not the answer either. By admitting to the inability to speak about God would in return give Him all the glory in what theologians would be able to say about him. The theological task according to Karl Barth is to fully understand that it is impossible to fully explain God, but is the job of a theologian to give glory to him by speaking what he can about him …show more content…
Torrance’s methodology for studying God was similar and different to Karl Barth. T.F. Torrance’s methodology was similar to Karl Barth’s in that they both believed that God reveals himself to us through His word and to begin to know God is to read the Scriptures. Torrance even used a lot of Barth’s lecture methods. However, Torrance differs from Barth when it comes to the connection between science and Theology. As Barth was completely against connect nature and theology Torrance was all for it. Torrance was so for using science with the bible to understand God that he even spent twenty years studying science. He is not completely wrong in his thinking, Romans 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse” (Romans 1:20 NIV). He even got to a point where he was so knowledgeable about both fields of study that he was offered a job at Princeton University to teach theology from a scientific perspective. Although Torrance and Barth both stressed that the Bible was ultimate source of knowledge when it came to theology, Torrance went a step further in his methods by affirming what the Bible taught be connecting it to