Skip to content

Course 23 · Lesson 6.1

Building a theological argument from Scripture, tradition and reason

12 minute read

Lessons in this course

Course 23 outline

Module 1: How Research Works

  1. What research is and what a scholarly paper is for
  2. From topic to question: writing a research question that can be answered
  3. The working thesis and how it changes as research develops
  4. Taking notes, recording sources and organizing a project
  5. Academic integrity: quotation, paraphrase and plagiarism

Module 2: Primary and Secondary Sources

  1. Primary and secondary sources in theology and church history
  2. Source criticism: author, date, audience, purpose and transmission
  3. Translations, editions and the problem of reading ancient texts in English
  4. Judging the reliability of a source, including websites and popular books

Module 3: Finding and Reading Scholarship

  1. How peer review works and what it does not guarantee
  2. Finding articles, books and reference works with free and library tools
  3. Reading a scholarly work efficiently and critically
  4. Writing a literature review: summarizing a debate

Module 4: Citation

  1. Chicago notes and bibliography: books, articles and chapters
  2. Citing the Fathers, councils, creeds and online sources
  3. Biblical citation conventions: books, abbreviations, versions and numbering
  4. Managing a bibliography and checking citations

Module 5: Evaluating Arguments and Bias

  1. The anatomy of an argument: claim, evidence, assumption and conclusion
  2. Common fallacies and weak arguments in theological writing
  3. Identifying bias in sources: confessional, ideological and commercial
  4. Confirmation bias in your own work, and ways to reduce it

Module 6: Constructing Arguments and Writing

  1. Building a theological argument from Scripture, tradition and reason
  2. Outlining and drafting a research paper
  3. Clear analytical prose: paragraphs, transitions and plain language
  4. Revising, editing and checking quotations and facts

All courses

Program / Course 23: Research Methodology / Lesson 6.1

What you will learn

  • Describe the roles that Scripture, tradition and reason play in theological argument, and how traditions weigh them differently.
  • Distinguish a historical claim about what someone taught from a theological claim about what is true.
  • Construct an argument that states its authorities openly and answers its strongest objection.
  • Write in a way that readers from different traditions can follow and test.

The big idea

A theological argument reasons toward a conclusion about God or the life of faith, drawing on Scripture, the church’s tradition and reason. Christian traditions weigh these sources differently, so a careful writer says which authorities the argument assumes and why. A research paper often makes a historical claim (what a person or council taught, and how it developed) and keeps it distinct from a theological claim (what is true or ought to be believed). Clarity about which kind of claim is being made lets readers of every tradition follow the evidence.

Key terms

Scripture
The books recognized by a church as the inspired written word of God. Which books are included differs between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant canons.
Tradition
The faith and practice handed down in the church, including creeds, councils, liturgy and the writings of the Fathers. Traditions differ in how they understand its authority.
Reason
The use of logic, argument and knowledge of the world to understand and defend belief.
Sola scriptura
A Reformation principle, ‘Scripture alone’, that Scripture is the final authority for doctrine. Its meaning is debated among Protestants.
Magisterium
In Catholic teaching, the teaching authority of the Church, exercised by the pope and the bishops.
Historical claim
A claim about what happened or what someone said or believed, which evidence can support.
Theological claim
A claim about God or about what Christians should believe, which rests on authorities that traditions weigh differently.
Warrant
The principle that connects evidence to a conclusion, such as the principle that a creed of a council binds the churches that accept it.

Background

Christians have always argued about what to believe. The apostles’ letters argue from Scripture, from the experience of the first believers and from reason. The Fathers argued from Scripture and from the rule of faith handed down in the church, and they used the philosophical tools of their age. Medieval theologians built the scholastic method, setting objections and replies beside each other. The Reformers argued from Scripture against some medieval teaching, and Catholic theologians replied from Scripture, the Fathers and the Church’s authority. Orthodox theologians have argued from the Fathers, the councils and the liturgy.

Churches weigh the sources of authority differently. Catholic teaching presents Scripture and Tradition as flowing from one source, with the Magisterium interpreting them, as the Second Vatican Council’s Dei Verbum states. Orthodox theology treats Holy Tradition as the life of the Church, in which Scripture is central and the councils, the Fathers and the liturgy bear witness. Many Protestants hold that Scripture alone is the final authority, while valuing the creeds and the Fathers as guides. Anglican writers since Richard Hooker have spoken of Scripture, tradition and reason together, and the Methodist tradition, following a twentieth century description by Albert Outler, adds experience. A writer should know which of these frames the audience accepts.

A research paper usually does not try to settle which church is right. It asks a more limited question and makes a claim of a clear kind. A historical claim, such as ‘Augustine held that infants are born with original sin’, can be supported with texts and dates, whatever the writer believes about the doctrine. A theological claim, such as ‘the doctrine is true’, depends on authorities that readers may not share. Good practice is to make the historical claims the base of the paper, to say plainly when a theological claim is being made, and to name the authority on which it rests.

Step-by-step explanation

Step 1: Decide what kind of claim you are making

Ask whether your thesis is historical, interpretive or theological. ‘Gregory of Nyssa argued that the soul is not pre-existent’ is historical. ‘Romans 9 teaches predestination’ is interpretive. ‘God predestines the elect’ is theological. Each kind needs different support.

If the paper mixes kinds, separate them in the writing. Say, for example, ‘The argument of this section is historical: it concerns what the authors said, not whether they were right.’

Step 2: State your authorities openly

Say which sources you treat as authoritative and why. A paper written within a tradition may rest on that tradition’s authorities and say so. A paper meant for a mixed audience should show how the argument would look from other starting points, or limit itself to claims that readers across traditions can test.

Do not claim that a source settles a question for those who do not accept its authority. Instead, show what the source says and let readers draw the conclusion that their tradition supports.

Step 3: Argue from the texts in context

Use Scripture by reading passages in their literary and historical context, noting genre and the author’s purpose, rather than stringing together isolated verses. Use the Fathers and councils by citing them exactly, in editions, and by noting their situation and what they were answering.

Where texts seem to conflict, say so, and give the main ways that readers have resolved the tension. Do not pretend that difficulties are absent.

Step 4: Use reason carefully

Reason connects the evidence to the conclusion. State the steps. Define key terms, since words such as ‘nature’, ‘person’, ‘substance’ and ‘grace’ have been used in different senses at different times. Check that the argument avoids the fallacies of Module 5.

Be open about the limits of reason where the subject exceeds it. Many theologians hold that some truths cannot be fully captured by argument. A writer can say so without giving up careful reasoning.

Step 5: Answer the strongest objection

State the best objection to your thesis, as a thoughtful opponent would put it, and reply to it. The reply may show that the objection is mistaken, or that your thesis must be qualified. Either way, the reader sees that you have faced the difficulty.

Aquinas gave the pattern: objection, statement of the position with reasons, reply to the objection. A modern paper need not use this form, but should follow its spirit.

  1. Is my main claim historical, interpretive or theological?
  2. Which authorities does my argument depend on, and have I said so?
  3. Have I read the passage in context, not as an isolated verse?
  4. Are my key terms defined as the authors used them?
  5. What is the strongest objection, and how do I reply?
  6. Could a reader from another tradition follow and test my steps?

Examples

A historical claim

‘Cyril of Alexandria used the phrase one incarnate nature of the Word in his letters against Nestorius, and understood it to affirm the unity of Christ.’ This can be supported with cited texts and checked against scholarship, whatever the reader thinks of the doctrine.

An interpretive claim

‘In Romans 8, Paul’s argument that nothing can separate believers from the love of God is addressed to suffering Christians in Rome.’ It can be argued from the text and its context, and different traditions have read it differently.

A theological claim

‘Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.’ Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Reformed and other churches hold different understandings of this. A paper that makes the claim must say on what authority it rests, and a paper that does not wish to defend it should report what each tradition teaches.

Stating authority

‘This paper reasons from the Nicene Creed and the Scriptures to which it appeals, as accepted by the churches of the East and West, and does not address the points on which they divide.’ The sentence tells the reader what the argument assumes and what it leaves aside.

Different perspectives

Catholic

Catholic teaching holds that Scripture and Tradition together make up the deposit of faith, and that the Magisterium authentically interprets it (Dei Verbum). A Catholic theological argument will usually rest on Scripture, the Fathers, the councils and the Church’s teaching, and on reason, which Catholic thought sees as capable of arriving at truths about God. Catholic scholars also write historical studies that are open to readers of every tradition.

Orthodox

Orthodox theology treats Scripture as part of Holy Tradition, interpreted in the light of the Fathers, the seven ecumenical councils and the liturgy. Argument is valued, but the theologian is regarded as one who prays, and theology is meant to lead toward knowledge of God. The mind of the Fathers is a key standard, and the Orthodox call for knowledge of their texts in context.

Protestant

Protestants hold that Scripture is the supreme authority, with differences about how much weight to give creeds, confessions and the Fathers. The Lutheran, Reformed, Anglican, Baptist, Methodist and Pentecostal traditions weigh these differently. Many Protestant scholars combine exegesis of Scripture, historical study and philosophical argument.

Academic study of religion

Scholars in the academic study of religion typically describe the arguments of each tradition without ruling on their truth, and examine how arguments are constructed and how they developed. Some academic theologians work within a tradition and argue for its positions in a university setting. Readers should know which kind of work they are reading.

Why it matters

Much confusion in religious writing comes from mixing a claim about what was said with a claim about what is true, or from assuming that all readers share the same authorities. A writer who states the kind of claim and the authorities involved can be understood and tested by many readers. That clarity serves both truth and charity, and allows believers of different traditions to argue honestly with one another instead of past one another.

Common misunderstandings

Misunderstanding: A theological argument is just a list of Bible verses.

Correction: Verses must be read in context and connected by reasoning. A list of texts without argument shows only that the words occur, not what they mean for the question.

Misunderstanding: Every Christian tradition weighs Scripture, tradition and reason in the same way.

Correction: They differ significantly. A writer should state the frame being used and, when addressing a mixed audience, acknowledge the differences.

Misunderstanding: A historical paper must say whether the doctrine is true.

Correction: A historical paper reports what was said and how ideas developed. It can leave the question of truth to other kinds of work, provided it says it is doing so.

Misunderstanding: Reason is opposed to faith.

Correction: The major traditions use reason within faith, though they differ on its reach. Opposing them is not the position of the Fathers or the Reformers, and the argument of this lesson does not assume it.

Knowledge check

What is the difference between a historical claim and a theological claim?

A historical claim says what happened or what someone taught or believed, and can be supported with texts and dates whatever the writer believes. A theological claim says what is true about God or what Christians should believe, and rests on authorities that traditions weigh differently. A paper should keep the two apart and say which it is making.

How do Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant traditions differ in their use of authorities?

Catholic teaching joins Scripture and Tradition, interpreted by the Magisterium. Orthodox theology sees Scripture as part of Holy Tradition, understood through the Fathers, councils and liturgy. Many Protestants hold that Scripture is the supreme authority, while valuing the creeds and the Fathers to varying degrees. All use reason within their frameworks.

Why state your authorities in a paper?

Readers may not share the authorities you assume. Stating them lets readers see what the argument depends on and judge whether it follows from those premises. It also prevents the paper from claiming that a source settles a question for those who do not accept its authority.

What is the purpose of answering the strongest objection?

Answering the strongest objection shows that the thesis has been tested against real opposition. The answer may defeat the objection or force a qualification of the thesis. Either result makes the paper more honest and more persuasive, since the reader sees that the difficulty was faced.

Think it through

  1. Which authorities carry most weight for you, and how would you explain them to a reader from another tradition?
  2. Is there a belief of yours that you could support historically but not argue for from the authorities another tradition accepts?
  3. Why do you think the Fathers and the Reformers argued as they did, and what can a modern writer learn from them?
  4. What would be lost if a paper never said which kind of claim it was making?

Independent assignment

Mapping an argument’s authorities

In your own notebook, write about 400 words. Take your thesis and classify it as historical, interpretive or theological. List the authorities your argument uses and say how Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant readers might each respond to them. State the strongest objection and your reply. If your thesis mixes kinds of claim, rewrite it as two separate statements. Do not send this to anyone.

Further study