Journal: Bibliotheca Sacra
Volume: BSAC 64:254 (Apr 1907)
Article: Status Of Foreign Theology
Author: Hugh Macdonald Scott

BSac 64:254 (April 1907) p. 371

Status Of Foreign Theology

Hugh M. Scott

Chicago, Ill.

It seems as if the predominance of the history of philosophy and the treatment of theology almost wholly as an historical study are to be followed by a revival of philosophy itself and a systematic treatment of theology again. It is significant that the December, 1906, number of the Lutheran Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift announces the publication by its managers of a quarterly entitled Die Theologie der Gegenwart, which is to confine itself to current discussions in theology, and give “a comprehensive synopsis of the important and characteristic writings” in the field of theology, pointing out wherein they show progress of investigation and make real contributions to the subject.

A similar announcement is made in the December, 1906, number of the Ritschlian magazine the Zeitschrift fur Theologie und Kirche, which informs its readers that a new series of its publication is to begin in 1907, making it “an organ for fundamental and systematic theology.” The editors, referring to this change, say: “Many indications make it plain that not a few men are desirous of leaving present one-sided, historico-critical work for the study of the great connecting principles and ideas “which underlie all religious thinking. “We seek to meet this demand for a thorough estimate of the whole condition of our religious knowledge and for a rigorous appreciation for faith and life of all that historical studies have gained for us.” The cry Cui bono? respecting theology in the church, should not lead men astray, it is added, “for theology must serve the church, and on the other hand lives from the service of the church.” It certainly looks as if Dogmatik, so neglected for twenty years, were about to come to its own again.

BSac 64:254 (April 1907) p. 372

How wild the statements of some scientists respecting religion may be, is shown by repeated references to Haeckel’s “Riddle of the Universe.” The theologian Loofs, the philosopher Paulsen, and the physicist Chwolson have all given proof.

It is of the last we here speak. He is an authority in science, and the Monatsschrift f. Mathematik u. Physik calls his work on physics one of the best of the great text-books on the subject, if not the best ever written upon it. In a recent work called “Hegel, Haeckel, Kossuth, and the Twelfth Commandment,” just translated from Russian into German (Braunschweig, Vieweg & Sohn, 1906), he shows the natural and necessary relations of philosophy and natural science; and how, about fifteen years ago, both began to see how much they had in common. But an estrangement soon followed, which he says is due to violation of th...