This question has been asked throughout history. It seems that the question must always be asked of each succeeding generation, some agreeing with previous one, others disagreeing. Yet, as the Qohelet says, there is nothing new under the sun.

So let’s start at this question by seeing if we can use our own reasoning and the natural world (sometimes referred to as natural theology or general revelation) to attain knowledge of God. A brief (very brief) historical overview is necessary here.

The early church was divided in how knowledge of God can be obtained. Tertullian contended that philosophy (human reason) has nothing to do with faith (What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?), while Clement of Alexandria argued that philosophy paved the way for Christ (Gunton 2001, 154-157). The Middle Ages seemed more confident in its use of reason. Thomas Aquinas felt that reason alone could prove the existence of God – yet only a few, after a long time and with an intermixture of error, would know God (Gunton 2001, 159-160). Reformer, John Calvin argued that each person held a sense of the divine within themselves, yet knowledge of God through nature is “insufficiently effective,” thus Scripture is necessary (McGrath 2007b, 101; Gunton 2001, 35).  Karl Barth argued that since God self-reveals himself, special revelation was the only way one could know God (McGrath 2007b, 146-147) Hans Kung disagreed, arguing that this view diminished the glory of God in creation (LaCugna 1982, 59-60). Finally, Jurgen Moltmann argued that natural theology gives understanding as opposed to blessedness (i.e. salvation) (2000, 66).

Have we found any answers? While this overview is much too brief to deal adequately with each theologian’s argument, we find that none seem to argue that through our reason and the natural world we can completely understand God. (I have not included here any liberal or process theologians to simplify the discussion, not out of plain disregard for their positions or contributions. Many would argue that there is nothing outside of our reason and the natural world to give us understanding, but that discussion is outside the scope of this post.) Some argue they are of no use, others demonstrate they are extremely useful, but almost no one argues that apart from some divine revelation we can thoroughly know God.

So it seems we can know God partially through our reason and the natural world, from where then do we come to a more fuller understanding of God? We can examine this more fully in part II.

Gunton, Colin E., Stephen R. Holmes, and Murray A. Rae, eds. 2001. The Practice of Theology: A Reader. London: SCM Press.

LaCugna, Catherine Mowry. 1982. The Theological Methodology of Hans Kung. American Academy of Religion Academy Series 39, eds. Carl Raschke and William Gravely. Chico, CA: Scholars Press.

McGrath, Alister E. 2007. The Christian Theology Reader. 4th ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Moltmann, Jurgen. 2000. Experiences in Theology: Ways and Forms of Christian Theology. Trans. Margaret Kohl. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press.

First, what does the “Bible alone” mean? For the Bible is never alone, in that an interpretation must always be made. With regard to the general Protestant era (Luther up to the present), we have a variety of ways to interpret the Bible. Do we interpret as Luther did with differentiating between the literal and historical and the spiritual and prophetic? Or do we side with Zwingli and attempt to find a natural sense of Scripture? Or should we use modern rational approach, historical approach, sociological approach, or literary approach? Whichever way one goes, there is always an interpretation of the Bible to go along with the words of the Bible. While unlikely, if the by the “Bible alone,” interpretation of the Bible is to be included, we must then look at the next term: “religion.”

So what of this term? Is by religion meant the works of man to merit the righteousness of God? Or is it meant the structure of the Christian faith that the Protestants have built? Or is it simply the faith of Christ followers? If by “religion” is meant the faith of Christ followers, then to answer our question we still have one more term to examine: “Protestant.”

It is historically plain to see that there is no one “Protestant” faith or religion. If the mainstream Reformation wing is meant, then one can find tradition (as in the traditional method of interpretation), reason (as in the basic human faculty of thinking), and experience (as in theology interpreting our inner experience) all impact the faith of Christ followers. Only in the radical wing of the Protestant reformation do you find a total rejection of tradition.

It seems then the only way Protestants can agree with this statement is to define the Bible alone to include its interpretation, religion to simply mean the faith of Christ followers, and Protestant to mean those denominations derived from the radical wing of the Reformation. Otherwise the Bible alone is not the religion of the Protestants.