Where does theology come from? Many would say that it comes from the Bible. However, the Bible is not a theological work— it is a work of revelation. Theology is first interpreted (Hermeneutics), and this should be done based on what it says in the context of it being originally said (Grammatical-Historical Exegesis).

But theology does not simply draw on this branch of knowledge (drawing from special revelation). It also must account for general revelation. This includes the created world, which is interpreted through the scientific method, and the past, which is interpreted in history utilizing the logico-historical method.

Interpretation of data (Biblical hermeneutics, History, and Science) is not the same as the data itself. History is not the past, but the interpretation of the past. Science is not the real world, but its interpretation. Biblical interpretation is not the same as the Bible.

Theology needs to reconcile all of these. If the created world is a clear (even inerrant in a sense) revelation of God, and if the same essentially is true of the Bible and the past, then they are not only reconcilable, they are inherently reconciled. But the same is not necessarily true of their interpretations.

For example, if we believe that the Bible is in agreement with the created world, it does not boil down to figuring out whether the Bible is wrong or if “Science” is. If the Bible is inherently reconciled to the created world, then the concern is whether one side (or both sides) is mistaken in the interpretation.

Good theology lives in dialogue with Biblical interpretation, Science, and History. Bad theology happens when it presumes one interpreter (or type of interpreter) cannot make any mistake.

I was raised with an oft-repeated pattern built on the assumption that Science was at war with the Bible. And while there has been a pattern in the last couple of hundred years of Science being linked to a naturalistic worldview, that is a presumption in interpretation, not a prerequisite for the scientific method. Scientists, Historians, and Biblical Interpreters need to be open to the possibility of being mistaken in their understanding of their data. If feel as if Historians are the quickest to recognize their errors.

I could be wrong.