There is a recognized language of science. Empirically discoverable components are: Hypothesis, Theory, and Law. These have a inductive or deductive order that they follow to a more concrete conclusion. This process takes unassuming and objective approach to the discovery how things work in our universe. While technically science is limited to empirical discoveries, science has methods that are applicable in other disciplines that may contribute to more clarity on a matter. Theology has a likewise similar analogical tradition: Doctrine, Theology, and Law.
Just as an interpreted component of the universe is conceived as explanatory in the science fields, theological/biblical interpretation likewise moves from tentative local doctrines, to a highly scrutinized theological framework. If, and only if, the framework appears to remain in all possible scenarios, science would classify such as thing as a law — a universal truth of the physical universe. However, theology is dealing with much of a different type of experimental analytical process. Theology approaches the development of doctrines through one of several types of filters, which not every theologian agrees on.
Some theologians acknowledge Scripture alone to bear authoritative capacity on the forming of doctrinal hypotheses, however, even with an exclusively Biblical hermeneutic, several factors contribute to how doctrines are arrived at. Once doctrines are determined, they usually augment greater theological corners that have stood the test of time in theological tradition. Consider the tenants of Protestant Calvinism, Arminianism, or Catholicism. Even these clearly delineated theological corners are rooted in prior interpretive development through the careful study and prayerful consideration of theologians who have come before. Several of these theological frameworks overlap in many areas, and some lack coverage that others may hold. At the third level, theologians are, like philosophers, interested in arriving at the absolute truth. Truth has been called the correct description of reality. This is an undisputed goal of every theologian, as all acknowledge there was one things were done.
However, the nature of human reason limited the true arrival at truth. Epistemological confidence is an evasive mist. Different theological systems are the best conclusions we have in the field of theology. Furthermore, God is said by many to exist outside of our frame of reference, potentially existing in spectrums that we are unable to perceive of. Scientific methods are very limited in comprehending a being who exists outside of a physical existence, or simultaneously in physical spirituals realms. Science have been able to speculate based on the microscopic discoveries of molecules, atoms, quantum physics theories, but these are indirectly observed, since man has to use tools that were developed with the assumption that what is being observed is the correct way to observe/interact with it.
Systematic theology has a very appealing status for modernists, as it leads to conclusions that are beyond theological models of interpretation, they intend to define who God is and how He works. The difficulty with this is that the Bible reveals a story rather then a theological dissertation. God didn’t ever what man to understand the laws that He created the universe with; He wanted us to interact in loving intimate relationship well. The bible is full of stories where God is a character interacting with man. This statement is, of course, biased. There truly is no such thing as genuine objectivity, leading to a tentative conclusion that our attempts at reaching a clearly defined and exact law of the universe is not appropriate, nor really a primary goal God had intended for mankind.