Richard Howe wrote an article defending the idea that theology needs philosophy. Here is the link: http://richardghowe.com/index_htm_fi...idISCA2016.pdf
Here is the thesis of the paper:
One example Howe gives for theology needing philosophy has to do with "adjudicating literal descriptions of God from figures of speech." According to Howe, The Dake Annotated Reference Bible has study notes that say that God has a literal body with literal body parts. This body and these body parts are not physical; they are spiritual. Howe argues that we need philosophy in order to discern what should be understood literally and what should be understood figuratively.
Here is an article by Paul Gould that discusses the same topic: http://www.paul-gould.com/2016/04/20...-a-case-study/
Here are some quotes from Gould's article:
What do you think about all of this?
Here is the thesis of the paper:
My aim in this paper is to argue that there is a very real sense in which sound philosophy is also necessary for sound Christian thinking. In other words, I contend that the task for the Christian vis-à-vis philosophy is not only a negative one (being aware of and avoiding unsound philosophy with its erroneous theological implications), but also a positive one (advancing sound philosophical arguments as a prerequisite to sound theology). It is not only the case that there are elements of philosophy to be avoided for Christian theology (using the phrase 'Christian theology' here as a synecdoche for 'Christian thinking'), but that there are also elements of sound philosophy that are essential for Christian thinking.
Here is an article by Paul Gould that discusses the same topic: http://www.paul-gould.com/2016/04/20...-a-case-study/
Here are some quotes from Gould's article:
Lesson #1: Philosophy can bring clarity and coherence to biblical theology. Carson’s use of a term that has a standard usage in philosophy contributes to confusion in theology. There needs to be a two-way conversation between theology and philosophy. As the early Church Fathers put it, theology is the queen of the science and philosophy is the handmaiden (the servant). Carson would benefit from allowing the handmaiden to help!
Lesson #2: Often, the biblical texts are underdetermined with respect to a position, and it is left to philosophy to fill out the details. Even as divine sovereignty and human responsibility are demanded by Scripture, the exact nature of each of these doctrines is underdetermined by Scripture and it is left to the philosophical theologian to press on for more clarity and precision. This is why we have Calvinists, Molinists, Thomists, Arminians, Open Theists, and more. As McCall nicely summarizes, the biblical theologian helps us with “narrative coherence” and the philosophical theologian can assist with “logical coherence.”
Lesson #3: Some theological claims are demanded by Scripture (e.g., divine sovereignty and human responsibility), others are consistent with Scripture (compatibilist and incompatibilist views of freedom, divine atemporality and divine temporality) and some are inconsistent with Scripture (e.g., Arianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, etc).Consistency with Scripture is the minimum “revelational control”[8] that should guide the philosophical theologian. We first ask, what is Scripture’s clear teaching on the matter, and then push forward using the tools of analytic philosophy. The goal of this “faith seeking understanding” approach to theology is clarity, precision, and ultimately truth. With respect to the doctrine of God, it will also lead to an expanded view of God’s greatness, a renewed sense of awe, and worship.
Lesson #2: Often, the biblical texts are underdetermined with respect to a position, and it is left to philosophy to fill out the details. Even as divine sovereignty and human responsibility are demanded by Scripture, the exact nature of each of these doctrines is underdetermined by Scripture and it is left to the philosophical theologian to press on for more clarity and precision. This is why we have Calvinists, Molinists, Thomists, Arminians, Open Theists, and more. As McCall nicely summarizes, the biblical theologian helps us with “narrative coherence” and the philosophical theologian can assist with “logical coherence.”
Lesson #3: Some theological claims are demanded by Scripture (e.g., divine sovereignty and human responsibility), others are consistent with Scripture (compatibilist and incompatibilist views of freedom, divine atemporality and divine temporality) and some are inconsistent with Scripture (e.g., Arianism, Gnosticism, Pelagianism, etc).Consistency with Scripture is the minimum “revelational control”[8] that should guide the philosophical theologian. We first ask, what is Scripture’s clear teaching on the matter, and then push forward using the tools of analytic philosophy. The goal of this “faith seeking understanding” approach to theology is clarity, precision, and ultimately truth. With respect to the doctrine of God, it will also lead to an expanded view of God’s greatness, a renewed sense of awe, and worship.
Comment