The practices and reflections of systematic theology take up the canonical currents of Biblical theology, appropriating the theological voices of history. It does so with the full consciousness that dogmatic theology serves the Church as the people of God in her efforts to live and act faithfully in relation to her Creator, and Lord and Savior in the power of the Holy Spirit. Lastly, practical theology begins with the full consciousness that all the practices of the church and Christians are underwritten by theologies; biblical, historical and systematic.
The goal of practical theology is to reflect intentionally on present practices and their ingredient theologies in order to critically discern their shape and character so as to deeper faithful practices, correct those which are sinful, and discern with greater clarity how to live out biblical Christian virtues. The challenge, and temptation, of this artificial organization within theology schools and otherwise, is to think of any of the four as discreet or independent.
Scientific cosmology describes human beings as existing simultaneously in four dimensions: height, length, depth, and time, all of which are implicit and necessary for defining the being and actions of human beings. Likewise, should we think of the necessity and mutuality of the four types of theology? Philosophical responses to the logical problem of the Trinity do not divide exhaustively into social models and Latin models.
According to constitution theorists, a lump of bronze can constitute a statue without being identical to it, since we can destroy the statue by melting it down without destroying the bronze.
The sharpest criticism of relative identity accounts of the Trinity takes aim at the underlying notion that identity is kind-relative in the relevant sense. Similarly, the sharpest criticism of constitution views expresses doubts about the cogency and usefulness of the metaphysics of constitution Merricks Williams By the close of the fourth century, the early Church had agreed that God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is no less divine than God the Father.
But this Trinitarian settlement led directly to another, equally vexing question: how could Jesus of Nazareth, a human man, also be identical to God the Son?
After another period of intense debate, the Church defined the doctrine of the Incarnation, which asserts that Christ is one person or one hypostasis who exists in two natures, one fully human, the other fully divine Tanner 83; Kelly — Yet, as with the doctrine of the Trinity, on its own, this conciliar terminology does not attempt to solve the underlying philosophical problem. As Richard Cross puts it:.
Cross In other words, the fundamental philosophical problem of Christology is the problem that arises when a single subject bears incompatible properties. Christ seems to be both necessarily omniscient, as the divine Son, the second person of the Trinity, and yet also limited in knowledge, as the human man, Jesus of Nazareth—and so on for other divine and human attributes.
Yet Christ is one person, not two: he just is the divine Son and he just is Jesus of Nazareth. On standard interpretations of logical consistency, nothing can have logically incompatible properties at the same time and in the same respect—hence the problem. More simply: Christ qua human is limited in knowledge; Christ qua divine is omniscient. The thought of Thomas Aquinas furnishes a foundational source for this solution Summa Theologiae 3.
Thomas Senor forcefully argues that this grammatical solution does not work, for it cannot block the relevant entailment: since the one Christ really is human and really is divine, it follows that the one Christ is also limited in knowledge qua human and omniscient qua divine , and so the contradiction remains Senor ; see also Morris Kenotic Christologies hold that at the point of incarnation, in order to become a human being, God the Son relinquished the divine attributes Forrest ; Evans , In a way, the kenotic option neatly solves the problem of incompatible properties, since Christ is not omnipotent and omniscient etc.
Kenotic Christologies have a venerable pedigree, as well as some clear Biblical warrant Philippians 2; for discussion see Evans ; McGuckin [ ]. But if omnipotence and omniscience are essential divine attributes, then it is not possible for God the Son to relinquish them during the incarnation and regain them after the incarnation while remaining self-identical. According to Thomas V. Morris, Christ is composed of the divine mind of God the Son, a human mind, and a human body.
On his telling, Christ counts as fully divine, because he has a divine mind, which is the seat of his omnipotence and omniscience; he also counts as fully human because he has a human mind and a human body Morris Morris denies that human beings as such are essentially limited in power and knowledge etc.
This move clears the way for attributing omnipotence and omniscience etc. Richard Swinburne defends a similar Christology, but according to Swinburne, Christ is composed only of God the Son and a human body, which together constitute both a human way of thinking and acting and also a divine way of thinking and acting.
If God the Son has human parts and divine parts, then perhaps the whole mereological composite can borrow properties from its constituent parts without violating the law of non-contradiction.
Analogously, we might say that an apple is both colored and not colored, since it is red colored with respect to its skin, but white not colored with respect to its flesh. There is a sense in which the apple as a whole is both colored and not colored because it borrows properties from its parts. Perhaps something similar can be said about Christ, understood as a mereological composite of God the Son, a human body, and a human soul.
Leading advocates of this sort of view include Brian Leftow , and Eleonore Stump In fact, according to Pawl, once we correctly understand their truth conditions, we can see that they can both be true of the same subject after all. Because Christ, and only Christ so far as we know has two natures, only Christ can be both omniscient and limited in knowledge. But it is importantly different: Pawl is content to affirm the very entailments e. Beall goes a step further and argues that some predicates really are both true and false of Christ, because Christ really is a contradictory being , Beall defends a contradictory Christology because he accepts a non-standard model of logic, one on which some predicates can be neither true nor false of a subject, and other predicates can be both true and false of a subject.
According to Beall, logic as such—that is, his favored account of logic—is neutral about whether any given substantive theory contains true contradictions. When we examine the axioms of orthodox Christology, according to Beall, we find that they include authoritative conciliar statements that are most naturally read as contradictory—e. Rather than revise or reinterpret such statements so that they are not contradictory, we should accept that they are.
Arguably, the deepest and most fundamental Christian affirmation is that Christ saves. Unlike the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, however, the early Church never formally defined a single orthodox account of exactly how Christ saves or what it is about his life, death, and resurrection that accomplishes that saving work.
As a result, a variety of theories or models of atonement have proliferated throughout the centuries. Contemporary work in analytic philosophical theology typically builds on these models, reformulates them in contemporary language, and seeks to defend them from criticism. Satisfaction models argue that as a result of their sinfulness, human beings have a debt or obligation to God that they cannot possibly repay.
By becoming incarnate, living a sinless life, and voluntarily dying for the sake of humanity, Christ successfully discharges the debts and obligations that human beings owe to God. Closely related to satisfaction models, penal substitution models claim that human beings deserve punishment from God as a result of their sinfulness. Christ saves by freely agreeing to be punished in their place. Satisfaction and penal substitution theorists must explain why a perfectly merciful God would require satisfaction or punishment from human beings at all, and why a perfectly just God would allow an innocent person to play the required role Porter Accordingly, satisfaction and penal substitution views have been heavily criticized by modern and contemporary theologians for depicting God as a petty, wrathful tyrant.
More recently, feminist theologians and philosophers have criticized satisfaction and penal substitution views for valorizing suffering Brown and Parker Christ on the cross mind-reads—that is, psychically experiences—the mental states of every human sinner. Sinful human beings are thereby united to Christ, and so to God. When the indwelling Holy Spirit leads sinners to respond to Christ with love, they also will what God wills. Several other models, also prominent in the Patristic and medieval tradition, have so far received little attention from analytic philosophers of religion.
Jacobs and Mosser are important exceptions. Quinn offers a highly qualified defense, but holds that Christ is more than just a moral exemplar. The doctrine of sin and the doctrine of atonement are correlative in the same way that a disease and its remedy are correlative. If sin is that from which Christ saves us, then the strength of the remedy atonement must vary according the severity of the disease sin. As a first approximation, a sinful act can be thought of as a morally bad act for which the sinner is responsible.
Like other Christian doctrines, the doctrine of sin poses tricky philosophical problems. To see those problems more clearly, it is useful to disambiguate the doctrine of sin into several distinct components: the first sin, the Fall, original sin, and personal sin.
For extended discussion, see the entry sin in Christian thought. The problem of the first sin is the problem of how the very first sinful act is even possible, given various Christian axioms about the goodness and creative power of God, and various philosophical assumptions about the nature of freedom and moral responsibility. The problem of the first sin is sometimes treated as a question about the fall of Satan.
It turns out to be surprisingly difficult to explain how Satan—by hypothesis, an angel created by God with a rational intellect, an upright will, and wholly good desires and dispositions—could ever make the sinful choice to reject God. Contemporary philosophers who try to improve on their efforts include Barnwell , , MacDonald , Rogers , and Timpe The biblical story of Adam and Eve Genesis 3 recounts the story of the first human sin and its consequences.
The traditional story of the fall of Adam and Eve does not seem consistent with either an evolutionary account of human origins or what we know about human history more generally. On some understandings, questions about the historicity of the Fall are not properly philosophical questions at all. Yet it does seem like a properly philosophical task to articulate a doctrine of the fall that is both internally consistent and consistent with other things we know to be true.
Moreover, the doctrine of the Fall is conceptually connected to other aspects of the doctrine of sin as well as to the doctrine of salvation. Peter van Inwagen presents an account of the Fall that maintains many of its most important elements and, he claims, is consistent with evolutionary theory.
Despite initial impressions, neither van Inwagen nor Hudson are really concerned with defending quasi-literal readings of Genesis.
Instead, they want to show that objections to those readings presuppose highly contestable philosophical—rather than empirical or scientific—assumptions.
On some stronger interpretations, all subsequent human beings are also justly regarded as guilty by God from birth, even before they have sinned themselves. Even apart from worries about the historicity of the fall, the philosophical challenges posed by this doctrine are obvious. How can people living now be morally responsible for the sins of the first human beings? If it is inevitable that all human beings will sin, can God justly punish them?
Some Christian philosophers have simply rejected the stronger versions of the doctrine of original sin as incoherent. Swinburne, for instance, denies that all human beings are born guilty as a result of the sin of their first parents and argues that the condition of original sin only makes it very likely, rather than inevitable, that they will sin themselves — Other philosophers have attempted to show that even a strong doctrine of original sin can be philosophically coherent, given the right metaphysical framework.
Michael Rea, for instance, draws on fission theory and the metaphysics of temporal parts to suggest a way that contemporary humans might bear responsibility for the sin of Adam by virtue of being counterparts or stages of Adam himself John Mullen also constructs a Molinist account of original sin and inherited guilt.
On Molinism, God knows all the true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, which means that God knows every free choice that every human being would make in every possible situation. According to Mullen, if it were true that every free creature would sin in an ideal, garden of Eden situation, then God could justly punish them in the actual world for what they would have done in that counterfactual world.
Because the philosophical problems associated with personal sin initially seem very similar to the problems associated with moral wrongdoing, there has been comparatively little philosophical work on personal sin. Still, important definitional questions remain about exactly how, if at all, sin should be distinguished from moral wrongdoing, whether there are sinful actions that are not immoral actions, and, conversely, whether there are immoral actions that are not sinful Mitchell ; Dalferth ; Adams ; Couenhoven There are philosophical questions raised by nearly all Christian doctrines and practices, and so there are many fertile areas of inquiry that still remain comparatively underexplored.
This brief survey has focused on the most widely treated areas of analytic philosophical theology. As the discussion above indicates, analytic philosophical theology has been produced largely by Christian philosophers working in philosophy departments, rather than by theologians in departments of theology or divinity schools.
They emphasize that Christian analytic theology is an internal project of faith seeking understanding that, as theology, holds itself accountable to scripture and Church tradition.
Yet whether Christian analytic theology is properly regarded as a kind of philosophy or a kind of theology depends on how we draw the underlying distinction between philosophy and theology—if indeed we draw such a distinction at all.
It might seem odd that analytic philosophy of religion APR includes explicitly Christian philosophical theology of the sort discussed in Section 2. There are philosophers of religion whose work is analytic but not Christian e. These debates can be grouped around two different—and opposing—lines of criticism. According to the first line, much APR is too Christian and too theological: not really philosophy at all, but a thinly-disguised form of Christian theology—perhaps even a form of apologetics Levine ; Knepper 9; Draper 2.
Conversely, according to the second line, advanced by prominent theologians, APR is neither fully Christian nor fully theological. Although mutually opposing, both lines of criticism raise an important methodological question: how—if at all—should we distinguish philosophy about Christian topics from Christian theology? Section 1 above surveyed important responses to this question in the history of Christian thought.
Our theology does not come from the fertile imaginations of religious zealots or from some ecclesiastical hierarchy. Fundamental to our faith is the understanding that God is a God of revelation and it is in scripture that He has revealed Himself to humanity. As we studied last week there are two types of revelation, general revelation, where the evidence of God is clearly observed in nature; and special revelation, which is scripture, God's chosen method of self disclosure to humanity.
This is an important truth about which each Christian should be clear. If we are not clear about where we get our knowledge of God, then whatever knowledge we have of Him will be suspect. The scripture is the only certain word we have about God and it tells us that we are made in His image. This is important because when many people think about God they try to think of Him in human terms, or anthropomorphically. They try to think of Him in sentimental ways or understand Him through the lens of their personal experience, always trying to envision Him within the confines of how they would understand another human.
But instead of understanding God within the confines of human personhood, we need to recognize that we are a finite and fallen replica of His infinite divine and perfect person.
We are created in His image, He is the creator, we are the creature and all we can ever know about God is what He has chosen to disclose to us in Scripture. What then does God reveal to us about Himself in Scripture? Obviously, as we have stated, time will not permit us to cover this topic exhaustively so, for the sake of our study, allow me to say several things that God tells us about Himself in scripture.
The scripture is clear, there is only one true and living God. Isaiah says, "I am the Lord, there is no other; there is no God but Me. Polytheism believes in many God's.
Pantheism believes that god is in everything and that everything is God. Atheism says there is no God, but Biblical Theism says there is only one God and there is no other god beside Him. He is unique. The Bible tells us that He is a person; which says He is intelligent, knowable and has a personal will.
Now before we go any further we need to stop for a moment and consider that while there is only one God, He reveals Himself to us as a triune God, that is, one God in three persons.
This doctrine of the Trinity is central to a biblical understanding of Who God is. Although the term Trinity is not used in scripture, neither is the term rapture. These are simply terms the Church has assigned to speak about things the Bible asserts as being true.
The Doctrine of the Trinity asserts that God is one in being or essence who exists eternally in three distinct coequal persons. We find scriptural references to the triune nature of God both in the Old and the New Testaments. In Genesis God says, "Since man has become like one of Us Who will go for Us? The scripture is filled with this type of teaching and since our theology is a Biblical theology, that is we interpret each verse in light of every verse, we see this element of God's self revelation throughout the bible.
So important to God's self revelation and our understanding of God is this doctrine that throughout history Christians have staked their very lives upon this truth. Those who deny this truth cannot truly be called Christians. It is the doctrine Jesus taught and believed and it is the doctrine set forth by a systematic study of scripture.
It is how God reveals Himself to us, thus we must accept it. And yet it is one of the most enigmatic or perplexing doctrines in all of scripture. Admittedly, it is difficult for us to comprehend. And even though theologians have offered numerous analogies to try and help us understand it, they all ultimately break down.
Mullins, a great Southern Baptist theologian, put it this way, "The Bible does not explain the Trinity. It simply gives us the facts God is revealed to us as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. These have personal qualities. Yet God is one. This is the New Testament teaching.
Beyond this we tend towards speculation. I might add that we are most likely to err when we try to fill in the spaces scripture has left blank. We would do well to accept it at face value, even though we cannot fully explain it. That is, He is omnipotent, or all powerful and able to do all His holy will. He tells us in Jeremiah that there is nothing too hard for Him. God's sovereignty speaks to His rule or reign over all things.
It would not be fair to say that God can do anything because His sovereignty is consistent with His holiness and all His other attributes, thus God cannot lie, He cannot sin, He cannot deny Himself or be tempted with evil or cease to exist. Simply put, God's sovereignty means that God is able to bring His will to pass whatsoever He wills.
While God's freedom speaks to the fact that there are no external constraints on His decisions, His sovereignty speaks to the fact that by His own power He can do whatever He pleases. Psalm tells us that God does whatever He pleases. Isaiah tells us of the angels around the throne, "And one cried unto another and said, Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of Hosts; His glory fills the whole earth. But when the scripture uses the word Holy to describe God, it is speaking not only of His righteousness and perfection, but of the reality that He is separate and different from us.
This word speaks to His transcendence, or the fact that He is infinitely exalted above all of creation. That is, He is eternal. He has neither beginning nor end; He has always been and will always be. Time and space to not limit God as they limit us. God is not subject to the special laws of time and space which confine us. He is timeless. In language which our finite minds find hard to grasp He tells us in 2 Peter that "With the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day.
Truly it is incomprehensible to us. As limited, finite beings, who ourselves are confined by time and space, it is difficult for us to even conceive of this aspect of God but scripture tells us He is eternal. That is, there is no place He is not. He is everywhere at all times. Psalm tells us that there is no place where we can escape the presence of God. Furthermore, He is in no way diminished by His being in all places at all times. Hanson A comprehensive look at the doctrine of God in the early church, examing extant sources from Nicea to Constantinople.
Summary: The fatherhood of God has had a central, if increasingly controversial, place in Christian thinking about God. Yet although Christians referred to God as Father from the earliest days of the faith, it was not until Athanasius in the fourth century that the idea of God as Father became a topic of sustained analysis. Looking at the genesis of Athanasius' understanding of divine fatherhood against the background of Alexandrian tradition, Widdicombe demonstrates how the concept came to occupy such a prominent place in Christian theology.
ISBN: Moving from the Paleolithic age to the present, Karen Armstrong details the great lengths to which humankind has gone in order to experience a sacred reality.
While noting that the changing face of the world has necessarily changed the importance of religion at both the societal and the individual level, she makes a powerful, convincing argument for drawing on the insights of the past in order to build a faith that speaks to the needs of our dangerously polarized age.
Sample subject searches God--Attributes. God more Look through the pages to see the various aspects attributed to God.
0コメント