Philosophical Theology or Theological Philosophy?
Depending upon our particular loves or passions, some of us might answer the above question rather vehemently. Others may call it a poorly worded question - after all, it is often argued, is there really that much of a distinction? Aren't theological questions philosophic ones? Aren't one's views on theology shaped by cultural philosophy?
These are valid questions, and if anyone desires to go into them, we can.
For now, however, given the audience, I'll begin with the premise that philosophy and theology are in fact distinct (while not necessarily entirely seperate) by virtue of Scripture. That is, in one such discipline we have Scripture as the foundation and rule, while in the other, it may not be necessary. It is only if we dismiss Scriptural authority that we lose this distinction (some, on either side of the discussion, would say that it is at a finer point: inerrancy; for the purposes of discussion authority will be fine enough). Thus, I'd find myself terming quite a bit of "theology" as theistic philosophy, in that it may line up with a bare theism (which is contended to be a foundational Christianity) and yet does not appeal to Scripture as its foundation and rule.
This distinction between philosophy and theology becomes more apparent in the children of the two disciplines - philosophical theology and theological philosophy. Come up with your own examples - where do Open Theism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Van Tillianism, Reformed Epistemology, Critical Realism (etc) fit in? Chances are we'd all give different answers based upon which label appeals more to us. Some Open Theists, for example, have contended that Open Theism is primarily philosophical and secondarily theological. Others, in response to arguments complaining about that precisely, have countered that Open Theism is actually primarily theological and only secondarily philosophical. One sounds more academic to some, and to others, one sounds more...well, godly. And so our labels limit our willingness to consider alternative philosophies or theologies (or some mixture of the two).
Thus, any answer to the above question (should we do philosophical theology [PT] or theological philosophy [TP]?) must be in at least two parts:
1. PT or TP?
2. What is the method that makes one's ideology PT as compared to TP or vice versa?
Those who know me well can guess which side of the fence I'd like to say I fall on.
After all, Adam loves all things theological. It's true - I'm more willing to consider something that is described as theological than philosophical. My attention has turned further and further away from reading and critiquing modern philosophers and more to intensely theological issues (Auburn Avenue theology, or Hoover vs. Wallace on harpagmos, for example). This doesn't mean that my love for philosophy has dwindled at all; it is simply that I deal with philosophic issues as subject to theological ones. In other words, for me, theology is primary and philosophy is derivative.
Take epistemology, for example. As a Van Tillian, my critiques of any variety of unbelieving epistemologies are very similar - I engage in discussion against them through indirect methods aimed at revealing that the proponents of any given unbelieving epistemology require YHWH and His grace even in order to posit their errors.
I believe that I hold to Van Tillian epistemology for Scriptural reasons. Any epistemic discussion with fellow believers is different than my uniform response to every other epistemology out there, because we both have the mind of Christ and we are seeking to better understand our Lord and His Word. When discussing epistemology with another Christian, I am concerned primarily with Scripture and what It says pertaining to epistemology - it is only after this that I am ready to deal with the issue more abstractly. Some others that I admire disagree with me very strongly on this point, though they would perhaps word it differently than I - perhaps as though we deal with epistemology as corresponding to what we know about reality or logic (these being our limiting principles rather than Scripture) while still acting within a bare theism.
I use the word "bare" here to capture the idea of God the unmoved mover as compared to YHWH the Covenant Lord - while the Christian who advocates PT may consider these to be the same thing, he may nuance it as the former. This nuancing, seen everywhere in the direct arguments for the existance of God, allows the PT'er to remain a Christian as a specific type of theist. Eventually, the PT'er will take his theistic epistemology and combine it with his Christianity.
In contrast, the Van Tillian argues immediately for the existance of YHWH - by rule of existance, there is no true bare theistic reality. God exists, and He is YHWH. Thus, this type of TP'er is more concerned with what YHWH has specially revealed about epistemology, and will intend to begin with this before moving on.
That said, I'd identify myself as a proponent of theological philosophy, and not of philosophic theology.
"But wait!" Some may say. "What about those initial questions? What about the influence of philosophy on the writing of Scripture, for example? In knowing the Greek understanding of logos, don't you come philosophically to understand the theology of John 1?"
This is a very good question. In order to do my best to answer it, I must draw a parallel with regards to language. Even in our growth in understanding of linguistics (say, in affirming Biblical propositions over a culture specific wording of those propositions [which can be seen in the Greek text vs. textus receptus debate]), we are using language to change our understanding of language. We take Scripture's propositions in primarily through hearing and reading, and yet Scripture informs our understanding of hearing and reading through its testimony about Itself and about the Gospel and our duty to share it through language with others.
In the same way, we think philosophically in order to think theologically, and yet in turn our theology is able to shape our philosophy. I began at the age of four to memorize Bible verses (at that point, I believed that getting the syllables down was more important than the meaning of the verses). Even then, I learned these verses not with a mind empty of basic philosophic questions (good and bad, pleasant and unpleasant), but with a particular view in place. I was told that the Bible was always right, and so even at that age, I'd struggle with things that I didn't think were right. Eventually, my understanding changed. My philosophy changed. I go through the same thing today. This is what happens when an objective reality (YHWH) who is primary impresses Himself upon a derivative (me).
1 Cor 2:16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
But how should this change come about? I have answered, or at least started to answer, part one of the requirement - it is time for part two.
2. What is the method that makes one's ideology PT as compared to TP or vice versa?
The steps that I believe seperate my view of TP from PT are as follows:
1. Exegesis
2. Biblical Theology
3. Systematic Theology
Exegesis is first. In regards to the example of epistemology, I reccommend the exegesis of 1 Cor 2:6-16 by Richard B. Gaffin in the Westminster Theological Journal, Spring '95. If you promise to read it quickly and treat it nice, you can borrow mine. :) Then comes Biblical Theology, the tracing of exegeted themes throughout individual books and the canon. Following this, I refer to Systematics.
"Wait again!" Someone else may say. "How did you arrive at that method? Philosophically or theologically?"
From the exegesis of Scripture concerning the nature of revelation (especially progressive revelation), I quickly have steps one and two. Systematic theology, for me, is a summation of what steps one and two produce rather than a safeguard. These are the steps that I intend to apply to all issues of thought. Even if Scripture is silent on a direct behavior or idea, it may not be on a general principle that would direct said behavior (example - how often I read fantasy novels as subject to a theology of leisure). Some issues, I believe, are even more directly handled (such as the main questions of philosophy - metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics).
This is, of course, very bare and not intended to be polemical in any sense - hopefully, after reading this far, you're stimulated to reflection and response.
These are valid questions, and if anyone desires to go into them, we can.
For now, however, given the audience, I'll begin with the premise that philosophy and theology are in fact distinct (while not necessarily entirely seperate) by virtue of Scripture. That is, in one such discipline we have Scripture as the foundation and rule, while in the other, it may not be necessary. It is only if we dismiss Scriptural authority that we lose this distinction (some, on either side of the discussion, would say that it is at a finer point: inerrancy; for the purposes of discussion authority will be fine enough). Thus, I'd find myself terming quite a bit of "theology" as theistic philosophy, in that it may line up with a bare theism (which is contended to be a foundational Christianity) and yet does not appeal to Scripture as its foundation and rule.
This distinction between philosophy and theology becomes more apparent in the children of the two disciplines - philosophical theology and theological philosophy. Come up with your own examples - where do Open Theism, Calvinism, Arminianism, Van Tillianism, Reformed Epistemology, Critical Realism (etc) fit in? Chances are we'd all give different answers based upon which label appeals more to us. Some Open Theists, for example, have contended that Open Theism is primarily philosophical and secondarily theological. Others, in response to arguments complaining about that precisely, have countered that Open Theism is actually primarily theological and only secondarily philosophical. One sounds more academic to some, and to others, one sounds more...well, godly. And so our labels limit our willingness to consider alternative philosophies or theologies (or some mixture of the two).
Thus, any answer to the above question (should we do philosophical theology [PT] or theological philosophy [TP]?) must be in at least two parts:
1. PT or TP?
2. What is the method that makes one's ideology PT as compared to TP or vice versa?
Those who know me well can guess which side of the fence I'd like to say I fall on.
After all, Adam loves all things theological. It's true - I'm more willing to consider something that is described as theological than philosophical. My attention has turned further and further away from reading and critiquing modern philosophers and more to intensely theological issues (Auburn Avenue theology, or Hoover vs. Wallace on harpagmos, for example). This doesn't mean that my love for philosophy has dwindled at all; it is simply that I deal with philosophic issues as subject to theological ones. In other words, for me, theology is primary and philosophy is derivative.
Take epistemology, for example. As a Van Tillian, my critiques of any variety of unbelieving epistemologies are very similar - I engage in discussion against them through indirect methods aimed at revealing that the proponents of any given unbelieving epistemology require YHWH and His grace even in order to posit their errors.
I believe that I hold to Van Tillian epistemology for Scriptural reasons. Any epistemic discussion with fellow believers is different than my uniform response to every other epistemology out there, because we both have the mind of Christ and we are seeking to better understand our Lord and His Word. When discussing epistemology with another Christian, I am concerned primarily with Scripture and what It says pertaining to epistemology - it is only after this that I am ready to deal with the issue more abstractly. Some others that I admire disagree with me very strongly on this point, though they would perhaps word it differently than I - perhaps as though we deal with epistemology as corresponding to what we know about reality or logic (these being our limiting principles rather than Scripture) while still acting within a bare theism.
I use the word "bare" here to capture the idea of God the unmoved mover as compared to YHWH the Covenant Lord - while the Christian who advocates PT may consider these to be the same thing, he may nuance it as the former. This nuancing, seen everywhere in the direct arguments for the existance of God, allows the PT'er to remain a Christian as a specific type of theist. Eventually, the PT'er will take his theistic epistemology and combine it with his Christianity.
In contrast, the Van Tillian argues immediately for the existance of YHWH - by rule of existance, there is no true bare theistic reality. God exists, and He is YHWH. Thus, this type of TP'er is more concerned with what YHWH has specially revealed about epistemology, and will intend to begin with this before moving on.
That said, I'd identify myself as a proponent of theological philosophy, and not of philosophic theology.
"But wait!" Some may say. "What about those initial questions? What about the influence of philosophy on the writing of Scripture, for example? In knowing the Greek understanding of logos, don't you come philosophically to understand the theology of John 1?"
This is a very good question. In order to do my best to answer it, I must draw a parallel with regards to language. Even in our growth in understanding of linguistics (say, in affirming Biblical propositions over a culture specific wording of those propositions [which can be seen in the Greek text vs. textus receptus debate]), we are using language to change our understanding of language. We take Scripture's propositions in primarily through hearing and reading, and yet Scripture informs our understanding of hearing and reading through its testimony about Itself and about the Gospel and our duty to share it through language with others.
In the same way, we think philosophically in order to think theologically, and yet in turn our theology is able to shape our philosophy. I began at the age of four to memorize Bible verses (at that point, I believed that getting the syllables down was more important than the meaning of the verses). Even then, I learned these verses not with a mind empty of basic philosophic questions (good and bad, pleasant and unpleasant), but with a particular view in place. I was told that the Bible was always right, and so even at that age, I'd struggle with things that I didn't think were right. Eventually, my understanding changed. My philosophy changed. I go through the same thing today. This is what happens when an objective reality (YHWH) who is primary impresses Himself upon a derivative (me).
1 Cor 2:16 “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
But how should this change come about? I have answered, or at least started to answer, part one of the requirement - it is time for part two.
2. What is the method that makes one's ideology PT as compared to TP or vice versa?
The steps that I believe seperate my view of TP from PT are as follows:
1. Exegesis
2. Biblical Theology
3. Systematic Theology
Exegesis is first. In regards to the example of epistemology, I reccommend the exegesis of 1 Cor 2:6-16 by Richard B. Gaffin in the Westminster Theological Journal, Spring '95. If you promise to read it quickly and treat it nice, you can borrow mine. :) Then comes Biblical Theology, the tracing of exegeted themes throughout individual books and the canon. Following this, I refer to Systematics.
"Wait again!" Someone else may say. "How did you arrive at that method? Philosophically or theologically?"
From the exegesis of Scripture concerning the nature of revelation (especially progressive revelation), I quickly have steps one and two. Systematic theology, for me, is a summation of what steps one and two produce rather than a safeguard. These are the steps that I intend to apply to all issues of thought. Even if Scripture is silent on a direct behavior or idea, it may not be on a general principle that would direct said behavior (example - how often I read fantasy novels as subject to a theology of leisure). Some issues, I believe, are even more directly handled (such as the main questions of philosophy - metaphysics, logic, epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics).
This is, of course, very bare and not intended to be polemical in any sense - hopefully, after reading this far, you're stimulated to reflection and response.
posted by Adam Fites at 1:52 AM
0 comments
