Philosophy and Theology - III
Summary
In his third and final lecture on philosophy and theology Dooyeweerd shows the influence of Greek philosophy through Thomism on theology.
introduction pp 157
The Word-revelation and the Christian life of faith are not theoretical in character – they do not need a philosophical foundation. However, dogmatic theology has a scientific character and is thus tied to the theoretical aspect of thought. It is faced with the problem of the relationship between it and the other sciences.
For theology the question is whether its philosophical foundation is Christian philosophy ruled by a biblical motive or whether it is scholastic or humanist philosophy.
scholastic influences pp 158-162
The influence of scholastic philosophy is the more dangerous, primarily because theologians did not recognise its anti-biblical presuppositions.
Philip Melanchthon (1497-1560)
Beza
Melanchton and Beza unwittingly allowed a un-biblical nature-grace motive to have increasing influence of Protestant theology and philosophy.
Reason was taken over by theology with its supra-natural source of knowledge. This was a return to Aristotelian Scholasticism. An attack on Aristotelian metaphysics was seen as an attack on the scholastic trend in reformed theology. The influence of Thomistic–Aristotelianiam was even seen in the formation of the Westminster confession – such an attack was thus seen as a deviation from church doctrine.
Thomism was supposed to provide philosophical and theological truth. Philosophy was proven by reason alone; theology was supported by Scripture, which corroborated reason. A philosophical anthropology – which was incompatible with creation, fall and redemption – was attributed to the Scriptures.
In Roman Catholicism a dispute between philosophy and theology could be resolved by the authority of the church. The Reformation had rejected that authority – so the only source for help was the government. This was seen in the seventeenth century in the Netherlands when the state had to intervene in the disputes between the Cartesians who held that body and soul are accidentally united in human nature. The theologians under the influence of the Thomsitic-Aristotelian view maintained a substantial unity between the body and the soul. In 1656 was issued a resolution which supported the theologians over the philosophers.
the nature-grace motive pp162-172
It wasn’t until the twelfth century that the nature-grace motive entered Christian thought. It was a compromise between Aristotelian and Christian views.
The Aristotelian view was ruled by a Greek form-matter motive.
The form-matter motive arose out of the older nature religions and the younger cultural religions – a conflict between Dionysian and Apollyianian spirits.
Its dualistic character drove Greek philosophical thought into two opposed directions. No synthesis was possible between the two.
Humanity had a double origin – a rational soul, corresponding to the perfect form and harmony of the starry heavens and a material body from the dark imperfect sphere of mother earth. The mind is imprisoned in its material body. It can only escape through leading an ascetic life, so that it may return purified from its body to its home in the sphere of form, measure and harmony.
For Aristotle the rational soul was thought of as the substantial form of the perishable body.
This Aristotelian view is predominant in Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas accepted the dualistic view of humanity. However, this ‘scholastic accommodation’ resulted in ‘insoluble contradictions’.
Review questions
1. Why does theology but not Word-revelation have a philosophical foundation?
2. What were the problems that the 1656 resolution highlighted?
3. What are the dualisms that emerge from the form-matter motive?
4. What are the main differences between the Dionysian and Apollyianian spirits?
5. What are the ‘insoluble contradictions’ that arose from the ‘scholastic accommodation’?
Study questions
1. In what ways can Scholasticism be seen in the Westminster Confession?
2. What other influences of Greek philosophy can be seen in theology?
3. What other contradictions does the scholastic accommodation produce?
