Philosophy and Theology - II
Summary
This section seeks to address the question: What is the proper scientific study of theology?
introduction 132-3
God’s revelation in his Word is the source of theological knowledge – it functions as a central starting point.
Theology does not give us a philosophical total view of the relationship between the different modal aspects and so it must be a special science. The proper scientific object of theology is one modal aspect – the aspect of faith.
misunderstandings 133-7
Many object to faith being made into a modal aspect. But this objection comes from confusing the word-revelation and the scientific character of theology.
To elevate dogmatic theology into a mediator between God’s word and the believer is idolatrous. Salvation does not depend upon theological dogmatics.
Creation, fall and redemption can never become the scientific object of study – rather it is the supra-theological starting point, the key to the knowledge of God and ourselves. This Word-revelation manifests itself in the modal aspects.
faith aspect 137-9
Sin cannot destroy the structure of creation, but it can give it a false direction. The modal aspect of faith is affected in this way – Christian faith, apostatic faith and unbelief function with the modal aspect of faith.
The faith-aspect is not the real act of believing, this comes out of the heart, but qualified by the faith-aspect, it is also present in all other aspects.
The faith-aspect’s modal kernel is the ultimate mode of certitude with the temporal order.
God’s revelation, which is displayed through the diverse aspects of the temporal order, finds its centre in the human heart. It is through the faith-aspect it is related to this religious centre.
If the human heart is open to the Word of God, humanity is capable of understanding God’s phaneros (Rom 1:19) by this innate function of God. But if the heart is closed the faith-aspect becomes closed. The Holy Spirit regenerates the heart, so that the faith-aspect can become open to the Word of God – thus changing its direction.
scholastic groundmotive 139-141
Barth’s view that Christian faith results form a new creative act of God and the Roman Catholic (RC) view that faith is a supra-natural gift of God are both influenced by scholastic basic motives.
The scholastic basic motive has no place for heart as the religious centre and radical unity of human existence. It results in reason becoming the centre of human nature; and does not accept the radical character of the fall into sin.
If human nature does not have a religious centre, how can it be affected by sin? RC doctrine denies the inner conception of human nature. It is this that caused the problem of the relation between theology and philosophy – the distinction between saving theology and profane (or secular) sciences comes from this distinction.
new theology and Barth 141-3
A number of new theology RCs have started to oppose this dualistic view. However, Barthian theology is still permeated by dualism; and yet Barth claims for theology a radically biblical character. barth replaced a dualism of nature/ grace with a view of no contact between nature and grace. Philosophy was the product of sinful natural thought – among the sciences only theology was supposed to be capable of being permeated by Word –revelation.
If Barth is consistent then he must also reject a Christian theology if he rejects a Christian philosophy.
Bath’s dualistic motive of nature and grace led him astray and he supposed that God’s Word was bound to a ‘theological space’.
Word of God and Word-revelation 143-6
Dooyeweerd now turns to examine the significance of the distinction between the Word of God in its actual reality and as the object of theoretical thought.
The Word of God presents itself to us in its full and actual reality through our temporal horizon. The Word came to dwell among us in the incarnation of Jesus. The Word-revelation was also incarnated in the Bible. It is through the modal aspect of faith that we can experience the fat that the scriptures have been inspired by the Holy Spirit. In this central spiritual sense this cannot be the theoretical object of theological thought; rather it is the starting point for theology.
However dogmatic theology can engage in a theoretical reflection of creation, fall and redemption and one can do so from a non-biblical starting point. There is then a difference between creation, fall and redemption as an article of faith which may be the object of theoretical thought and creation, fall and redemption in the central sense as the key to knowledge, which cannot be made into a theological problem. The true knowledge of God, and thus true self-knowledge, are not of a dogmatic-theoretical or of a philosophical nature.
Issues such as the union of the two natures in Christ or the significance of the image of God before and after the fall only arise in the theoretical opposition of the logical and faith aspects of thought. They are theological problems and do not concern the religious centre of our existence.
A view that makes God’s Word dependent upon a theological dogmatics and exegesis is unbiblical.
the radical starting point pp 147-56
The radical starting point, this radical critique of theoretical thought applies both to philosophy and theology. Theoretical thought and its presuppositions are related to the ‘central religious sphere of human consciousnesses; this means that the autonomy of thought is untenable.
Once the confusion between the between the ‘central starting-point’ and the ‘theoretical object’ of theology has been overcome, it is obvious that theology is bound to philosophical fundamentals that are dependent on the ‘religious motive of theoretical thought’.
Dooyeweerd goes on to look briefly at the analogical structure of the faith-aspect and how this throws light upon the six days of creation and Occam’s concept of God’s omnipotence.
William of Occam (or Ockham) (1280-1349)
A Franciscan and a nominalist; famous for his razor!
Theology needs a philosophical foundation. Philosophy can provide the theoretical insight into the inner structure and mutual coherence of the different modal aspects. The question is, will the philosophy be subject to a biblical or non-biblical religious basic motive. Philosophical views cannot be rendered harmless by theological or ecclesiastical accommodation – such as Thomism tried with Aristotelianism.
Theologians who deny the possibility of a ‘biblically-founded philosophy’ inevitably take their philosophical presuppositions from ‘autonomous’ philosophy. This has the consequence of inadvertently importing non-biblical concepts into theology. One philosophy cannot be more biblical than another – the biblical position is accepted or not. This does not mean that there are elements of truth in these philosophies, but the total view which they present is ruled by religious basic motives that are not biblical.
We could (over) simplify Dooyeweerd’s conception as follows:
religion -> philosophy -> theology
Review questions
1. How have the misunderstandings Dooyeweerd describes occurred?
2. How is the faith-aspect related to the heart?
3. What role does the Holy Spirit play?
4. Why was Barth so opposed to a Christian philosophy?
5. What does Dooyeweerd mean by ‘central starting-point’, ‘religious motive of theoretical thought?
6. What is meant by ‘the analogical structure of the faith-aspect’.
7. How does Dooyeweerd understand the ‘days of creation’?
Study questions
1. What is the proper scientific study of theology?
2. What is the relationship between faith and theology?
3. Is natural reason a deaf, blind and dumb harlot?
4. Does theology need a philosophical foundation?
5. What other theological pseudo-problems arise when the ‘analogical basic theoretical concepts are used in a non-theological sense?
