In the Twilight of Western Thought

Summary

introduction pp 113-114

As Dooyeweerd’s philosophy claims to have a radical Christian starting point he has to address the relationship between philosophy and theology. He sharply distinguishes between Christian philosophy and theology.

This view has had not had much success in Christian circles, largely as a result of the Greek idea that theology can be philosophical in character.

Parmenides (b. 510 BCE.)

http://www.biografiasyvidas.com/biografia/p/fotos/parmenides.jpg

Plato (427-347 BCE)

http://www.nd.edu/~tbays/images/plato.jpeg

Aristotle (384-322BCE)

http://www.omegafdn.org/aristotle%20alive.jpg

church fathers pp 14-116

The church Fathers maintained that theology has it own principle of knowledge: Word-revelation. Thus Christian theology has a certainty of knowledge that pagan philosophy lacks. Christian philosophy is a supreme science – it is the true Christian philosophy.

Augustine rejects the idea of philosophical thought being autonomous. However, his view of theology is ambiguous. He uses it to refer to the true knowledge of God and ourselves as well as to the doctrine of the church – in sense theology cannot have a scientific meaning. Christian theology is bound to human thought and cannot be infallible.

Augustine (354-430)

http://utopia.utexas.edu/project/portraits/augustine.jpg

Greek thought led Augustine to confuse theoretical Christian theology with the true knowledge of God and self. This view of theology as the queen of the sciences was Aristotelian in origin. Theology became Christian philosophy.

aquinas’ view pp 116-118

Aquinas in his Summa theological maintains that sacred doctrine is necessary ad humanam salutem and is a science.

Theology for Aquinas is higher than philosophy as theology’s knowledge is supernatural. Theology is no longer Christian philosophy.

Philosophy (and natural theology) is an autonomous science – it is based on reason alone. For Aquinas theology is identified with scripture and the doctrine of the Church.

Aquinas (c.1225/7 – 1274)

http://www.student.liu.se/~bjoch509/works/aquinas/aquinas.jpg

ad humanam salutem = to human health
Deum et animamscire = God and soul
regina scientiarium = queen of the sciences
sacra scriptura = holy scripture
imagao dei= image of God

barth’s view pp 119-

For Barth Christian philosophy is a contradiction in terms as philosophy comes from human thought corrupted by sin.

Karl Barth (1886-1968)

http://www.uni-bonn.de/Aktuelles/Presseinformationen/2004/502/bilder/barth_k.jpg

Barth, like Augustine, also uses theology in an ambiguous way: true knowledge of God in Jesus and the science of truths revealed in the scriptures.

Dooyeweerd stresses the importance of avoiding any ambiguity in the meaning of theology.

The knowledge of God can only be acquired by the operation of God’s Word and his Holy Spirit in the heart of a human – it surpasses theoretical thought.

This theoretical thought is always related to the ‘I’, the human self.

modal aspects pp 121-

Dooyeweerd then goes onto identify the different modal aspects.

The law of God has its unity in the love command, which is addressed to the human heart – the religious centre of human life.

When humanity closed their hearts and turned away from the word of God and attempted to become like gods, the whole of the earth was cursed.

In Christ humanity and the whole temporal order can be redeemed.

This Word-revelation is behind the scientific problem of theology and philosophy. It cannot become the theoretical object of theology.

Theological and philosophical theoretical thought are within the bound of modal aspects.

The different modal aspects give rise to special sciences, which in turn raise fundamental questions. For example, what is number? What is space? What is extensive movement? These questions are philosophical in character. The sciences do not make modal aspects the object of research.

When a biologist examines water she only investigates it biological function – she does not take into account other modal aspects. The relation between the modal aspects of an individual whole is philosophical – it exceeds the boundaries of the special sciences.

Philosophy provides a total view of the temporal horizon of experience.

The question then is: does Christian dogmatic theology provide a total view? If it does it is identical with Christian philosophy.

Theology, no more than biology or any other special science, provides a total view.

Review questions

1. Before reading this chapter jot down how you think theology and philosophy relate.
2. In what ways is Augustine’s view of theology ambiguous?
3. How does Augustine and Aquinas’ view of theology and philosophy differ?
4. In Aquinas’ view how does theology and philosophy differ?
5. Why is true self-knowledge necessary to understand the real relation between theology and philosophy?
6. Why are the modal aspects essentially modes of time?
7. Why does theology not provide a total view?

Study questions

1. Is theology the queen of the sciences?
2. Is philosophy a hand maiden of theology?
3. What other fundamental questions do the other sciences that arise form the aspects give rise to?

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?

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?