Classical Theism and Theological Method: A Critical Inquiry

Author:

Peckham John C.1

Affiliation:

1. Department of Theology and Christian Philosophy, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MI 49104, USA

Abstract

Some classical theists contend that the Christian tradition demands affirmation of the following four tenets—divine simplicity, timelessness, immutability, and impassibility—in their absolute or strict senses, a position I refer to as strict classical theism. These four tenets, however, are the subject of considerable debate in recent scholarship. This article engages the ongoing debate by focusing on some significant difficulties strict classical theism faces relative to meeting two widely held standards of Christian theological method: the standard of biblical warrant and the standard of systematic coherence. First, highlighting classical Christology as a test case, this article suggests that strict classical theism faces pressure to either revise or abandon some contested tenets or confront the prospect of abandoning the standard of systematic coherence. Second, the article turns to highlighting some ways that strict classical theism struggles to meet the standard of biblical warrant, which might necessitate a reevaluation of some of its core claims and the viability of common appeals made to the Christian tradition in support of such claims. This article is not intended as a conclusive argument against strict classical theism but aims at the more modest goal of pressing these points regarding theological method, calling for serious consideration, and inviting further discussion.

Publisher

MDPI AG

Reference73 articles.

1. Anizor, Uche (2018). How to Read Theology: Engaging Doctrine Critically and Charitably, Baker Academic.

2. Rombs, Ronnie J., and Hwang, Alexander Y. (2010). From the κανὼν τῆς ἀληθείας to the κανὼν τῶν γραφῶν: The Role of the Rule of Faith in the Formation of the New Testament Canon. Tradition and the Rule of Faith in the Early Church, Catholic University of America Press.

3. Schaff, Philip (1885). Letters. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Christian Literature Company.

4. Against Faustus the Manichaean;Schaff;Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,1887a

5. Nature and Grace;Schaff;Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers,1887b

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3