Search Results

The justification of theology within the public square remains a matter of pressing concern. After the dissolution of Christendom, a number of Christian philosophers sought to justify theology relative to a foundation of reason (René Descartes, John Locke) or primal experience (Immanuel Kant). While theologians widely accepted these preconditions and so sought to defend theology by appealing to proof and evidence or religious experience, these efforts more often distorted theology. In order to navigate this debate over theological justification one must understand central epistemological concepts, including faith and reason, justification and knowledge, and foundationalist and coherentist theories of noetic structure. Philosophically, the theory of classical foundationalism that has dominated in modernity has crucial, if not quite fatal, weaknesses. Recently many philosophers, like Richard Rorty and Hilary Putnam, have embraced a non‐foundationalist epistemology. While philosophical non‐foundationalism has been appropriated by theologians like Stanley Grenz and Nancey Murphy as a way to ensure theological justification and autonomy, the anti‐realist non‐foundationalist themes are deeply problematic and impact adversely on Grenz's and Murphy's proposals. Bruce Marshall offers another way to appropriate non‐foundationalism that avoids anti‐realism while explaining justification and truth within a Trinitarian framework. Unfortunately, Marshall's theory also faces significant philosophical and theological objections. The failure of non‐foundationalism warrants a return to foundationalism, albeit in the moderate form proposed by Alvin Plantinga. While objections remain, Plantinga's proper‐function foundationalism provides the best account of theological rationality, justification, and knowledge, while grounding theological rigour, prima facie doctrinal conservatism, and the potential for a robust ecumenism.

Divine simplicity is the idea that, as the ultimate principle of the universe, God must be a non‐composite unity not made up of parts or diverse attributes. The idea was appropriated by early Christian theologians from non‐Christian philosophy and played a pivotal role in the development of Christian thought. Andrew Radde‐Gallwitz charts the progress of the idea of divine simplicity from the second through the fourth centuries, with particular attention to Basil of Caesarea and Gregory of Nyssa, two of the most subtle writers on this topic, both instrumental in the construction of the Trinitarian doctrine proclaimed as orthodox at the Council of Constantinople in 381. He demonstrates that divine simplicity was not a philosophical appendage awkwardly attached to the early Christian doctrine of God, but a notion that enabled Christians to articulate the consistency of God as portrayed in their scriptures. Basil and Gregory offered a unique construal of simplicity in responding to their principal doctrinal opponent, Eunomius of Cyzicus. Challenging accepted interpretations of Cappadocian brothers and the standard account of divine simplicity in recent philosophical literature, Radde‐Gallwitz argues that Basil and Gregory's achievement in transforming ideas inherited from the non‐Christian philosophy of their time has an ongoing relevance for Christian theological epistemology today.