No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 July 2024
‘An existential system cannot be formulated. Does this mean that no such system exists ? By no means; nor is this implied in our assertion. Existence itself is a system—for God; but it cannot be a system for any existing spirit. System and finality correspond to one another, but existence is precisely the opposite of finality.’
S. Kierkegaard, Concluding Unscientific Postscript
* * *
Philosophy of religion and theology
We are by now too well acquainted with much that goes on under the heading of ‘philosophy of religion’ which seems to provide sport for some professional philosophers but has little to do with religious belief. The tactics are well known. A typical statement of a theological kind is set up for examination and is then put through the logical hoops without, apparently, any further need for reference to the theological context. The strategy often presumes that there is basically only one type of theological statement and that this can be dealt with adequately without looking at the complex structure of thought which surrounds it in its theological setting. Faith may indeed be simple, but its systematic exploration and articulation inevitably demands a complex and sophisticated exposition without which it becomes not only unreasonable, but even unintelligible. The discussions of some of the philosophers of religion have as a result only too often a rather tired and well-worn air, and frequently theologians find little resemblance between what they themselves are doing and what philosophers presume that they are about.
page 14 note 1 This account is essentially meant to be schematic and not to take up any definite hermeneutical position with regard to questions about which christological titles represent the real succession of moments in christological faith, questions belonging properly to New Testament scholars. I simply assume general agreement that it is both possible and necessary to recognize strands and stages in the historical development of faith in the New Testament period. Whether the most developed faith of the disciples of Jesus dates from the first experiences of the Resurrection or to somewhere around the end of the first century is immaterial to the point at issue. It would, however, be difficult on any grounds to assign such fully developed faith to a moment before the Resurrection experiences, cf. Romans 1, 4.
page 14 note 2 I use the terms ‘inductive’ and ‘deductive’ in the loosest possible sense to indicate a distinction between the mounting pressure towards faith in Jesus as ‘Son of God’ and the return movement of reflection about what follows if this man is, in truth, the Son of God. In this context it would clearly be to misconstrue the meaning of ‘inductive’ as referring to a purely rational or discursive mental process.
page 15 note 1 Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Apostolic Teaching and its Developments.
You have
Access