Interaction of philosophy and theology -

Natural theology/philosophy revelation required after reason gets you so far conquering the
world in 16/17
th
century come across china/india these cultures are advanced how do you explain
this? You cant say they know nothing. Problem of particularity, not soteriological but
epistemological. SCHLEIR MACHERS universal religious experience
Religion is a western imperialisyic contruct to narrate the history of china e.g. to western thought
forms
Barth rebels against this dominance of natural theology in roamns to say we know nothing of God
unless God breaks in and reveals.
Analytical natural theology is making a comeback Platinga
Edward lord
Metaphilosphy of naturalism
Teaching of the church gives you a fenced field in which to think
Wisdom - universal
H of P invent concepts that allow you to better exegete the texts
Giving logical limits to what is possible to say

Relation as a category different from substance in Boethius if the distinction is relative it does not
contradict the unity of the substance
God is good, justice etc.
Substance is the what-ness of a thing
Accidents are the sensory results of the substance, which can change
There is nothing accidental to God god is always necessary
Boethius
What is theology doing exegesis, getting your thoughts in order to do good exegesis, until
Schleiermacher, faculties grew apart specialistation biblical scholars become literary critics and
not theologians
De Regnon

French Roman Catholic theologian wrote a book saying the difference between Greek and latin
approaches to the Trinity false
Lossky filioque book attacks this but most famous for The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church,
SVS Press, 1997
Rather than saying that the argument over the filioque he wants to say that the Latin and Greek
ways of thinking about the Trinity are different.
Zizoulas retorts and agrees with this but says Augustine never understood the Greek way of
thinking, nor the Trinity
WRONG
Reasons why we ought to presume it is wrong - shifting the burden of truth
1 No indication of any awareness at the time or since that the two doctrines were different
2 Augustine says he is restating what is the orthodox doctrine as Constantinopolitan creed
3 Argument in the East that is brought into the West - but this is wrong there is a series of western
theologians starting with Hilary involved in these debates from the start, Ambrose ambrioster, popes
are involved as well
Unless you can point to obvious difference in the text, we can safely assume they were talking about
the same doctrine
Abelard vs Lombard beginning of scholasticism, Christian doctrine hold no contradictions
Augustine
De Trinitate not the only thing he wrote on the Trinity see Lewis Ayres book on Augustine and the
Trinity
Dispute about the arrangement and it is important what you think about this.
4 books on biblical exegesis - texts
3 on the language you can use about god
7 books of Trinitarian analogies are these the climax or the others
Augustine wrote retractions in later life no MS word often written on the fly suggests the level of
finish is less than perfect. Its more a collection of papers on the same theme rather than a
monograph, 4/5 arguments but he is not building to a fine argument
The reason that he writes on the Trinity is that he has a few ideas that will allow the already well
worn path to be done better
We know that god is triune and that man is made in his image, because the church tells us that,
therefore we should be able to see these echoes in man himself, he does not start from man
Some examples are unintelligible unless you understand the anthropology of his day
Book 14: dynamic imaging of God in prayer, image of god is not the fixed capacity in the soul but is
being able to relate to god as god relates to himself i.e. to pray
Augustine: Trinity neither substance or accidents but relation (Augustine draws on basil and Hilary
here) not personal but metaphysical, as one relates to another, spatial
Relations can change without the substance of the thing changing relation allows the talk of
Trinity, substance/essence cannot
Relation in a simple substance is not accidental! A simple substance can relate no obvious logical
proof that denies this and this is what the church teaches and therefore it is true. Trying to
demonstrate that it is logical, to refute those trying to say that such a contruct is absurd.
Simple substance non composite, everything that is composite had a beginning when it came
together.
Is something good because god commands it? Moral relativity loses objectivity
or does command it because it is good? Standard of goodness that is outside of God which god has
to align with
Therefore you say that god is the perfection that god commands
Boethius is picking up this argument about the divine relations and trying to run with it looks at
categories and say some are substantial and some relational but picks up on the category of relation,
which has by this time been well established can be implied as he runs through this very quickly,
does not spend much time arguing about it.
Is the move away from the titles as names of persons and relation to relativity in the trinity i.e from
Basil to Boethius, naturally lead to a favouring of substance over relation?
Boethius relation only diff we can talk of no diff in substance repeating basils argument to
eunomius, - a language argument? Divine identity?