Richard Howe wrote an article defending the idea that theology needs philosophy. Here is the link: http://richardghowe.com/index_htm_fi...idISCA2016.pdf
Here is the thesis of the paper:
One example Howe gives for theology needing philosophy has to do with "adjudicating literal descriptions of God from figures of speech." According to Howe, The Dake Annotated Reference Bible has study notes that say that God has a literal body with literal body parts. This body and these body parts are not physical; they are spiritual. Howe argues that we need philosophy in order to discern what should be understood literally and what should be understood figuratively.
Here is an article by Paul Gould that discusses the same topic: http://www.paul-gould.com/2016/04/20...-a-case-study/
Here are some quotes from Gould's article:
What do you think about all of this?
Here is the thesis of the paper:
One example Howe gives for theology needing philosophy has to do with "adjudicating literal descriptions of God from figures of speech." According to Howe, The Dake Annotated Reference Bible has study notes that say that God has a literal body with literal body parts. This body and these body parts are not physical; they are spiritual. Howe argues that we need philosophy in order to discern what should be understood literally and what should be understood figuratively.
Here is an article by Paul Gould that discusses the same topic: http://www.paul-gould.com/2016/04/20...-a-case-study/
Here are some quotes from Gould's article:
What do you think about all of this?
Comment