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 February 2009
It is comforting to one embroiled in the tantalising, and not infrequently exasperating prolegomena to Christian philosophy, to be able to make an assertion which is unlikely to be controverted by anyone familiar with recent theological writing. The assertion is to the effect that two concepts which have been much to the fore of late are ‘communication’ and ‘relevance’. Christians are urged from all sides to find ways of communicating with present-day, secularised, ‘post-Christian’ man, in such a way that he will see the relevance of their gospel. Indeed, the challenge has been put so often that one can readily see the point of Professor J. McIntyre's suspicion that relevance seems to be replacing truth as a criterion of permissible discourse; and one can echo his sigh, ‘Sometimes I think that I would appreciate an address that claimed unashamedly to be “irrelevant”.’ What concerns us is the possibility that certain efforts in the direction of communication and relevance merit the charge of reductionism, that is, the charge that in some way the distinctives of the Christian message are being watered down or undermined. No doubt reductionism may take many forms, but it is that variety of the phenomenon which might be termed ‘logical reductionism’, which more immediately concerns us.
page 48 note 2 McIntyre, J., ‘Analogy’, Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 12, 1959, p. 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar. And see his earlier examination of some of the problems attending communication: ‘Frontiers of Meaning’, Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 10 (1957), pp. 131–134.Google Scholar
page 48 note 3 In connection with what we call logical reductionism we gladly acknowledge the stimulus to our thought provided by DrThomas's, J Heywood ‘Does Christianity Need a “New Look”?’, The Listener (20th Nov. 1958), p. 831, col. ii.Google Scholar
page 49 note 1 Kaufmann, W., Critique of Religion and Philosophy (1959), p. 104.Google Scholar
page 49 note 2 See, e.g., Spier, J. M., An Introduction to Christian Philosophy (Philadelphia, Perm., 1954), p. 27Google Scholar. We have found no major representative of this view in contemporary Britain, but Kaufmann, domiciled as he is in the U.S.A., must surely have been exposed to the truth! Cornelius Van Til, to whom reference is made below, is a further representative of this school.
page 49 note 3 Kaufmann, W., Critique of Religion and Philosophy (1959), p. 104.Google Scholar
page 50 note 1 Hodgson, L., The Doctrine of the Trinity (1960 ed.), p. 117.Google Scholar
page 50 note 2 ibid., p. 121.
page 50 note 3 ibid., p. 122.
page 50 note 4 John 1.
page 51 note 1 See Webb, G. C. J., History of Philosophy (1915), p. 127.Google Scholar
page 51 note 2 Duthie, C. S., ‘A Prophet or a Heretic?’, The British Weekly, 15th Aug. 1963, p. 9. (Our italics.)Google Scholar
page 51 note 3 Acts 17.
page 51 note 4 Moberly, W. H., ‘God and the Absolute’, Foundations, ed. Streeter, B. H. (1912), p. 427.Google Scholar
page 52 note 1 van Til, C. in the ‘Introduction’ to The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible, by Warfield, B. B. (Philadelphia, Penn., 1948), p. 37.Google Scholar
page 52 note 2 van Til, C., The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia, Penn., 1955), p. 84.Google Scholar
page 52 note 3 Carnell, E. J., The Case for Orthodox Theology (1961), p. 119.Google Scholar
page 52 note 4 van Til, C., The Defense of the Faith (Philadelphia, Penn., 1955), p. 41.Google Scholar
page 53 note 1 McIntyre, J., ‘Frontiers of Meaning’, Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 10 (1957), p. 12gCrossRefGoogle Scholar. And cf. what was said of ‘Logos’, above.
page 53 note 2 op. cit., 1966, p. 13.
page 53 note 3 This is not the same as saying that sceptics may be believers in the bottom of their hearts, if not with the top of their minds.
page 54 note 1 See Stebbing, S. L., A Modern Introduction to Logic (1930), p. 250.Google Scholar
page 54 note 2 Smyth, J., Truth and Reality (1901).Google Scholar
page 54 note 3 Bradley, F. H., Appearance and Reality (1893).Google Scholar
page 55 note 1 See, e.g., Wenley, R. M., Contemporary Theology and Theism (1897), pp. 169–170Google Scholar, and Iverach, J., ‘Edward Caird’, The Expository Times, V (1894), p. 205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
page 55 note 2 Iverach, J., Theism in the Light of Present Science and Philosophy (1900), p. 196.Google Scholar
page 55 note 3 op. cit., pp. 125ff.
page 56 note 1 Hoernlé, R. F. A., Studies in Contemporary Metaphysics (1920), pp. 31ff.Google Scholar
page 56 note 2 Stace, W. T., ‘The Place of Philosophy in Human Culture’, Philosophy XII (1937). P. 303.Google Scholar
page 56 note 3 Caird, E., The Evolution of Religion, II (1893), p. 2.Google Scholar
page 56 note 4 Watson, J., The Philosophical Basis of Religion (1907), p. 2.Google Scholar
page 57 note 1 Mackintosh, H. R., Types of Modern Theology (1937), p. 105Google Scholar. For more recent charges against Hegel, see Meynell, H., Sense, Nonsense and Christianity (1964), pp. 122–136.Google Scholar
page 58 note 1 Forsyth, P. T., The Principle of Authority (1952 ed.), p. 353.Google Scholar
page 58 note 2 Mackintosh, H. R., Types of Modern Theology (1937), p. 115.Google Scholar
page 58 note 3 ibid., p. 116.
page 58 note 4 Garvie, A. E., ‘The Dangers of Mare's Nests in Theology’, The Expository Times, XXIV (1913), p. 272.Google Scholar
page 58 note 5 Review of Collingwood's, R. G.Religion and Philosophy, 1916, Mind, XXVIII (1919), p. 367.Google Scholar
page 58 note 6 cf. Mackintosh op. cit., pp. 108ff.
page 59 note 1 Iverach, J., Theism in the light of present Science and Philosophy (1899), P. 305.Google Scholar
page 59 note 2 Moberly, W. H., ‘God and the Absolute’, Foundations, ed. Streeter, B. H. (1912), p. 431Google Scholar. Is there any significance in the fact that the subtitle of this book is not ‘A Statement of Christian Belief in the Light of Modern Thought’, but ‘A Statement of Christian Belief in terms of Modern Thought’? (Our italics.)
page 60 note 1 op. cit., p. 478.
page 60 note 2 ibid.
page 60 note 3 op. cit., p. 509.
page 60 note 4 Davidson, W. L., Recent Theistic Discussion (1921), p. 153.Google Scholar
page 61 note 1 Iverach, J., Theism in the Light of Present Science and Philosophy (1899), p. 307.Google Scholar
page 61 note 2 ibid., p. 300.
page 62 note 1 See, e.g., his Idealism (1934).
page 62 note 2 See, e.g., his Christian Rationalism and Philosophical Analysis (1959).
page 62 note 3 Edwards, D. M., Christianity and Philosophy (1932), p. 7.Google Scholar
page 62 note 4 ibid., p. 8. (Our italics.)
page 63 note 1 Edwards, D. M., The Philosophy of Religion (1924), pp. 302–303.Google Scholar