Not Explanation but Salvation
Scientific Theology, Christology, and Suffering
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 20505073 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Andrew S Moore (0000-0001-8062-1779, corresponding author), Andrew Moore (0000-0003-3185-1599) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 22 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 65-83 |
| Publication date | 2006-01-01 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Modern Theology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0266-7177 • E-ISSN: 1468-0025 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1468-0025.2006.00310.x |
| OpenAlex | W1982438257 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 1 |
The view that Christian belief is explanatory is widespread in contemporary theology, apologetics, and philosophy of religion and it has received particular impetus from attempts to correlate science and Christianity. This article proposes an account of explanatory thinking in theology based on the principle that theological explanations should be disciplined by the internal logic of Scripture. Arthur Peacocke's biologically construed Christology and Alister McGrath's argument that suffering is an anomaly in the Christian explanatory scheme are shown to yield theological results which are inconsistent with this principle. This article's theological argument complements philosophical criticisms of the view that religious belief is explanatory
Apologetics · Christology · Epistemology · Philosophical theology · Philosophy of religion · Theology · Chemistry · Evolution and Science Education · Philosophy · Space Science and Extraterrestrial Life · Theology and Philosophy of Evil
| Highly cited | No |
|---|