Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
1.1
0.8
Journals
Religions
Special Issues
Advances in Philosophical Theology
share announcement

Advances in Philosophical Theology

A special issue of Religions (ISSN 2077-1444). This special issue belongs to the section "Religions and Humanities/Philosophies".

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (15 February 2023) | Viewed by 21363

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Brian Huffling

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Philosophy, Southern Evangelical Seminary, Charlotte, NC 28277, USA
Interests: philosophy of religion, philosophical theology, problem of evil

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

The field of philosophical theology has taken many turns in the past few decades. In addition to classical theism, process theology, open theism, analytic philosophy, and theology, what has been termed theistic personalism has become popular. This Special Issue allows scholars with various viewpoints to share developments in their work and research to help promote the advancement of scholarship in philosophical theology, as well as to promote the awareness of advances in the field.

As such, this issue will explore how philosophy and theology intersect in such areas as God’s existence, nature and attributes, religious epistemology, etc. Further, such intersections will be explored from various viewpoints, such as those mentioned above. This Special Issue will develop, promote, and advance current scholarship in the literature by allowing the various views to be better explored, clarified, and critiqued.

Tentative completion schedule:

  • Abstract submission deadline: 25 April 2022
  • Notification of abstract acceptance: 10 June 2022
  • Full manuscript deadline: 10 November 2022

We request that, prior to submitting a manuscript, interested authors initially submit a proposed title and an abstract of 400–600 words summarizing their intended contribution. Please send it to the guest editor (bhuffling@ses.edu) or to the /Religions/ editorial office (religions@mdpi.com). Abstracts will be reviewed by the guest editor for the purposes of ensuring proper fit within the scope of the Special Issue. Full manuscripts will undergo double-blind peer-review.

Dr. Brian Huffling
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Religions is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • Philosophical theology
  • God
  • Theism
  • Classical theism
  • Process theology
  • Open theism
  • Philosophy of religion
  • Divine attributes
  • Religious epistemology

Published Papers (7 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

16 pages, 291 KiB  
Article
Is There a Root of Being? Indic Philosophies and the Parmenidean Problem
by Winfried Corduan
Religions 2023, 14(5), 660; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14050660 - 15 May 2023
Viewed by 1036
Abstract
This article is a survey of various philosophical schools, focusing primarily on South Asian ones, and how they address the problem of being and nonbeing. The early Greek poet Parmenides stated that nonbeing is something that we cannot actually conceptualize and, thus, cannot [...] Read more.
This article is a survey of various philosophical schools, focusing primarily on South Asian ones, and how they address the problem of being and nonbeing. The early Greek poet Parmenides stated that nonbeing is something that we cannot actually conceptualize and, thus, cannot speak of meaningfully. Plato and Aristotle are two examples of Western philosophers who came up with different ways of resolving the issue. As we turn to Indic schools of philosophy, we encounter a colorful array of different approaches. The Upanishads gave rise to a variety of points of view, though the Advaita Vedānta school of Adi Śaṅkara has dominated the discussion over the last few centuries. Other schools represented in this survey are Sāṃkhya, Buddhism (Therāvada, Sarvāstivāda, Sautantrika, Yogācāra, and Mādhyamaka), Vaiśeṣika, and Nyāya. Unsurprisingly, each comes up with different constructs that are frequently mutually exclusive, despite efforts by some writers to look past some obvious differences that are not reconcilable. There are also some conceptual similarities with Western philosophy, but the different cultural backdrops limit the ability to easily transfer ideas from one context to the other. My method is to quote short passages from the central writings (usually the “official” sutras) and show how they fit into their particular systems. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Philosophical Theology)
12 pages, 268 KiB  
Article
Of Monsters and Men: A Spectrum View of the Imago Dei
by C. A. McIntosh
Religions 2023, 14(2), 267; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14020267 - 16 Feb 2023
Viewed by 1665
Abstract
I explore the view that the imago Dei is essential to us as humans but accidental to us as persons. To image God is to resemble God, and resemblance comes in degrees. This has the straightforward—and perhaps disturbing—implication that we can be more [...] Read more.
I explore the view that the imago Dei is essential to us as humans but accidental to us as persons. To image God is to resemble God, and resemblance comes in degrees. This has the straightforward—and perhaps disturbing—implication that we can be more or less human, and possibly cease to be human entirely. Hence, I call it the spectrum view. I argue that the spectrum view is complementary to the Biblical data, helps explain the empirical reality of horrendous evil, and offers an elegant rapprochement between the traditional view of hell and its rivals. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Philosophical Theology)
15 pages, 235 KiB  
Article
Plantinga and Aquinas on the Viability of the ‘Third Way’
by Bernard James Mauser
Religions 2023, 14(2), 226; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14020226 - 08 Feb 2023
Viewed by 1644
Abstract
This article deals with Alvin Plantinga’s arguments against St. Thomas Aquinas’s third way to show that God exists. Although attacks on this argument have come from Christians and non-Christians, my contention is that these rebuttals of the third way arise because of a [...] Read more.
This article deals with Alvin Plantinga’s arguments against St. Thomas Aquinas’s third way to show that God exists. Although attacks on this argument have come from Christians and non-Christians, my contention is that these rebuttals of the third way arise because of a misunderstanding of the argument itself. Thus, the metaphysical background for understanding the third way is first explained, and then the arguments Plantinga raises against it are dealt with. After reading this article it should be clear that the third way to show God’s existence is plausible and that Plantinga’s attacks against it are based on a straw man rather than the substantive argument the third way actually is. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Philosophical Theology)
29 pages, 360 KiB  
Article
Preunderstanding, Presuppositions and Biblical Interpretation
by Thomas A. Howe
Religions 2022, 13(12), 1206; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13121206 - 12 Dec 2022
Viewed by 2817
Abstract
For contemporary biblical scholars, the recognition that everyone interprets a text through one’s presuppositions and preunderstanding is axiomatic. If anyone claims to approach the biblical text without any presuppositions, this is in fact a presupposition. The pervasive recognition of presuppositions and preunderstanding in [...] Read more.
For contemporary biblical scholars, the recognition that everyone interprets a text through one’s presuppositions and preunderstanding is axiomatic. If anyone claims to approach the biblical text without any presuppositions, this is in fact a presupposition. The pervasive recognition of presuppositions and preunderstanding in interpretation has largely developed out of the influence of modern philosophy, particularly in such representatives as Immanuel Kant, Martin Heidegger, and Hans-Georg Gadamer. One’s presuppositions and preunderstanding form the grid through which one interprets everything, not only texts. The pervasiveness of presuppositions and preunderstanding has issued in a wholesale rejection of the possibility of objectivity in interpretation. This essay will argue that the rejection of the possibility of objectivity is self-defeating. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Philosophical Theology)
16 pages, 263 KiB  
Article
The Creator/Creature Distinction in Debates over Models of God
by R. T. Mullins
Religions 2022, 13(12), 1139; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13121139 - 24 Nov 2022
Viewed by 3078
Abstract
In contemporary theology, one can find an array of models of God to choose from. There are various types of arguments that one can put forth in order to reject one model, or to defend another model. In this paper, I wish to [...] Read more.
In contemporary theology, one can find an array of models of God to choose from. There are various types of arguments that one can put forth in order to reject one model, or to defend another model. In this paper, I wish to examine one popular type of argument. This argument typically says that one should reject a model of God that blurs the creator/creature distinction. The problem with this kind of argument is that it usually begs the question by presupposing one’s own model of God in the creator/creature distinction. In other words, the argument basically boils down to, ‘I reject your model of God because it is not my preferred model of God.’ On many other occasions, the arguments beg the question by confusing additional metaphysical doctrines with the concepts of creator and creature. In this paper, I shall examine several different versions of the creator/creature distinction argument in an effort to find a version that is not question begging. I shall begin with articulating what I take to be the basics of a Christian understanding of the creator/creature distinction. Then, I shall consider several recent attempts from classical theists to argue that a rival model of God violates the creator/creature distinction. In each case, I shall find the arguments wanting. First, I shall examine James E. Dolezal’s attempt to argue that non-classical models of God violate the creator/creature distinction. I will argue that Dolezal’s attempt is question begging because it sneaks in his own model of God and several questionable metaphysical assumptions into the concepts of creator and creature, and thus goes beyond the basic creator/creature distinction without justification. Second, I shall examine a recent attempt by Kevin J. Vanhoozer to argue that Thomas J. Oord’s panentheistic model of God violates the creator/creature distinction. I will argue that Vanhoozer’s attempt suffers from several conceptual errors. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Philosophical Theology)
25 pages, 326 KiB  
Article
An Explanation and Defense of the Free-Thinking Argument
by Timothy A. Stratton and J. P. Moreland
Religions 2022, 13(10), 988; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13100988 - 19 Oct 2022
Viewed by 5944
Abstract
This paper is a defense of the big ideas behind the free-thinking argument. This argument aims to demonstrate that determinism is incompatible with epistemic responsibility in a desert sense (being praised or blamed for any thought, idea, judgment, or belief). This lack of [...] Read more.
This paper is a defense of the big ideas behind the free-thinking argument. This argument aims to demonstrate that determinism is incompatible with epistemic responsibility in a desert sense (being praised or blamed for any thought, idea, judgment, or belief). This lack of epistemic responsibility is problematic for the naturalist. It seems to be an even worse problem, however, for the exhaustive divine determinist because not only would humanity not stand in a position to be blamed for any of our thoughts and beliefs, but it also surfaces a “problem of epistemic evil”, which can be raised against the knowledge of God, the rationality of humans, and the trustworthiness of Scripture. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Philosophical Theology)
46 pages, 2884 KiB  
Article
The Logical Problem of the Trinity: A New Solution
by Joshua Reginald Sijuwade
Religions 2022, 13(9), 809; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13090809 - 31 Aug 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 3625
Abstract
This article aims to introduce a new solution to the Logical Problem of the Trinity. This solution is provided by utilising a number of theses within the field of contemporary metaphysics in order to establish a conceptual basis for a novel account and [...] Read more.
This article aims to introduce a new solution to the Logical Problem of the Trinity. This solution is provided by utilising a number of theses within the field of contemporary metaphysics in order to establish a conceptual basis for a novel account and model of the doctrine of the Trinity termed Monarchical Aspectivalism, which will provide the means for proposing an alternative reading of the Athanasian Creed that is free from any consistency problems. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Philosophical Theology)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-7
Back to TopTop