This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
In our last post we noted that dualism is the division of reality into two incompatible domains. Cosmological dualism, whether of the ancient Greeks or of the Newtonian-Deism of the Enlightenment, posits a separation (dualism) between God and the world, rendering the incarnation of Jesus Christ problematic if not impossible. In today's post we will consider the dualism associated with the German philosopher, Immanuel Kant. This is anepistemological dualism; thus, it has to do with human "knowing." Kantian dualism precludes meaningful knowledge of God. According to the Kantian thought, "We 'kan't' know God." Stick with me on this one and we will see how Kantian epistemological dualism has had damaging effects on Christian knowledge of God in the modern era. Epistemological Dualism In addition to the cosmological dualism in its ancient and modern forms, Torrance rejects the 'epistemological' dualism associated with the German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 ‒1804), who posited a disjunction (dualism) between the human knower and the reality the human subject seeks to know. According to Kant, since human knowing is always influenced by language, culture, and the structures of the human mind operative in the activity of knowing, we cannot know objective reality, that is, "the thing in itself" (Das Ding an sich), but only how it 'appears' to us through our "cognitive grid," that is, as 'interpreted' by the categories and mental structures of the mind (Colyer, 2001a:58, 329, 330). In positing an "unbridgeable gulf" between the mind of the knower and the object of knowledge, epistemological dualism asserts that our knowledge is in reality an imposition of the mind's own thought patterns in order to bring an artificial order to the undifferentiated chaos of sensory experience (Achtemeier, 2001b:273). Comment: The essential point is that we can't know "objective" reality, that is, "the thing in itself"; what we "know," rather, is a combination of empirical data and a whole bunch of mental constructs that we impose upon it. The bottom line is that we can't really "know" God as an objective reality because of the vast amount of mental "stuff" we bring to the table. God is as much a "subjective" phenomenon of our own minds as he is an "objective" reality "out there." For Kant, man can know only the phenomenal world (the world of "appearances"), for the mind requires empirical evidence before it can be capable of knowledge. Following the Scottish philosopher, David Hume (1711‒1776), Kant argued that concepts such as space, time, causality, quantity,
Said another way. in this case. To say that one "caused" the other to move is to introduce a mental construct that we "impose" upon what we have observed." rather. This constitutes an "inversion of the knowing relation" away from the intrinsic intelligibility of nature or reality (as in Newton) to the cognitive processes of the human mind (as in Kant). and relation are not empirically verifiable realities. is a 'construction' of the human mind imposed upon the world. from Newton to Kant . since objective knowledge can only be derived from empirical evidence. We merely impose an "artificial" order onto reality so that we can make some sense of the chaotic manifold of data that confronts us." that exists independently of the human mind. Stay tuned. there was a major epistemological shift from Newton to Kant. something inside our heads rather than "out there. metaphysics (knowledge of God) is beyond the powers of human reasoning (Tarnas. not "out there. Thus. rather. In short. "causality" is one of many mental constructs or a priori interpretive principles that we bring to the table in order to make sense of the game. as a clear and undistorted "objective" reality. the world is not really orderly ("order" is one of those interpretive principles we bring to the table. we cannot assert that the 8-ball caused the 9-ball to fly to the corner pocket like a marten to the gourd. they are a prioriinterpretive principles that the mind 'imposes' upon nature to bring order to an otherwise chaotic and overwhelming manifold of experience.substance. With the former."). 1991:341-347). rather." According to Hume. This results in a "constructivist mentality" in which the mind imposes order and form upon experience. the human mind can never experience what is "out there. "Reality. Hence. man ultimately reads them into nature through the processes of the human mind. The point is: What we call "reality" is not something "out there. Comment: Kant claimed that Hume awoke him from "slumber." These a priori concepts are not read out of experience but read into it. knowledge is derived through discovery of the inherent intelligibility of the world. Contrary to the assumptions of everyday experience. In relation to scientific theology. "causality" is inside our heads. In other words. this is important! According to Torrance (1984:38ff). wherein the raw data of sensory experience is organized to make it intelligible. the "order" that man perceives in the world is not a characteristic of nature but of the human mind. intelligibility and the theoretical components of knowledge are shifted to the human mind. for the latter. All we really see is the "phenomenal" world. "reality" is a "construction" or fabrication of the human mind imposed upon the phenomena of the universe in order to enable us to make some kind of sense of the world. Kant argues that instead of reading the laws of nature from nature." apart from the mind. two balls in motion. Comment: In short.
[Dualism is] also the source of the wide-spread doubt and difficulties about providence. that is. we impose an artificial (mentally constructed) reality onto nature. the idea of the inherent intelligibility of the universe began to fade away in accordance with Kant's assertion that the human mind is the origin of the laws and perceived uniformity of nature (cf. system of cause and effect. Pay attention! From early in his career. . With this epistemological shift. Torrance has noted the many adverse effects of Kantian dualism on Christian thought and speech. instead. Colyer.epistemology shifted from the 'discovery' of form to the 'imposition' of form in everyday experience and scientific inquiry. w began to lose sight of the intelligibility of the universe as woven into it by its Creator. from the inherent intelligibility of the universe to the synthesizing and constructive power of the human mind. Here's why it matters. Adverse Effects of Kantian Dualism on Christian Knowledge OK. We could investigate the cosmic time clock and eventually come to understand it as it really is. prayer and worship. albeit closed. In other words. . knowledge was derived by the investigation of the empirical phenomena of the universe. Thus. Apply this to God and I think you'll see the problem. Comment: From Newton to Kant we have a big-time "epistemological shift. We no longer discover reality (as in Newton). we begin to see an artificial "intelligibility" imposed upon reality by the cognitive structures of our minds. As Torrance (1976:269) argues: The damaging effect [of Newtonian-Kantian dualism] nowhere appears more sharply than in the wide gap that opens up between an inert God who cannot be known in himself and the world of phenomena conceived as a closed continuum of cause and effect. wherein rational structure is read into nature. By the time we get to Kant. With this major change in epistemology. (Underline added) . for it means that even Christian forms of thought and speech about God are uprooted from any objective ground in the being of God himself and float loose in the vague mists of modern man's vaunted self-understanding. the source of knowledge has shifted from the empirical events of the world around us to what is inside our own heads. it's all in your head. . 331). what we "know" is really a construction of our own minds. 2001a:330." For Newton the world was an orderly. Thus. Bubba!! So the bottom line on Kant's epistemological dualism is this: We kan't know "the thing in itself" (Das Ding an Sich) because we impose all our mental "stuff" onto it.
particularly the Christian message of Jesus' incarnation. as long as one operates with "an axiomatic disjunction" [dualism] between a "noumenal" realm of ideas [what's "up there"] and a "phenomenal" realm of events [what's "down here"]. It was in this troubling context that Schleiermacher. using the methods of historical criticism." which must be treated as nothing more than hypothetical entities. the biblical scholar. and their followers struggled to find some meaningful place in human culture for the message of the gospel. In the place of God's objective self-disclosure within the concrete structures of time and space [the incarnation].. the 'subjective' religious experience of the believer becomes the object of theological inquiry." In practical terms. Ritschl. for our understanding of Jesus is limited to how he 'appeared' to his followers and to the impression he made on the structures of their consciousness. Thus. symbolic. and what is scientifically knowable.. death. whereby we reduce Jesus to a nice Jewish boy who told really good stories and set a fine moral example for us all. As Achtemeier (2001b:274) observes. which assumes that the task of the theologian. particularly as revealed in the New Testament? We have no choice but to interpret it in moral.In positing a bifurcation between unknowable "things in themselves. symbolic. or mythological terms. what are we going to do with the gospel message. theological) accretions that accrued over time to the Jesus narrative in order to bring into view. as far as possible. and resurrection (Torrance. especially pervasive since the Enlightenment. nothing more than a moral. Kant severed the connection between science and faith. by which they made him the 'object' of their faith and knowledge. this means that it is impossible for us to have real knowledge of Jesus Christ as he is in himself. to reduce theology to anthropology or psychology. Kant created a "damaging dualism" that has had profound effects upon theological inquiry. the faith of the believer.and twentieth-century theology demonstrate. epistemological dualism manifests itself in theological science in a tendency."subjective") approach to theology.e. 1980:2843).e. thereby "depriving faith of any objective or ontological reference and emptying it of any real cognitive content. and biblical interpretation. or mythological meaning can be given to the biblical account of God's saving interaction with the world of space and time. As nineteenth. Comment: Let's face it: What else can you do if you decide that God (and everything else) cannot be known objectively? What happens when you decide that what we call "God" is as much an imposition of human thoughts forms onto the heavens as it is any sort of objective reality "out there"? So if we kan't know God (epistemological dualism) and if God cannot enter time and space (cosmological dualism). By limiting scientific knowledge to what is empirically observable. like that of the . the actual impression he made as he appeared to his contemporaries. is faced with the task of stripping away the theoretical (i. This distortion in theological science also manifests in a "constructivist" (i.
In our next post.modern artist who attempts to portray his subjective experience on canvas. 1980:27. are turned around toward us and reduced merely to the meaning he has for us in terms of how we order our lives." If the objective reality to which the biblical writers clearly refer is cut off by a "deistic disjunction" between God and the world. we'll take a look at Torrance's "critical realist epistemology. because he is merely a projection of human imagination. is to construct "symbol systems" which serve to project the idea of god onto the cosmos in order to serve the religious needs and aspirations of "believers. ontological reality. [Here comes the "why it matters" part. As Torrance rightly argues. In addition. Theological statements about Jesus. for example. the Kantian restriction of knowledge to what is observable. whether of the cosmological or epistemological kind. 34-36)." Theological statements are stripped of any reference to an objective. It's not really about God (theology). References . reconciling the world to himself. Thus. theological statements are diverted from their reference in the objective reality of God to subjective statements about ourselves as dependent on God [It's all in our heads]. creates a divide between objective. So theology is really anthropology. it's about us (anthropology) and our need to create religion to provide us solace and meaning. ontological realities [God] and the human knower. "God was in Christ. As a significant part of the movie script. we create "symbol systems' (religion) to give meaning to our otherwise hopeless lives. That is. [Read that again! I know you didn't get it the first time!] Within a dualist framework. it is the "anachronistic" persistence of these "damaging dualisms" that give rise to the "pseudo-theologies" that remain common today (Torrance. or to what may be deduced from observation." Comment: The idea is that we create God inside our own heads then project him onto the vast movie screen above. for example. transcendent reality so that they become nothing more than autobiographical statements about ourselves. who rejects any conception of "the intelligibility of reality.] Consider the following biblical statements: "The Word was made flesh". anthropocentric consciousness of the writers." I know you Kan't wait. biblical statements must be interpreted merely in terms of the subjective. theological statements necessarily lose their connection to any objective. with the result that theology is reduced to a poor form of anthropology. This reductionist way of handling theological statements shows what happens when we follow. the objective realities to which theological statements refer become merely a "mythological" way of expressing man's feeling of dependence on God [as in Schleiermacher] and the understanding of himself in the world in which he lives. thereby reducing human understanding to a form of existentialism such that knowledge is nothing more than an expression of one's attitude toward reality. "God is love". Bultmann.
M.F. Ch. Tarnas. P. 1976. T. Kelly.F. 1998). 256pp. In E. Downers Grove." Even if you have read only a little T. MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. T. Colyer. In G. For example. R. Torrance.F. The Ground and Grammar of Theology: Consonance Between Theology and Science. F. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology: Theologians in Dialogue with T. Torrance. 1991. Natural Science and Christian Faith in the Thought of T. NY: Ballantine. 1980. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. As someone noted. The Realist Epistemology of Thomas F. T. T. Torrance. however. Torrance. IL: IVP. NOVEMBER 13. Divine and Contingent Order. 544pp. Ch. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific Theology.F. pt 1 Today's contribution to the cause of Trinitarian-incarnational theology is the first of a two-part post on the problem of "dualism. Theology in Reconciliation: Essays toward Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West. Transformation & Convergence in the Frame of Knowledge: Explorations in the Interrelations of Scientific and Theological Enterprise . that is. 2009 Torrance and the Problem of Dualism. Torrance gives us (his readers) more credit than we deserve. (Preface to new edition. How to Read T. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. POSTED BY MARTIN M. 2001. 393pp. 2001).F. Torrance. The Passion of the Western Mind.M. E. Lanham. he assumes we know more than we really do ‒ and that can create problems for us readers. ed. F. (Preface to new edition by T. Colyer. consider the first . London: T & T Clark. 4. New York. Torrance. Torrance. 2001a. you have likely encountered his recurring critique of the problem of dualism.F. Dawson. 1981. An Introduction to Torrance Theology: Discovering the Incarnate Saviour . Grand Rapids. D. F. 1984. MI: Eerdmans. ed. DAVIS AT 6:20 PM 5 COMMENTS FRIDAY. particularly in regard to the Enlightenment's dualistic Newtonian cosmology and the Kantian (dualistic) disjunction between the knower and the known (see below for explanations of these high-browed ideas).Achtemeier. Torrance. Torrance. 2007. MI: Eerdmans. 162pp. 11. 302pp. F. Grand Rapids. 353pp.
This is where your faithful correspondent comes in. kick off your comfy Mickey Mouse slippers. We simply don't have time for philosophy and quantum physics. Torrance graciously assumes we know what he is talking about when. An appreciation of Torrance's rejection of cosmological and epistemological dualism is vital to grasping his "realist" understanding of the mediation of Christ (Colyer. So here we go again. the division of reality into two independent. most of us have lives to live ‒ you know. that if you can get by the first three or four pages. you have to move on to the philosophy of the Enlightenment era if you want to have even the remotest clue about his critique of Kantian epistemological dualism. like those who sit beside the diplomats at the U. in highly compressed prose. Therefore. and a perverted desire to delve into the subatomic world of quantum mechanics. Sit back. I am not.) To be sure. if wrestling with the ephemeral world of Platonic and Neo-platonic philosophy is not bad enough. An "interactionist" theology (such as that of Torrance) is one in which God is understood to interact closely with the world of nature and history without being confused with it." and as someone who is a teacher by nature. he notes the many problems associated with both cosmological and epistemological dualism and our need to embrace. babies to burp and wood to chop." The Problem of Dualism Torrance's scientific approach to knowledge of God as mediated by Jesus Christ draws him into sharp conflict with both ancient and modern forms of "dualism. Problem is. It's pipes for the men and cigars for the ladies. once you get into Torrance. 58).few pages of The Mediation of Christ. According to Torrance. and enjoy a bit more of "All Things Torrance. (Note.N. I seek to help my readers familiarize themselves with various concepts encountered in reading Torrance. We want to get to Jesus! Never fear. a unitary view of reality as conceived by modern science (beginning particularly with James Clerk Maxwell). This is not to suggest I am an expert in the Torrance "language". But I am learning to speak "Torrance. A "dualist" theology is one in which God is thought to be separated from nature and history by a "deistic . Think of me as a translator." that is. particularly in the Patristic and modern eras. Ouch!! In regard to philosophy. Torrance probably manages to scare off most potential readers. incompatible domains. as theologians. Torrance (1980:76) notes that the Church has faced an ongoing struggle with dualism. theologies may be divided into two distinct types: 1) interactionist and 2) dualist. the book gets easier ‒ though not necessarily easy. history of theology. In only a few paragraphs. I can't help but share what I am learning. however. reading Torrance often requires at least a general knowledge of the history of philosophy. 2001:57.
particular in the thought of the great physicist. the gospel is "foolishness" to the Greeks. "absolute time" provides a universal frame of reference against which events anywhere in the universe can be described as occurring simultaneously. Comment: We've talked about this before (see The Wedding Cake Cosmos: Augustine and Neo-Platonism. before. Torrance cites Schleiermacher. In theological science. Cosmological dualism arose again at the beginning of the modern scientific revolution." Newton's cosmology was characterized by "a thorough-going dualism between absolute space and time and the contingent events that took place within their embrace" (Torrance. Kepler. "Absolute space and time. unchanging realm of pure thought "forms" which stand in stark contrast to the imperfect.distance. In regard to theological science." we are "way down here. 1990:136). knowledge of God arises from our immanent religious consciousness (Torrance. divine realm and the finite realm of space and time. Sir Isaac Newton (1642‒1727). 2001b:273). Cosmological Dualism Cosmological dualism posits "a separation between the reality or essence of something and the empirical sources of our knowledge about it. The Greeks posited a "dualism" between the divine and materiality. God is "way up there." and there can be no interaction between the two. "absolute space" is structured according to the uniform principles of Euclidean geometry. this has historically taken the form of a denial of the empirical reality of the incarnation. changeable realm of concrete appearances [we're talking Plato here]. a separation between "substance" and "appearance" (Achtemeier. The changes in cosmology initiated by Copernicus. thus. 1976:268). 1980:15ff)." that is. or after one another. and Galileo were mathematically elaborated by Newton in his "system of the world. cosmological dualism typically asserts itself in an assumed incompatibility between the eternal. 3/09). form a static backdrop against which the movement of bodies can be described and plotted." presupposed by Newton's laws of motion. cosmological dualism posits a separation between God and the world. who conceived of God as so transcendent and "other" that he cannot be the object of our knowledge. 1970:121. For Christian theology. whether in the metaphysics of the ancient Greeks or in the "deism" of the modern era (Torrance. Absolute space and time form a vast . The dualist assumption that God cannot interact with materiality rules out the incarnation from the start! Thus. cosmological dualism asserts that what is "really real" is an eternal. According to Newton." As an example of a dualist theology. 2001b:273). so that a wedge has been driven between the Christian understanding of Jesus Christ and genuine knowledge of God (Achtemeier. Originating in ancient Greek thought.
Torrance rightly observes that there are significant theological implications associated with the Newtonian view of the cosmos. such as inertia and gravity. the educated person in the West knew that God had created the universe as a complex mechanical system. except as the "first cause" or creator of the universe. Newton's view of the material contents of the universe as "particles in a box" moving in strict accordance to fixed laws of motion leaves little room for God's involvement in the world. Not only has the Newtonian cosmology "built a deep-seated dualism into the whole fabric of Western science. a dualism that closely mirrors the ancient Greek distinction between an eternal." called "corpuscles. Newton's mechanistic-dualistic cosmology has dominated Western science for centuries (Torrance. 1984:270. composed of material particles moving in an infinite neutral space according to a few basic principles. and allowed it to run on its own according to these perfect. that is. a master mathematician and clock maker. The determinism evident in Newton's "corpuscular" view of matter gave rise to the conception of the universe as self-perpetuating clockwork-like machine. . Achtemeier. Newton's . and culture" but also has encouraged a view of the universe as a "closed continuum of cause and effect. Moreover. The contents of universal space-time are understood in atomistic terms as discrete particles. 269). divine world of rational "forms" and a material world of subjective appearances. while the universe was viewed as a uniformly regulated and fundamentally impersonal phenomenon. reductionist ways of thinking about the universe. Comment" Newton's "corpuscular" view of particles moving around in the vast arena of space is often portrayed something like a giant pool table with billiard balls rolling around all over the place. It also seemed reasonable to assume that after the creation of this intricate and orderly universe." far removed from the ongoing providence of a loving God (Torrance. As Tarnas (1991:270. then all phenomena could conceivably be explained in those terms."envelope" that contains all that goes on in the universe. 1976:268." which move and interact with one another according to the influences of gravitational "forces. if the universe is composed of particles moving according to fixed laws of motion. . more or less at will." Newton's "particles in a box" paradigm readily lends itself to mechanistic. ." Newton's appeal to absolute time and space as an a priori"philosophical backdrop" to his theory creates a rigid cosmological dualism between absolute space-time and the material contents of the universe. philosophy. immutable laws. 1980:75. 2001b:282. or "point-masses. "inertially conditioning" events and our knowledge of them while remaining unaffected by them. To be sure. 283). God removed himself from further active involvement or intervention in nature. that could be analyzed mathematically. The new image of the Creator was thus that of a divine architect. 271. 271) notes. "By the beginning of the eighteenth century.
miracles are a no-no in this view. Bultmann held that historie. The Newtonian view of the cosmos as a closed system of cause and effect leaves God out of the picture. In so doing. ongoing processes and activities of the created order. that is. and unchanging space and time on the one hand." Newton's "container" view of absolute space and time as the philosophical backdrop of his thought renders the Christian doctrine of the incarnation extremely problematic.. 1981:43. In short. As Achtemeier (2001b:285. is thus mirrored in an equally radical disjunction between the creator God and the independent. a theological view that understands the world to function in an autonomous "clockwork" fashion that requires no divine involvement other than as a "first cause" (Torrance. In embracing a dualistic worldview." deriving its understanding from experimental data. incarnation.] Bultmann is a prime example of a theologian who is constrained by a modern dualist worldview. upsetting the delicate balance of the cosmic pocket watch. coupled with a "Baconian" understanding of scientific method (wherein speculative hypotheses are shunned in favor of theories developed strictly by inductive means based on experimental data). 1981:62. etc. Comment: That's the essential point." tenuously grounded in personal belief. if God were to intervene. 2001b:284). "Science" is viewed as empirical and "objective. [In other words. The theological implications of his theory were not lost on the great physicist. God-centered theology with a radically subjective. it would throw everything out of whack. "The radical disjunction in Newton's thought between the philosophical backdrop of absolute. say with miracles. eternal. 44. according to this view. The net result of this is a "powerful resonance" between the scientific view of Newtonian physics and Deism. Achtemeier. wherein the universe is conceived in terms of a self-containing and self-explaining deterministic framework. 286) observes. didn't really happen in time and space. just in the collective imaginations of us dumb Christians]. while "religion" is viewed as "subjective.dualistic outlook. drives a wedge between scientific and "religious" ways of knowing. since it is not clear (in a Newtonian view) how the infinite God could be contained in the limited structures of time and space. 63). some theologians have gone to great lengths to "cut off faith from any empirical correlates in physical space-time reality" [i. miracles. history understood solely in terms of a closed system of cause and . and the dynamic world of objects and appearances on the other. they have replaced objective. Newton was compelled to deny the incarnation and to support Arius against Athanasius. [What else can you do when God is disqualified as a player from the start?] Those who hold dualistic views tend to interpret the biblical accounts of God's agency in the world as "nonliteral symbolism or premodern mythology. the Bible is nothing but a collection of fairy tales. In fact.e. and therefore subject to allegorical or demythological strategies of interpretation in order to extract or explain the meaning embedded in the symbol or myth" (Colyer. man-centred outlook (Torrance. As Torrance (1980:68) notes. 2001:58).
IL: IVP. "[Bultmann's] acceptance of the idea of an unbroken continuity of cause and effect governed by natural law made him regard the central Christian beliefs embedded in the Gospels and Epistles of the New Testament as a mythological account of reported this-worldly events in other-worldly ways lacking objective truth and reality. F. Colyer. or God's interaction in human history. Next post due in a week or so. 2001. 1994:4-5). wherein the world is considered a closed system of cause and effect not subject to intervention from the "outside. incarnation. See part 2 for a discussion of Kant's epistemological dualism." In their vaunted wisdom. Downers Grove. (I like mine better. Thus. resurrection. This kind of "demythologizing" of scripture is alive and well today with the so-called "Jesus Seminar. How to Read T. References Achtemeier. R." Thus. Like Bultmann. ed. they get out their scissors and cut out everything in the Bible that smacks of the miraculous (including the Virgin Birth.effect. In E. really thin Bible. cosmological dualism is alive and well. they appear to embrace a cosmological dualism in their assertion that God does not (or perhaps cannot) intervene in history. MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Bultmann insulated the Christian message from the critical investigations of science while at the same time rendering the gospel completely irrelevant for modern science and technology (Torrance. Tarnas. they have a really. 1991. Bultmann was compelled to rule out any thought of incarnation. 19. 544pp.F. Stay tuned. Lanham. they get together and vote on which portions of New Testament scripture are authentic (they put colored balls into a hat I think) and which are merely the superstitious accretions of those silly first Christians. E. Thus." In offering an "existentialist reinterpretation" of the gospel. ruled out of rational consideration anything that could not be interpreted in terms of natural physical laws. resurrection. Just watch the "biblical scholar" "Domino Croissant" who gets interviewed by the History Channel every time the subject of the "historical" Jesus comes up. F.) So you see. Colyer. Torrance. 393pp. ascension and other little things like that). 11. When they get through. Torrance.M. Bultmann devised a method of "demythologizing" the New Testament so that modern people could understand it within the framework of a Newtonian-deistic dualism. NY: Ballantine. 2001. Ch. Torrance: Understanding His Trinitarian & Scientific Theology.M. 1980:18. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology: Theologians in Dialogue with T. Natural Science and Christian Faith in the Thought of T. . miracles. New York. That's all for now. The Passion of the Western Mind. P.
2001). vol 6. 121-135. 1981. T.F. 1990. 302pp. 1970. MI: Eerdmans. 353pp. Christian Theology and Scientific Culture. Torrance. The Problem of Natural Theology in the Thought of Karl Barth. 256pp. Grand Rapids. T. Religious Studies. 1984. T. (Preface to new edition by T. 256pp. Edinburgh: T & T Clark. F. 1976.F. Karl Barth: Biblical and Evangelical Theologian. 1980.Torrance. Transformation & Convergence in the Frame of Knowledge: Explorations in the Interrelations of Scientific and Theological Enterprise . Oxford: OUP. Torrance. Torrance. T. . T.F. Grand Rapids. The Ground and Grammar of Theology: Consonance Between Theology and Science. MI: Eerdmans. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.F. Theology in Reconciliation: Essays toward Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West. Torrance. pp. Torrance.F.F. Torrance. T.152pp.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.