Page 80 - A Study of Theological Responses to Alvin Plantinga’s Aquinas/Calvin Model of Warranted Christian Belief - Kees van Kralingen
P. 80
Chapter 5
To see this compatibility requires that we realise that “for Bar theological knowing are only known in reflection on the gift of the knowledge of God,” as In other words, Barth would not have had objections against Plantinga’s reflection. I think it is possible to see Plantinga’s work in this way, although it should be clear that his ‘reflection’ starts with his development of his general epistemology
An example of this approach is Diller’s explanation of how Barth would have agreed with Plantinga’s critique of Enlightenment foundationalism. Barth’s own theology foundationalism and gives primacy to God’s ling action. As Diller states, Barth denies “...the very possibility that we could of our theological knowing,” and therefore he concludes that Barth’s “theological human foundations.” This is compatible with Plantinga’s criticism of classical
’s work significantly increase, however, when we look at the implications of Barth’s position on
‘ ’ Plantinga’s A/ Barth for Plantinga’s basic A/C model. He says: “To grant that there could be a human discover about the nature of revelation in the gift of revelation.”
78
5.4.2 How Do We Arrive at Knowledge of God?
Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma
Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma
Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma
