H. Bettenson, ed., Documents of the Christian Church.
F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, eds., The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church.
J. D. Douglas, ed., The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church.
J. N. D. Kelly. Early Christian Doctrines.
Dooyeweerd, Herman. Herman Dooyeweerd (1894-1977) was a Dutch Reformed philosopher who attended, and later taught legal philosophy at, the Free University in Amsterdam (1926-65). He is best known for his four-volume work, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (1953-58). He founded the journal Philosophia Reformata, which was instrumental in establishing the Association for Calvinistic Philosophy (later called Christian Philosophy). His other works include The Christian Idea of the State, In the Twilight of Western Thought, Roots of Western Culture, and Transcendental Problems. His work followed in the Reformed tradition of Abraham Kuyper (1837-1920), although he went well beyond his predecessor in the critique of We stern thought and in the development of his own system
The Philosophy of Dooyeweerd. Although his thought springs from the Reformed thinker Kuyper, the philosophical roots of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy go deeply into both Immanuel *Kant (1724-1804) and the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl (1859-1938). He begins with a critique of the foundations of We stern thought, concluding that its basis in reason is ill-founded and unfruitful. It is blind to its own religious commitments, especially the pretended autonomy by which philosophy severed itself from divine revelation. Likewise, he rejected the adequacy of general revelation or common grace as a grounds for building a natural theology (see God, Evidence for).
The Transcendental Critique. One of Dooyeweerd’s legacies is his transcendental critique, which was used by Cornelius *Van Til in his *presuppositional apologetics. The form of argument follows Kant’s transcendental reduction, whereby one posits the necessary conditions of thought and actions.
Sphere Sovereignty. Dooyeweerd builds a distinctively Christian system of hierarchically ordered spheres, which he claims comprise the foundation of reality. His theory is known as sphere sovereignty, with each sphere of intellectual or practical activity subordinate to God’s revelation.
God has set up fifteen spheres for the operation of different aspects of creation
Evaluation. Among the valuable aspects of Dooyeweerd’s thought is his desire to preserve the sovereignty of God. He also made a massive critique of non-Christian thought. Some also point to his attempt to posit a firm starting point for his philosophy in a *transcendental argument, which became characteristic of his disciple, Van Til. This approach offers firm epistemological grounds on which to build.
Others have expressed reservations about his rejection of the adequacy of general revelation (see Revelation, General) or common grace as a grounds for building a natural theology (see God, Evidence for). Also, his tendency toward voluntarism is criticized by others, as is his lack of human reason as part of the image of God even in fallen human beings. Others see an inconsistency in his critique of human reason and his claims that there is a prescientific (phenomenological) starting point at which the person can interpret creation.
Further, this phenomenological method is self-defeating. One cannot conceive of the preconceptual nor think the pre-rational. The truth is that reason is inescapable. There is no pre-rational starting point for rational beings. Also, his denial of the ultimacy of the laws of logic is self-defeating, for he uses logic of God to deny it of God.
Sources
V. Brummer, Transcendental Criticism and Christian Philosophy.
A. L. Conradie, The Neo-Calvinist Concept of Philosophy.
H. Dooyeweerd, In the Twilight of Western Thought.
--,A New Critique of Theoretical Thought.
L. Kalsbeeck, Contours of a Christian Philosophy.
J. Klapwijk, "Dooyeweerd's Christian Philosophy: Antithesis and Critique.”
R. Nash, Dooyeweerd and the Amsterdam Philosophy.
J. M. Spier, An Introduction to Christian Philosophy.
E. L. H. Taylor, The Christian Philosophy of Law, Politics, and the State.
Double-Truth Theory. See Averroes.
Doubt. See Certainty/Certitude; Faith and Reason; First Principles; Holy Spirit, Role in Apologetics; Inductive Method.
Dualism. In metaphysics dualism is the belief that there are two coeternal principles in conflict with each other, such as matter and form (or spirit) or good and evil. Platonism is an example of the former and Zoroastrianism, *Gnosticism, and Manichaeismare examples of the latter. Dualists believe in creation ex materia, that is, out of preexisting matter or stuff. This is in contrast to theists, who believe in creation ex nihilo, out of nothing, and to pantheists (see Pantheism), who believe in creation ex Deo, out of God (see Creation, Views of).
Difficulties with Dualism. As *Thomas Aquinas observed, not all first principles, such as good and evil, are eternal. Short and tall are opposites, but it does not follow that there must be eternally short and eternally tall beings. Thus, good and evil can be opposed to each other without both being eternal. He reasoned that the problem is the assumption that “because all contraries seem to be compressed under the headings of good and evil, in that one of them by comparison is always deficient, they reckon that the primary active principles are the Good and the Evil.” So “there is not one first principle of evil as there is of good.” One reason for this is that “the original principle of things is essentially good. [But] nothing can be essentially bad. Every being, as being, is good; evil does not exist except in a good subject” (Aquinas, 1.1).
In dualism, neither principle can be supreme, since each is limited by the other. But it would seem that something must be ultimate. As C. S. *Lewis observed, “The two Powers, the good and the evil, do not explain each other. Neither . . . can claim to be the Ultimate. More ultimate than either of them is the inextricable fact of their being there together. Each of them, therefore, is conditioned— finds himself willy nilly in a situation; and either that situation itself, or some unknown force which produced that situation, is the real Ultimate” (Lewis, God in the Dock, 22). “You cannot accept two conditioned and mutually independent beings as self-grounded, self-comprehending Absolute” (ibid.).
In the moral sense, one principle cannot be pronounced “good” and the other “evil,” unless they are measured by something outside either of them. But, as Lewis noted, “the moment you say that, you are putting into the universe a third thing in addition to the two Powers: some law or standard or rule of good which one of the powers conforms to and the other fails to conformto.” However, since “the two powers are judged by this standard, or the Being who made this standard, then this standard, or the Being who made this standard, is farther back and higher up than either of them, and He will be the real God” (Lewis, Mere Christianity, 49).
“Dualism gives evil a positive, substantive, self-consistent nature, like that of good.” But “if evil has the same kind of reality as good, the same autonomy and completeness, our allegiance to good becomes the arbitrary chosen loyalty of a partisan.” But “a sound theory of value . . . demands that good should be original and evil a mere perversion; that good should be the tree and evil the ivy; that good should be able to see all round evil (as when sane men understand lunacy) while evil cannot retaliate in kind” (Lewis, God in the Dock, 22-23).
As *Augustine concluded, evil is the lack of good and not the reverse. Lor when we take all the evil out of something it is better. But when we take all the good from something there is nothing (Augustine). Hence, good is the ultimate and evil is a limitation in or privation of evil (see Evil, Problem of).
T. Aquinas, On Evil.
Augustine, Anti-Mcinichecin Writings.
N. L. Geisler, The Roots of Evil.
N. L. Geisler and W. Corduan. Ph ilosophy of Religion , chaps. 14-15.
C. S. Lewis, God in the Dock.
--,Mere Christianity.
Duns Scotus. See Cosmological Argument.