88 book reviews

A. Troost, Vakfilosofie van de geloofswetenschap. Prolegomena van de theologie. Budel 2004: Damon. 484 pages. ISBN 9055735027.

To publish a sizeable book on the crucial and complex topic of of the science of theology, and to do so at the advanced age of eighty eight years (!), is truly a noteworthy accomplishment. In this magnum opus, Troost describes in detail the significance of H. Dooyeweerd’s philosophy — as articulated in his Wijsbegeerte der Wetsidee, I-III (1935) and New Critique of Theoretical Thought, I-IV (1953-1958) — for the philosophy, or encyclopedia, of the science (wetenschap) of theology. In the “Preface” of Vakfilosofie van de geloofswetenschap. Prolegomena van de theologie (hereafter VgPt), the author calls attention to a growing recognition lately, especially in Germany and English-speaking countries, that the discipline of theology, like any other special science, is philosophically based, and that A. Kuyper already in 1893 emphasized this fact in his Encyclopaedie der Heilige Godgeleerdheid, I-III (vol. I, 1-55 and all of vol. II were published in English by Eerdmans in Grand Rapids, Michigan, as Principles of Sacred Theology in 1954). The paucity of public debate of Kuyper’s insight and Dooyeweerd’s contribution on this score four decades later has been detrimental to a proper understanding of the discipline of theology. Given the importance and complexity of the continuing problem of what theology as a science entails, Troost wrote this book specifically for academically trained and interested theologians and at a time of a growing opposition to the notion of theology as science and of increasing interest in practical ‘spirituality.’ The book is divided into three parts. Part I: Foundations, 1-4 (pages 10-145); Part II: Philosophy of the ‘science’ of faith, subdivided, after chapter 5, into II-A: “The field of investigation of theology” (6-10, pages 158-278) and II-B: “The Science of faith (or ‘theology’) itself” (11-16, pages 280-373); Part III: Encyclopedic introduction to different subdisciplines, subdivided, after chapter 17, into III-A: “Disciplines related to believing” (18-19, about Dogmatics and and exegesis, pages 396-446) and III-B: “Disciplines related to the church” (20-21, about the universal church and local churches, pages 448-481); and “Register” of names (482-484). In light of the depth and scope of this extensive study, all I can do, within the limitations of a book review, is highlight what I perceive to be its positive features, raise a few questions, and close with a commendation and a challenge to stimulate further reflection.

In terms of the central thrust of VgPt, the following features are noteworthy and helpful for anyone interested in reformational thinking in the disciplines of philo- sophy, anthropology, and, in that context, also theology. (1) Troost stresses that VgPt is not intended as a theological study in theology, but rather as a philosophical study about theology. In this clear and cryptic way, he has placed on the front-burner of the stove of philosophical thinking the prerequisite of an integrally of created , particularly with respect to humans and their knowledge, for a proper understanding of the discipline of theology. (2) The author does this in a way that honors the best features in the Kuyperian tradition of being sensitive to the close relationship between the disciplines of philo- sophy and theology, and that avoids the worst elements of (semi-)scholastic views of, for example, J. Woltjer and V. Hepp, in that tradition. (3) He emphasizes the great need to stress the unity of God’s revelation and to resist the temptation to talk about God’s redemptive revelation apart from his creational revelation and, as a consequence of isolating the former, paying only lip- service to the latter. (4) He suggests that because the name “theology” has such a long history and is so widely recognized, we should continue to use it, but only on the condition that we do book reviews 89 this in the philosophically and anthropologically more appropriate sense of “science of faith” (geloofswetenschap) rather than in the sense of “science of God.” (5) The author zeroes in, with dexterity, on the practical and theoretical ramifica- tions of acknowledging the “principial difference” between “faith” and “theology,” and he does so without separating these two and without losing sight of the unique and abiding relationship between them. (6) The book points out that failing to properly distinguish between faith and theology is detrimental to faith, tempts theologians to misconstrue their role within the community of believers, and contributes, sooner or later, to misplaced ecclesial conflicts and even painful and unnecessary schisms. (7) In his detailed analysis of the nature and role of knowledge in the acts of con- crete believing and abstract theorizing, in both philosophy in general and theology in particular, Troost relentlessly challenges the appropriateness of the classic Western distinction between faith and reason and the related disciplines of (christian) theology and (natural) philosophy.

Troost is up-front about his agreement with the basic principles and dynamic of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. This agreement is clearly evident in his understanding of such terms as, for example, law, time, meaning, transcendental, and his distinctions between law-side and subject-side, universal modal aspects and concrete individual entities, supra-temporal heart and temporal bodiliness, unity and diversity, and idea and concept. I wonder, however, whether the seven positive features listed above are necessarily Dooyeweerd-dependent. Could they not have been arrived at without relying (so heavi- ly) on Dooyeweerd’s distinct way of philosophizing and yet move, philosophically, in a different but yet ‘religiously’ same direction? I don’t think Troost would deny this possibility, although he does not, at least not explicitly, as far as I can tell, indicate this possibility anywhere in this study. It continues to fascinate me that the co-founder of reformational philosophy, D.H. Th. Vollenhoven, did not become involved, as Dooyeweerd did, in a “transcendental critique of theoretical thought,” and yet he developed equally reformational insights, although different from those of Dooyeweerd, on such fundamental topics as law(s), law and that which is subject(ed) to it, the universal and individual, heart, time, and history. Comparing my immersion in VgPt to a diving experience, I could say that after taking a deep dive into the pool of Troost’s hefty book, I experienced some ‘philoso- phical’ breathing difficulties on my way back up to the surface. After I was able to take a deep breath, I realized that my immersion in VgPt was something like taking a plunge into the ocean of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. Is perhaps the strength of VgPt also its weakness? Does this study perchance lean too much on Dooyeweerd’s philo- sophical method and system of theorizing? I hesitate to ask this question, but I cannot avoid doing this — while I will imme- diately add that to treat Dooyeweerd’s pioneering work with benign neglect is far worse than to try to benefit from the depth and scope of his probing — VgPt tends to come across as implying that Dooyeweerd’s philosophy is the, not an, answer to difficulties that arise not so much with our faith as with our theological understanding of the meaning of being “in Christ” (Col. 1:15-20), “the order of Melchizedek” (Heb.7), a possible resemblance between the two natures of Christ and the “law-side” of creation in connection with God as Origin and the world as temporal order of modal aspects, the distinction between God’s “creating” the world and the world’s “becoming,” and the “supra-temporality” of the heart. As to the core of the pistical aspect (cf. p. 164), I am not convinced that “certainty” (zekerheid) gets at it or expresses it best. It may still be too much influenced by H. Bavinck’s reason-oriented notion of certainty. Perhaps terms like subjection,