Journals / Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy / 2020 / Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4

The Anthropocentric Turn in Philosophical Theology: An Introduction to Theological Anthropology

Felsefi Teolojide Antroposentrik Dönüş: Teolojik An-tropolojiye Bir Giriş

Pages
1383–1404
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Then, the contemporary discussion top-ics and methodological issues of theological anthropology as an independent field have been analysed in the light of the current literature.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This article presents an introduction to theological anthropology, a discipline that resulted from the anthropocentric turn took place in the intel-lectual field in the modern era.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By this means, it is aimed at contributing to the Turkish literature lacking in comprehensive studies dealing with theological an-thropology.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Then, the contemporary discussion top-ics and methodological issues of theological anthropology as an independent field have been analysed in the light of the current literature.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

This article presents an introduction to theological anthropology, a discipline that resulted from the anthropocentric turn took place in the intel-lectual field in the modern era. By this means, it is aimed at contributing to the Turkish literature lacking in comprehensive studies dealing with theological an-thropology. First, the philosophical background of the discipline has been ex-amined in the light of the views of Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, and Wolfhart Pan-nenberg, who emphasise the need and significance of an anthropological ap-proach in modern theological studies. Then, the contemporary discussion top-ics and methodological issues of theological anthropology as an independent field have been analysed in the light of the current literature.

Özet

Bu çalışma, modern dönemde entelektüel alanda gerçekleştiği iddia edilen antroposentrik dönüşün felsefi teoloji alanındaki yansımasının bir neticesi ola-rak ortaya çıkan teolojik antropoloji disiplinine giriş niteliğinde bir araştırmayı içermektedir. Böylece, henüz teolojik antropoloji alanına dair kapsamlı bir kay-nak içermeyen Türkçe literatüre katkı sağlanması amaçlanmaktadır. Bu amaç doğrultusunda ilk olarak teolojik çalışmalarda antropolojik yaklaşımın bir ihti-yaç ve zorunluluk olduğunu çalışmalarında vurgulayan Karl Barth, Karl Rahner ve Wolfhart Pannenberg'in görüşleri ışığında alanın felsefi arka planı ele alın-maktadır. Daha sonra, müstakil bir ilmi disiplin olarak teolojik antropolojinin belirlediği amaçlar doğrultusundaki güncel tartışma konuları ve metodolojik meseleleri incelenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZTÜRK, S. (2020). The Anthropocentric Turn in Philosophical Theology: An Introduction to Theological Anthropology. Beytulhikme An International Journal of Philosophy, Cilt: 10 - Sayı: 4, 1383–1404. https://ajindex.com/articles/215975

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Barth, K. (1960). Church Dogmatics 3: The Doctrine of Creation, part 2. (Trans H. Knight, G. W. Bromiley, J. K. S. Reid & R. H. Fuller). Edinburgh: T&T Clark. Barth, K. (1962). Church Dogmatics: A Selection. (Trans. G. W. Bromiley). New York: Harper Torch Books. Barth, K. (2015). Theology and Church: Shorter Writings 1920-1928. (Trans. L. P. Smith). Eugene: Wimpf and Stock Publications. Brugger, E. C. (2009). Psychology and Christian Anthropology. Edification Journal of the Society for Christian Psychology, 3 (1), 5-18.
  2. Callaway, K. & Strawn, B. (2020). Experimental Theology: Theological Anthropology and the Psychological Sciences. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 48 (1), 3-17.
  3. Carr, A. (1973). Theology and Experience in the Thought of Karl Rahner. The Journal of Religion, 53 (3), 359-376.
  4. Clines, D. J. A. (1968). The Image of God in Man. Tyndale Bulletin, 19, 53-103.
  5. Cooper, J. W. (2016). Scripture and Philosophy on the Unity of Body and Soul: An Integrative Method for Theological Anthropology. The Ashgate Research Companion to Theological Anthropology. (Eds. J. R. Farris & C. Taliaferro). London and New York: Routledge, 27-43.
  6. Cortez, M. (2016). Christological Anthropology in Historical Perspective: Ancient and Contemporary Approaches to Theological Anthropology. Michigan: Zondervan. Cortez, M. (2015). The Madness in Our Method: Christology as the Necessary Starting Point for Theological Anthropology. The Ashgate Research Companion to Theological Anthropology. (Eds. J. R. Farris & C. Taliaferro). London and New York: Routledge, 15-26.
  7. Cortez, M. (2010). Theological Anthropology: A Guide for the Perplexed. Wilthshire: T&T Clark. Cortez, M. (2007). What Does It Mean to Call Karl Barth a Christocentric Theo-logian. Scottish Journal of Theology, 60 (2), 1-17.
  8. Dahlstrom, D. O. (2000). Translator’s Forward. A. Losinger, The Anthropological Turn: The Human Orientation of the Theology of Karl Rahner. (Trans. D. O. Dahlstrom). New York: Fordham University Press, vii-xiv. Erickson, M. (2013). Christian Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic. Farris, J. R. & Taliaferro, C. (2016). Introduction. The Ashgate Research Companion to Theological Anthropology. (Eds. J. R. Farris & C. Taliaferro). London and New York: Routledge, 1-6.
  9. Feuerbach, L. (2008). The Essence of Christianity. (Trans. G. Elliot). Walnut: MSAC Philosophy Group. Glasse, J. (1964). Barth on Feuerbach. The Harvard Theological Review, 57 (2), 69-96.
  10. Gonzales, M. A. (2007). Created in God's Image: An I