philosophy and theology personal statement

Student Good Guide

The best UK online resource for students

Theology Personal Statement Examples

Below are two perfectly written Theology personal statement examples . Use it as a motivation and inspiration for your academic work and university application.

Theology Personal Statement

The origami crane sits on my desk as a reminder of the theological questions that unfold before me. When I was 10 years old, I folded this paper crane in the hospital chapel where my mother had been admitted for cancer treatments.

As I struggled to understand why a benevolent God would allow such suffering, the chaplain helped me find spiritual meaning in hardship through this ancient art of paper folding. Origami transforms a two-dimensional sheet into a sculpture full of contours, shadows and depth – much like how spiritual perspectives can transform situations of grief into opportunities for growth.

Just as that little crane helped my young mind grasp concepts beyond my years, I now hope to guide others wrestling with existential questions and provide perspectives allowing them to see life anew. This childhood experience sparked a commitment I carry to this day – to advance my theological understanding so I can lift the spirits of those enduring life’s darkest nights.

Within the classroom, Religious Studies quickly emerged as my favourite A-Level subject. I was particularly captivated by modules on the philosophy of religion , ethics and the nature of God across Abrahamic faiths. Comparing ontological arguments from Anselm and Descartes highlighted to me the complexity of reasoning for God’s existence across history. Studying Kantian ethics and its application to issues like embryo research opened my eyes to moral nuance. By achieving an A grade in my RS A-Level alongside strong grades in complementary subjects like English Literature (B) and History (A), I have demonstrated both an aptitude for and commitment to theological study needed to excel at the university level.

Beyond prescribed curriculums, I have taken it upon myself to expand my theological knowledge substantially. Reading texts by modern thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Reza Aslan has exposed me to new perspectives on topics like science-religion compatibility and textual criticism of scriptures. I also had the privilege of visiting Israel and Palestine last summer, deepening my understanding of interfaith relations and conflicts in sacred land. From volunteering at a local church soup kitchen to engaging in debates on my school’s Philosophy Society, I have continually sought new ways to actively advance and apply my theological learning rather than pursuing it as a purely abstract, intellectual exercise.

Looking ahead, I feel strongly called to not only further my understanding through advanced theological study but also help guide others in their personal relationships with the divine. As an empathetic yet analytical thinker, I believe I possess the ideal traits to serve in roles like chaplaincy and spiritual counselling.

By pursuing expertise in theological ethics as well as psychological models of faith development, I hope to provide specialised support for those in crisis moments of faith – whether they be teenagers struggling to square their sexuality and upbringing or hospital patients facing end-of-life questions about the afterlife. Wherever I land professionally, university theology programmes will provide me with the advanced knowledge and critical thinking abilities to make meaningful impacts on people when spiritual guidance matters most.

With a lifelong fascination for the theological paired with a calling to help guide others spiritually, I am confident further study at university represents the next profound step on my path. The chance to substantially deepen my expertise whilst preparing for real-world application in fields like chaplaincy truly excites me. I look forward to all the intellectual, ethical and philosophical revelations studying Theology has to offer.

The stage lights illuminate the barren set piece – a simple wooden cross. As I step forward to deliver my monologue wrestling with the mystery of Jesus’ sacrificial death, the theatre fades away until only the cross remains.

This crucifix simultaneously embodies the profound questions at the heart of Christ’s suffering as well as the deeper spiritual longings within each audience member. Why must purity be rooted in pain? How does undeserved agony transform into redemption? In those heavy moments of silence, it feels as if all humanity holds its breath awaiting answers.

Though the director yells “Scene!” breaking the spell, for me the lights stay dimmed as the theological queries continue churning within. That perennial quest to unpack doctrine and comfort and disturb through drama is what calls me to the formal study of God and the human condition we call theology.

Beyond just an intellectual curiosity in religious issues though, my motivation also stems from a desire to provide thoughtful spiritual counsel. My grandmother’s inspiring model demonstrated the power of faith even amidst deep grief – as I helped care for her through my grandfather’s long illness, her steadfast belief in redemptive suffering provided comfort. Inspired by her grace, I wish to similarly guide others wrestling with questions of theodicy and loss from a place of compassion. A degree in Theology would equip me with the expertise to potentially serve communities as a hospital chaplain, hospice visitor or even bereavement counsellor.

I recognise advanced engagement with philosophical debates around God, morality and the meaning of life requires strong critical thinking abilities. As an avid member of my school’s Philosophy Club, I regularly dissect complex theological arguments and have undertaken my own analysis on topics like the compatibility of divine omniscience and human free will.

Achieving an A on my Religious Studies A-Level demonstrated my skill in interpreting biblical texts and assessing truth claims. I also further honed my logic through an interdisciplinary Extended Project Qualification exploring the intersection of law, ethics and technology.

Though eager to test boundaries of dogmatic thought, I believe fruitful theological exploration also requires empathy – an openness to varied lived experiences of the divine. As such, I have sought first-hand encounters with diverse religious traditions beyond just academic study.

From attending a Hindu puja ceremony to volunteering at a local mosque’s Eid festival, these exposures have enriched my interfaith literacy. If selected for theology programmes, I am particularly interested in modules examining communities like liberation theology and feminist approaches to reimagining God through marginalised voices.

With equal parts intellectual rigour and compassion for the human condition, I believe I possess the essential foundations to thrive in university-level theological inquiry. By combining critical philosophical perspectives with the needs of spiritual counselling, I feel called to not only advance discourse but transform lives. Just as the most moving theatrical performances integrate layered meaning with emotional resonance, an effective theological practitioner must seamlessly blend intellect and empathy. I am eager to enact this model, bridging ideological complexities around faith with sensitive guidance to uplift people in their darkest moments of doubt.

Telephone Tel: +44 (0) 20 7499 2394
Email Email: [email protected]

Strategic Guidance

Private Oxbridge Consultation
International Oxbridge Consultation
Postgraduate Applications Guidance
Book a Complimentary Call

Comprehensive Support

The Premier Service
Oxford and Cambridge Interview Preparation Weekend

Targeted Support

Oxbridge Personal Statement Support
Oxbridge Admissions Test Support
Oxbridge Interview Preparation Support

Application Guidance

‘Aspiring to Oxbridge’ School Talk
Teacher Training Workshop
Individual Guidance Consultations

Personal Statement Support

Personal Statement Group Workshop
Personal Statement Consultations

Admissions Test Preparation

Admissions Test Day
Admissions Test Course

Interview Preparation

Interview Preparation Day
Interview Preparation Course

Free Library

Oxbridge Interview Resources
Admissions Tests Resources
Student Library
Teacher Library
Keeping You Current
Webinar Library

Our Publications

Course reports, oxbridge applications.

Become A Tutor
Our Offices
Dukes Education

News & Press

Widening Access
Publications
Sign In Register
Sign In Register

Theology Personal Statement Guide

Your personal statement is an important part of your university application. It is your first chance to make a lasting impression on the admission tutors in the Theology department.

Your personal statement provides an insight into your motivations for wanting to study Theology, showcases your potential contributions to the cohort and demonstrates your determination and skills that will aid your success on the course.

Personal statement writing can appear to be a daunting process for many Theology applicants, especially when trying to strike a balance between discussing relevant accomplishments and academic interests, whilst condensing it all into one A4 page.

To help you get on the right track, our Personal Statement Guide takes you through everything you need to know to create an excellent Theology personal statement:

Why are Personal Statements Important?
What Should I Include in a Theology Personal Statement?
What Should I Avoid in a Theology Personal Statement?

Advice on How to Start a Theology Personal Statement

Advice on how to finish a theology personal statement .

philosophy and theology personal statement

What Should I Avoid in a Theology Personal Statement ?

The most common pitfall when writing a Theology Personal statement is oversimplifying or misinterpreting theological concepts. You must ensure that you explain theological concepts accurately and clearl y to produce an effective personal statement. You can make sure you don't do this by only mentioning ideas that you've read about thoroughly and are sure you understand completely.

Moreover, you must spell any key terms you use correctly . This not only shows your ability to pay attention to detail, but that you also understand the content you are discussing. Be careful not to conflate elements of one religious tradition with another, as this too can undermine your credibility and understanding.

Finally, stay as far away as possible from cliches and overly verbose language , like “I have wanted to study theology since I was young” or “Buddhism is super fascinating.” Instead, you should use precise, genuine expressions to succinctly convey your motivations and insights. Remember that your word count is short, and wasting words on vague statements does not make for an attractive personal statement.

Your Theology Personal statement is a reflection of your academic journey and pursuit of the subject. Hence, mapping out this journey to decide what you want to include in your personal statement is a great place to start.

Before you begin writing, creating a mind map or list outlining your reasons for interest in the subject can be very beneficial. Reflect on the theological texts you've found compelling, discussions you've engaged in, and any relevant experiences or media you've encountered. Concentrate on detailing what you have undertaken, what has motivated and enriched your understanding, and your aspirations for further learning. For instance, after reading the Epic of Gilgamesh, how was your understanding of Mesopotamia impacted or after learning about Samsara, what significance do you think reincarnation has for Hinduism?

If you are struggling to get your wider research off the ground, or need something new to get out of a research rut, check out some of our recommendations below:

Becoming Sinners: Christianity and Moral Torment in Papua New Guinea Society by Joel Robbins

Public Religions in the Modern World by José Casanova

A Secular Age by Charles Taylor

Studying Islam: The Critical Issues (Studying World Religions) by Clinton Bennett

Religion in Britain Since 1945 by Grace Davie

Documentaries:

Testament: The Story of Moses

The Story of God With Morgan Freeman

In Our Time, Religion (BBC Radio 4)

Philosophize This!

BBC Beyond Belief Podcast

Journals/Publications:

The Journal of Theological Studies

International Journal of Systematic Theology

Religion and Gender

Writing the conclusion of a Theology Personal Statement can be as challenging as crafting the opening line. Our main piece of advice is to try not to overcomplicate things! Your final sentences should clearly and succinctly summarise your academic interest in Theology and your enthusiasm for pursuing the course.

Think about what you want the admissions tutors to remember about you once they have finished reading. This is the information to foreground in your conclusion.

Lastly, always proofread your personal statement several times . We recommend giving a final version to a parent, guardian, teacher, friend, or anyone else you can find, really! Getting a second opinion, be it from someone with a background in Theology or someone completely new to the subject, can help weed out mistakes and ensure your writing is clear and your intentions can be understood.

What are some Tips for Writing a Strong Theology Personal Statement?
How Long Should my Theology Personal Statement Be?
What Kind of Extracurricular Activities Should I Include in my Theology Personal Statement?
How Can I Tailor my Theology Personal Statement to the Oxford/Cambridge Course?

The strongest Theology Personal statements are ones which demonstrate a genuine and authentic interest in the study of Theology but also show that they understand what Theology is. Top students will include key terms and explain relevant theories or content accurately to demonstrate their understanding of the course and course requirements.

Top level applicants will spend most, if not all, of their statement focused purely on their academic research and interests within the field of Theology. They will not mention anything that they cannot relate back to Theology or relevant skills for higher level study.

If you are applying for a joint honours course, such as Theology and Philosophy, or different courses at a few universities and Theology at others, carefully think about which topics you write about to demonstrate that you have skills to cover all elements of the course.

It is advisable to use as much of the UCAS-provided limit as you can. Your personal statement is a chance to exhibit to admissions tutors that you possess the qualities of an outstanding Theology student. While the 4000-character or 47-line limit (whichever is met first) may appear ample, once you begin detailing your interests, you will find that it ins't much space at all!

You want to ensure that you only include extracurricular activities that demonstrate relevant skills, interests, and qualities in your statement.

Whether the activity or resource you want to mention is directly related to Theology or not (and it doesn't necessarily have to be), you should not just mention it, but also explicitly discuss why or how you believe that it either motivates you or equips you with the skills to perform well on the degree course to which you are applying.

A lot of students assume you need to be experts in the Reformation, know the ins and outs of all the Abrahamic religions and be able to analyse Latin, but it is no requirement to cover any of this in your personal statement. It is important when tailoring your personal statement to Oxford and Cambridge that you follow your interests and, above all, be yourself and authentic in the opinions you express and the topics you choose to discuss.

Book your Theology Personal Statement Package

You can contact our Oxbridge-graduate Consultants on +44 (0) 20 7499 2394 or email [email protected] to discuss our personal statement packages.

If you’d like to know more about Theology, we have admissions test guidance and interview preparation readily available.

Our Oxbridge-graduate consultants are available between 9.00 am – 5.00 pm from Monday to Friday, with additional evening availability when requested.

Tel: +44 (0) 20 7499 2394
Email: [email protected]

Oxbridge Applications, 58 Buckingham Gate, London, SW1E 6AJ

Private Oxbridge Application Consultation
Oxbridge Personal Statement Support Package
Oxbridge Mock Interview Preparation and Support
Personal Statement Workshop and Checks
Schools Mock Interviews – Online and In-School
Teacher Training Workshops – Online and In-School
Oxbridge Preparation Days – Online and In-School
Frequently Asked Questions
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Safeguarding & Child Protection
Company Registration Number: 3757054

Personal statement advice: philosophy

Applying to university.

Getting started
UCAS Tariff points
Calculate your UCAS Tariff points
Amendments to the Tariff consultation
Offer rate calculator
How to use the offer rate calculator
Understanding historical entry grades data
Admissions tests
Deferred entry
Personal statement advice and example: computer science
Personal statement advice: English
Personal statement advice: Midwifery
Personal statement advice: animal science
Personal statement advice: biology
Personal statement advice: business and management
Personal statement advice: chemistry
Personal statement advice: dance
Personal statement advice: dentistry
Personal statement advice: drama
Personal statement advice: economics
Personal statement advice: engineering
Personal statement advice: geography
Personal statement advice: history
Personal statement advice: law
Personal statement advice: maths
Personal statement advice: media studies and journalism
Personal statement advice: medicine
Personal statement advice: modern languages
Personal statement advice: music
Personal statement advice: nursing
Personal statement advice: pharmacy
Personal statement advice: physiotherapy
Personal statement advice: politics
Personal statement advice: psychology
Personal statement advice: social work
Personal statement advice: sociology
Personal statement advice: sports science
Personal statement advice: statistics
Personal statement advice: teacher training and education
Personal statement advice: veterinary medicine
Personal statement: finance and accounting
Filling in your application
Staying safe online
How to write a personal statement that works for multiple courses
How To Write Your Undergraduate Personal Statement
Fraud and similarity
How to start a personal statement: The attention grabber
How to end your personal statement
Introducing the personal statement tool
Personal statement dos and don'ts
What to include in a personal statement
Using AI and ChatGPT to help you with your personal statement
Using your personal statement beyond a university application
Carers, estranged students, refugees, asylum seekers, and those with limited leave to remain
Personal statement guides
References for mature students

Show your analytical abilities

Some applicants for philosophy degrees will already be studying the subject, but many won’t have studied it before. If you are in that position, then Professor Christopher Janaway at University of Southampton has some simple but clear advice to offer: 'We want you to show us that you have a genuine interest in the subject, so tell us about the reading you’ve done, lectures you’ve been to, or any other ways you have engaged with philosophy.'

University of Bristol selectors outline a whole range of qualities that would impress. But what perhaps stands out amongst these, alongside demonstrating your interest and commitment to philosophy, is that the way you approach your statement needs to show that you are capable of clear thinking, and understanding and that you can analyse problems and construct an argument.

Giving structure to your statement will be very important, though how you actually thread it is entirely up to you.

London School of Economics selectors are also interested in your views and opinions on 'questions such as morality, free will, or consciousness,' as well as the experiences you have had which have led to your desire to study philosophy. Such as, they would expect the majority of your statement to be based around your subject interest and enthusiasm.

It’s open-ended – you have 47 lines and no rules, but don’t try to be too smart. You will stand out by doing your research, being interesting, relevant, and different, and by reflecting on what you’ve been reading.

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Philosophy and Christian Theology

Many Christian doctrines raise difficult philosophical questions. For example, Christians have traditionally insisted that they worship a single God, while simultaneously identifying that God with a trinity comprised of three numerically distinct, fully divine persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is not easy to see how three divine persons add up to one God. Similarly, Christians have also asserted that a human man, Jesus of Nazareth, is also God-the-Son, the second person of the divine trinity. It is not easy to see how a human man, who is born, lives, and dies, could also be a fully divine being. Consider also the relationship between divine providence and human freedom. Are human beings free to accept or reject God, or does God alone decide who will accept or reject God? Any answer to this theological question will also assume some specific philosophical account of human freedom and moral responsibility.

Christian thinkers have always drawn on philosophy to help answer these kinds of questions. In the earliest years of Christianity, running roughly from the second to the seventh centuries CE, and often called the “Patristic” period, the emerging Christian Church faced the daunting task of defining doctrinal orthodoxy in the face of internal and external challenges. In pursuing this task, Patristic thinkers typically did not understand themselves as “theologians” in contrast to “philosophers”. Indeed, they may not have endorsed any sharp distinction between philosophy and theology at all. But they still reasoned about their Christian commitments in the intellectual idiom of the ancient Mediterranean world, which was the idiom of Platonic, Aristotelian, and Stoic philosophy.

Over the course of the Patristic period, as the early Church successfully established its own intellectual framework, it formally defined the boundaries of Christian orthodoxy through a series of ecumenical councils. These councils—including the Councils of Nicaea (325 CE), Constantinople (381), and Chalcedon (451)—established the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and its corollary, the doctrine of the Incarnation (see Kelly 1978).

Yet even after the parameters of orthodoxy were established, Christian thinkers continued to face difficult philosophical questions about the meaning, coherence, and plausibility of settled Christian doctrines. They continued to try to answer those questions using the best philosophy of their day—from Scholastic Aristotelianism in the Medieval period to analytic metaphysics today. For Christian thinkers, the already settled doctrines of Christian orthodoxy provide a normative framework within which this philosophical reflection occurs, by demarcating the logical space that constrains the field of acceptable solutions. For example, it is not open to an orthodox Christian thinker to dispel the logical problem of the Trinity (the problem of how God can be both three and one) by arguing that there is in fact no God, or that God is not triune, or that the Father and the Son are two stages in the temporal life of the one God. These theoretical options are ruled out by virtue of the philosopher’s own orthodox Christian commitments.

As a general, formal matter, this point holds even though different Christian groups disagree about what the constraints of orthodoxy actually are. So Roman Catholic Christians and Protestant Christians will accept different constraints about, say, the nature of the Eucharist, and rival Protestant Christian groups will differ with each other in a similar way. But as a formal matter, Christian thinkers who think philosophically about Christian doctrines typically do so inside the intellectual framework provided by what they regard as authoritative Christian orthodoxy. Obviously, it is not the case that everyone who wants to think philosophically about Christianity must accept the constraints of Christian orthodoxy, even in this more relativistic sense of “orthodoxy”. Some modern and contemporary thinkers still identify as Christians even though they reject the very idea of normative orthodoxy, for example. And, of course, non-Christian thinkers, including non-theists, will reject any notion of Christian orthodoxy in its entirety. Yet they can still think philosophically about Christian doctrines.

Because its twin foci are so broad, an encyclopedia entry on “Philosophy and Christian Theology” could legitimately go in many different directions. This entry has two related aims. First, the entry discusses methodological questions about how philosophy and theology should be related. Accordingly, it surveys some of the most important ways they have been related in the history of the Christian tradition ( Section 1 ), before turning to contemporary debates about the way Anglo-American analytic philosophy of religion interacts with theology ( Section 3 ). Second, in between these two methodological sections, the entry also discusses recent work in analytic philosophical theology ( Section 2 ). Note that the previous version of this entry (Murray and Rea 2008 [2021]) focused on topics in contemporary philosophical theology. That version is archived and available via the Other Internet Resources but see, also, the topic-focused entries linked in the Related Entries for additional coverage.

Philosophical critics of contemporary analytic philosophy of religion (APR) are often struck by just how Christian and theological much of it seems. This criticism expresses the worry that APR as such looks too much like Christian philosophical theology. At the same time, theological critics often fault APR for lacking theological sophistication ( Section 3 ). In order to understand both poles of criticism, it is useful to have a better sense of the relevant historical background ( Section 1 ). But it is also important to appreciate what the best contemporary work in analytic philosophical theology actually looks like ( Section 2 ).

1.1 Integration

1.2.1 cooperation, 1.2.2 disjunction, 1.2.3 conflict, 1.3 from historical models to contemporary philosophical theology, 2.1 trinity, 2.2 incarnation and christology, 2.3 atonement and salvation, 2.4.1 the first sin, 2.4.2 the fall of adam and eve, 2.4.3 original sin, 2.4.4 personal sin, 2.5 other topics, 2.6 the rise of “analytic theology”, 3.1.1 narrowness of scope, 3.1.2 inappropriate methods, 3.1.3 responses to the worry that apr is “too theological”, 3.2 or not theological enough theological critiques of analytic philosophy of religion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. the relationship between philosophy and theology in the christian tradition.

Although modern thought tends to assume a sharp disjunction between philosophy and theology, it is not at all obvious how to distinguish them in a principled way. Suppose that we take philosophy in the broadest sense to be the systematic use of human reason in an effort to understand the most fundamental features of reality, and suppose that we take theology in the broadest sense to be the study of God and all things in relation to God. Then we should expect to see considerable overlap between the two: after all, God, if there is a God, is surely one of the fundamental features of reality, and one to which all the other features presumably relate.

In practice, when we survey the history of Christian thought, we do see considerable overlap between philosophy and theology. With respect to their topics of inquiry, philosophers and theologians alike ask questions about epistemology, axiology, and political theory, as well as about metaphysics and fundamental ontology. Similarly, with respect to their methods of inquiry, philosophers and theologians alike interpret authoritative texts, deploy arguments, and marshal evidence to support their conclusions. Here one might insist that Christian theological claims are grounded by appeals to “faith” or “authority”, whereas philosophical claims are grounded by appeals to “reason”. This contrast is promising when suitably developed, but it is not as sharp as one might initially suppose. Theology also makes appeals to common sense and ordinary human reason, and philosophy also has its versions of faith and authority.

Of the making of typologies there is no end, but it is still worth examining some of the most common ways that Christian thinkers throughout the centuries have understood the relationship between philosophy and theology. Without this historical background, it becomes all-too-easy to draw the relationship in naïve, anachronistic, and overly simplistic ways. In fact, no single interpretation of the relationship between philosophy and theology can claim overwhelming support from the Christian tradition. From outside the Christian tradition, while many non-Christian thinkers see philosophy and theology as quite distinct, others deliberately blur the distinction between them—because they think that theology is actually just misguided philosophy.

At the top-level of the proposed typology, we can distinguish between “Integration” and “Contrast” views. Integration views do not distinguish philosophy and theology at all, whereas Contrast views do. We can disambiguate the “Contrast” category into “Cooperation” views, “Disjunction” views, and “Conflict” views. The most prominent Cooperation views treat philosophy as a valuable, perhaps even necessary, tool for theological inquiry, and still allow some degree of overlap between the two. Disjunction views, by contrast, regard philosophy and theology as non-overlapping forms of inquiry, which feature distinct and ultimately unrelated goals and methods. “Conflict” views treat philosophy and theology as not only distinct but mutually antagonistic. In fact, however, few Christian thinkers have endorsed outright conflict between philosophy and theology. But it is still worth discussing the Conflict view explicitly, because some prominent Christian theologians throughout history—for example, Tertullian, Martin Luther, or Karl Barth—initially seem to advocate Conflict. Upon closer inspection, however, their views are closer to those in the Disjunction category.

These categories are crude. They could each be further divided, and subdivided again. They focus mainly on different Christian attitudes toward the interaction of philosophy and theology, rather than on the attitudes of non-Christian philosophers. Some non-empty categories are omitted altogether. But these categories do capture much of the landscape, and at least show that there are more options available than a naïve conflict between faith and reason.

The Integration model treats philosophy and Christian theology as continuous, integrated activities. On this model, rational inquiry about God does not sharply divide into discrete activities called “philosophy” and “theology”. Instead, there is simply the single, continuous intellectual task of trying to understand God, and all things in relation to God, using all of one’s intellectual resources. This account does not deny the importance of faith or revelation to the Christian intellectual life; rather, it denies that faith and revelation properly belong to a separate activity called “theology” in distinction from another activity called “philosophy”. According to this view, when we engage in rational inquiry of any sort, we should draw on every available source of knowledge that is relevant to that inquiry. So when we engage in rational inquiry about Christian topics, we should draw on scripture, Church tradition, and other such sources of knowledge, whether we call the resulting inquiry “theology”, “philosophy”, or something else. To do anything else would be to hobble our inquiry from the outset, according to the Integration view.

This account of the relationship between philosophy and theology has deep roots in the Christian tradition. Before the rise of the medieval university, it was the dominant view, and it still has contemporary defenders (discussed below). Patristic thinkers did not typically describe their own intellectual work as “theology”. The term “theology” already had a fixed meaning in late antiquity. It meant “poetic speech about the gods”, and was in general associated with pagan story-telling and myth-making: the great “theologians”, were Homer and Hesiod. Even though Christian thinkers like Gregory of Nazianzus sometimes acquired the honorific title “Theologian”, they did so because of the lyrical and poetic quality of their writing, not because they wrote about Christian doctrinal topics (Zachhuber 2020; McGinn 2008).

The general term that early Christian thinkers used to describe their intellectual work was, more often than not, simply “philosophy” or “Christian philosophy”. Christianity was regarded as the “true philosophy” over against the false philosophical schools associated with pagan thought. (See Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 8.1; Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 1.28.3, 1.28.4 1.80.5,6; Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian , 4.14.72.) This usage is consistent with Pierre Hadot’s (1995) claim that in Greco-Roman antiquity philosophy was understood as a comprehensive way of life. Christianity, on this model, is analogous to a philosophical school, in Hadot’s sense (see also Zachhuber 2020).

The Integration account continued to be the default account of the relationship between philosophy and theology into the early Medieval period. Before the rise of scholasticism in the great Western universities, there was no sharp distinction between philosophy and theology. Anselm of Canterbury, for example, certainly has the concept of a line of inquiry that proceeds using reason alone, without appealing to revelation, but he does not label that inquiry “philosophy” in distinction from “theology”. Moreover, in his own writings, he frequently blurs any such distinction, as he seamlessly moves between rational reflection and argument, on the one hand, to prayers, meditations, and exclamations of thanksgiving, on the other (e.g., Proslogion 1–4). Like many premodern Christian thinkers, Anselm also held that intellectual inquiry and personal holiness are linked, so that the more one grows in Christian virtue, the more rationally one is able to think about God (Adams 2004; Sweeney, 2011). This understanding of inquiry and virtue is also a hallmark of the Integration account.

1.2 Contrast

Unlike the Integration model, the Contrast model insists that philosophy and theology are fundamentally different forms of inquiry. Strictly speaking, there can be many different Contrast models, because the relevant sense of “contrast” comes in degrees. I focus on three: Cooperation, Disjunction, and Conflict. On the Cooperation account, philosophy and theology remain close cousins. When rightly pursued, they cannot really conflict, and they can even overlap in their respective topics of inquiry, sources, and methods. Nevertheless, the Cooperation account holds that the overlap between philosophy and theology is only partial, because they each begin from different intellectual starting points and appeal to different sources of evidence (Baker-Hytch 2016; Chignell 2009: 117; Simmons 2019). On another version of the Contrast model, Disjunction, philosophy and theology are even further apart: although they still do not conflict, and may even consider the same topics in an attenuated sense, their starting assumptions and methods of investigation are different enough that they share no significant conclusions. Finally, Conflict accounts assert that the conclusions of Christian theology are positively irrational from the point of view of philosophy. Although some historically important Christian thinkers might seem to endorse Conflict, closer inspection shows that they do not. Nevertheless, in the popular imagination, a persistent assumption holds that Christianity requires a sharp conflict between theology and philosophy—or at least faith and reason—and so it is worth briefly discussing why Conflict has had few traditional defenders.

On the Cooperation account, philosophy and theology are understood to be different, but mutually supporting, intellectual activities. For Christian thinkers who advocate Cooperation, philosophy and theology form a coherent, mutually supportive whole. They are not in conflict with respect to their conclusions, since truth cannot contradict truth, but they differ with respect to their foundational axioms, goals, and sources of evidence. Philosophy is understood as a preamble to theology, while theology completes and fulfills philosophy. Thomas Aquinas is a foundational advocate of the Cooperation account ( Summa Theologiae 1.1.1–8, Summa Contra Gentiles 1.1.1–9, Hankey 2001). Often the relationship between philosophy and theology is described in hierarchical and instrumental terms: theology draws on philosophy as needed, because philosophy is instrumentally useful to theology. According to a traditional metaphor, philosophy is the servant of theology ( ancilla theologiae , literally “handmaid” of theology; see Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae , 1.1.5). In a more contemporary idiom, theology uses conceptual tools provided by philosophy in the pursuit of its own distinctive intellectual task: elucidating the meaning and truth of revealed Christian doctrines.

On the Cooperation account, theology differs from philosophy chiefly because theology assumes the truth of divine revelation, whereas philosophy does not. Philosophy takes its foundational axioms and assumptions from generally available truths of human reason and sensory experience. Philosophy and theology also differ in the way they argue and in the kinds of intellectual appeals that are proper to each. Theologians can appeal to revelation—scripture and authoritative Church tradition—in order to generate new lines of inquiry, and can treat revealed truths as evidence in their investigations. For their part, philosophers must appeal only to premises and evidence that are in principle available to any rational inquirer.

This distinction between “revealed truths” and “truths of reason” implies that at least some revealed truths are not also truths of reason. By hypothesis, such truths would have remained unknown and unknowable had they not been revealed by God. (It therefore follows that without revelation, Christian theology could not exist, on the Cooperation account.) Paradigmatic instances of revealed truths are the doctrine of the Trinity, and the doctrine of the Incarnation. Throughout the centuries, most, though not all, broadly orthodox Christian thinkers have held that human beings could not reason their way to the truth of these doctrines without the aid of divine revelation.

According to Aquinas, theologians use the conceptual tools furnished by philosophy to elucidate the contents of revelation. Just like philosophers, theologians make arguments, and their arguments appeal to common standards of logic and rigor, even though they also draw on theology’s own unique (revealed) axioms and sources of evidence ( Summa Theologiae 1.1.1). Philosophical arguments cannot prove the foundational truths of revelation, according to Aquinas, but at the same time, revelation and reason cannot conflict. (That God exists is a truth of reason, not revelation, for Aquinas—see Summa Theologiae 1.2.2, reply to obj. 1.) Theologians can therefore use common standards of philosophical reasoning to answer any putative objections to their theological claims, by showing that any alleged conflict is only apparent. So, for example, even though it is not possible to establish that God is triune by means of philosophical arguments, it is possible to use philosophical arguments in a defensive mode, to answer objections alleging that the doctrine of the trinity is logically incoherent. When arguing with other Christians, theologians can appeal to revelation to support their claims. When arguing with opponents who do not accept revelation, they cannot ( Summa Theologiae 1.1.8). Yet this restriction is not really a disciplinary maxim designed to oppose philosophy to theology, but a pragmatic admission that one cannot successfully persuade opponents by appealing to premises they deny.

Like Cooperation, the Disjunction view holds that philosophy and theology are different forms of inquiry. Similarly, like Cooperation, the Disjunction view also that agrees that there can be no real conflict between the conclusions of philosophy (when true) and those of theology. But the Disjunction view goes further: Disjunction advocates deny that there is any significant overlap between philosophy and theology at all.

Disjunction does not subordinate philosophy to theology or treat philosophy as an essential tool for theology. Instead, to borrow a term from contemporary science and religion debates, philosophy and theology are “non-overlapping magisteria” (Gould 1997). In particular, Cooperation’s appeal to the distinction between truths of reason and truths of revelation does not suffice to distinguish philosophy from theology, according to Disjunction advocates, who instead appeal to various more fundamental distinctions of method or approach (see discussion below). Of course, even those who explicitly advocate Disjunction will occasionally deploy some methods associated with philosophy: carefully defining terms, making formally valid arguments, uncovering contradictions in opposing views, etc. Yet these methods are found in any form of rational inquiry, and so (presumably) they do not belong to philosophy alone.

Any given thinker’s view of Disjunction will of course depend on their underlying construal of philosophy and theology. Some thinkers—even some Christian thinkers—endorse the Disjunction view because they deny that theology is really a propositional, truth-apt discourse that proceeds by way of arguments and evidence. Instead, theology is something else entirely—poetry, perhaps; or a form of worship, praise, or prayer (Caputo 2015). This view of theology implies a sharp contrast with Aristotelian and scholastic philosophy, modern philosophy, and contemporary Anglo-American Analytic philosophy, though perhaps not with philosophy tout court . Philosophers might associate this view with the “expressivist” or “emotivist” critiques of theology that were common in the heyday of logical positivism. But in fact, versions of the “theology as poetry” view are found throughout the history of Christian thought (Beggiani 2014).

Other versions of the Disjunction view figure even more prominently in the Christian tradition. The foundational Protestant reformers, Martin Luther and John Calvin, both advocate Disjunction, in part because they both reject the synthesis of philosophy and theology that characterized late medieval scholasticism. According to Luther, philosophy and theology proceed from entirely different perspectives, with different starting points and different goals (1539 [1966: 244]; Grosshans 2017). Philosophy considers its objects of inquiry from the perspective of common human reason and sense experience, with the goal of trying to understand things as they actually are in the real world. Theology considers its objects of inquiry from a creational and eschatological perspective, with the goal of trying to understand them in relation to God as their creator and final end. Furthermore, for Luther, “creation” and its cognates are properly theological terms whose meaning derives from scripture and revelation, and which should not be identified with any philosophical notion of a first cause or prime mover; mutatis mutandis , the same point hold for creation’s final end in God (1539 [1966: 245, 248]).

Even when philosophy and theology do consider the same object of inquiry—for example, the human being—this difference in perspective ensures that the lines of inquiry remain completely separate. Luther’s 1536 “Disputation Concerning Man”, for example opens with the thesis that “Philosophy or human wisdom defines man as an animal having reason, sensation, and body” and then goes on to explore this definition. But his exploration only serves to contrast this philosophical view of the human being with the perspective of theology. Theology,

from the fulness of its wisdom, defines man as whole and perfect… made in the beginning after the image of God… subject to the power of the devil, sin and death…freed and given eternal life only through the Son of God, Jesus Christ. (1536 [1966: 137–138])

Luther’s theological account of the human being does not contradict the philosophical account, but it also does not complete or augment that account, because (according to Luther) properly theological claims are simply unintelligible to philosophy (1536 [1966: 137–140]; 1539 [1966: 240–241, 242]). They do not belong to the same universe of discourse.

Calvin shares Luther’s basic understanding of the disjunction between philosophy and theology. Like Luther, Calvin holds that the Fall has corrupted the power of human reason, but has not destroyed it altogether ( Institutes 2.2.12–17). When restricted to its proper sphere—matters pertaining to the natural world—philosophy remains valuable. But as a result of the Fall, “heavenly things” are inaccessible to unaided human reason ( Institutes 2.2.13). By “heavenly things”, Calvin means the saving truths of the Gospel.

So far, Calvin’s understanding might seem quite similar to the Cooperation view, which also denies that revealed truths are accessible to human reason. But Calvin further distinguishes philosophy from theology at the level of method, by denying that true theology engages in abstract, speculative reasoning, which he associates with philosophy, and insisting that any legitimate knowledge of God must be practical and affective ( Institutes 1.12.1, 1.5.10). For example, according to Calvin, it would be impious and dangerous to speculate on all the actions that God could possibly do—God’s absolute power. Instead, we should focus our loving attention on what God has actually done, paradigmatically in the person and work of Christ ( Institutes 3.24.2; Helm 2004: 24–26). Theology presupposes Christian faith, which is an affective response to Christ, and which requires “confidence and assurance of heart” ( Institutes 3.2.33). Yet scholastic philosophy, with its “endless labyrinths” and “obscure definitions”, has “drawn a veil over Christ to hide him” ( Institutes 3.2.2).

For Luther and Calvin, then, there can be no genuinely philosophical theology. Even though both agree that philosophical speculation can arrive at some limited truths about, e.g., a first cause, or about the nature of human beings, those truths are of no theological interest; even as bare propositional claims, they are already better and more fully known in theological inquiry. From the other direction, the properly Christian notions of God as creator and of the human being as imago dei , e.g., resist all philosophical speculation. Of course, Luther and Calvin can only hold these views because of the way they understand philosophy and theology. They both identify philosophy with late medieval scholasticism, and they both understand theology as a kind of existential encounter with God and Christ, as revealed in the scriptures. Different accounts of philosophy and theology would yield different construals of the underlying disjunction, or no disjunction at all.

None of the three views considered so far—Integration, Cooperation, and Disjunction—assume any real, essential conflict between philosophy and theology. All three views allow for apparent conflict, due to errors of reasoning or interpretation, or when either discipline departs from its own proper sphere, but they do not assert that Christian theology or Christian faith is irrational from the point of view of philosophy, nor do they hold that any significant Christian doctrinal claims can be falsified by sound philosophical reasoning. Throughout the history of Christian thought, many prominent Christian philosophers and theologians have criticized philosophy, or fulminated against what they regard as philosophical overreach, but few if any have regarded philosophy and theology as essentially incompatible, in the sense just outlined. Popular understandings of “faith” and “reason” often posit a deep and abiding conflict between the two, and so it is important to emphasize just how rare that position has actually been among major Christian philosophers and theologians. Key figures who are often regarded as Conflict advocates, turn out, upon closer inspection, to hold a different view.

For example, the Patristic theologian Tertullian famously asks “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” but he never actually asserted the irrationalist credo “I believe because it is absurd” ( De praescriptione haereticorum 7; De carne Christi 5.4; see also Harrison 2017). Instead, like all the Patristic fathers, Tertullian regarded human reason as one of God’s greatest gifts; ratio (reason) is one of his most frequently used nouns, and his own writing draws heavily on the stoic philosophy of his day (Osborn 1997).

Turning to a putative modern irrationalist, Søren Kierkegaard presents the incarnation as a paradox that offends human reason in his (pseudonymous) 1844 Philosophical Fragments , but close reading shows that “paradox” and “offence” do not equate to “formal contradiction” (1844 [1985: 53, 101]; Evans 1989). Rather, the incarnation seems paradoxical only to fallen, sinful human reason (1844, [1985: 46–47]). So the “offence” of the incarnation resolves into the claim that the doctrine of the incarnation had to be revealed, because its truth exceeds the limits of fallen reason. But, as discussed above, accepting this claim about the incarnation has been the norm throughout the Christian tradition. Moreover, according to Kierkegaard, even though the truth of the incarnation exceeds the limits of human reason, the claim that reason has limits is itself one that can be assessed by human reason (1846 [1992: 580]; Evans 1989: 355).

Finally, the twentieth century theologian Karl Barth’s famous “No!” to philosophical reasoning about God is also best understood as a rejection of philosophical overreach rather than a rejection of philosophy per se (Brunner & Barth 1946). According to Barth, we cannot establish the truth of theological claims using generally persuasive arguments available to any rational enquirer. But Barth had no quarrel with using philosophy in an Anselmian mode, to elucidate and clarify the implications of divine revelation, and in principle he even allows that there could be a genuinely Christian philosophy (1932 [1975: 6]; Diller 2010).

These prominent Christian thinkers all criticize what they see as philosophical hubris, but they do not set philosophy and theology as such in essential opposition, and they do not agree that any belief-worthy Christian doctrines actually are irrational—still less that they can be falsified by sound philosophical reasoning. In a way, this conclusion should be unsurprising. It is a basic claim of Christian orthodoxy that God is the very summit and source of rationality, and that human reason is one of God’s greatest gifts (Turner 2004; A. N. Williams 2007; Crisp et al. 2012). Christian thinkers have differed about the degree to which sin and the Fall have caused human reason to malfunction, but the suggestion that theological truths conflict with properly functioning human reason is alien to the orthodox Christian tradition, and so it is unsurprising that few major Christian thinkers have endorsed it. Far more common is the claim that some theological truths are inaccessible to philosophy because they somehow surpass human reason. On this line, when there is an apparent conflict between a philosophical conclusion and some Christian truth, the conflict is treated as a sign that philosophy has overstepped its own proper boundaries, not a sign that Christian truth actually conflicts with human reason. By and large, even the sharpest Christian critics of philosophy have held this view.

This historical survey has focused on prominent models of the relationship between philosophy and theology in the history of Christian thought. The survey also illuminates some contemporary philosophical and theological debates about how to understand this relationship.

Notwithstanding its Patristic origins, the Integrationist view has been especially prominent in recent philosophy of religion. For example, Alvin Plantinga’s (1984) programmatic essay “Advice to Christian Philosophers” intentionally blurs the distinction between philosophy and theology. Plantinga argues that Christian philosophers qua philosophers are entitled to base their arguments on revealed truths, and urges them to investigate distinctively Christian questions that may be of no interest to the wider philosophical community. More recent defenders of “analytic theology” have also taken an integrationist line. According to Nicholas Wolterstorff, the demise of Enlightenment-style foundationalism has thoroughly blurred the distinction between philosophy and theology:

What difference does [this distinction] make, now that analytic philosophers no longer believe that for some piece of discourse to be a specimen of philosophy, the writer must base all his arguments on public philosophical reason? Call it what you will. (Wolterstorff 2009: 168; see also Stump 2013: 48–49; Timpe 2015: 13)

Yet this prominent Integrationist line has been strongly criticized by other philosophers of religion, who implicitly endorse some version of the Contrast view, on which philosophy cannot legitimately appeal to theological sources of evidence like revelation and Church authority (Simmons 2019; Schellenberg 2018; Oppy 2018; Draper 2019: 2–4). At the same time, according to many Christian theologians, analytic philosophy as such is almost uniquely unsuitable for investigating properly theological questions (Milbank 2009; Hart 2013: 123–134). On the view of these critics, analytic philosophical theology does not revive the Patristic integration of philosophy and theology at all; rather, it remains a distinctly anti-theological form of modern philosophy.

Contemporary philosophers and theologians continue to debate the proper relationship between philosophy and theology. Before considering these debates in further detail (in Section 3 ), however, it is useful to briefly survey recent work in analytic philosophical theology. The fact that the Integrationist view has been so prominent among contemporary analytic philosophers of religion has helped shape a philosophical climate in which self-identified philosophers, working in departments of philosophy, find it completely natural to investigate explicitly Christian theological questions, from within the framework of normative Christian orthodoxy, in the course of their academic work.

2. Recent Work in Analytic Philosophical Theology

Recent work in analytic philosophical theology has engaged with nearly every major Christian doctrine. But work has focused on the most central doctrines: Trinity, Incarnation and Christology, Salvation and Atonement, and Sin and Original Sin. This section lays out the most significant philosophical problems associated with each doctrine and identifies some of the foundational philosophical responses from contemporary thinkers.

Analytic philosophical theology on the Trinity has focused primarily on the “logical” problem of the Trinity, the problem of how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—construed as three really existing, really distinct divine entities—can also be exactly one God (Cartwright 1987). The Church’s first two ecumenical councils defined the orthodox terminology now used to state the doctrine, but the councils did not attempt a philosophical solution to the logical problem. In the traditional terminology, the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct divine persons ( personae in Latin; hypostases in Greek) who share a single divine nature ( substantia in Latin; ousia in Greek; see Tanner 1990: 5, 24, 28). The logical problem then becomes the problem of how three divine persons (whatever we mean by “persons”) can instantiate a single divine nature (whatever we mean by “nature”) while remaining numerically distinct.

Responses to the logical problem can be grouped into several families, each with its own advantages and disadvantages. “Social” trinitarians defend an account of the Trinity on which the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct centers of consciousness, with three distinct centers of knowledge, will, and action, who nevertheless count as a single God. Social trinitarians attempt to secure the divine unity by arguing that a single divine nature can support three separate consciousnesses. They may also claim that the three persons necessarily love each other so perfectly and act in such harmony that they are properly regarded as a single God. Prominent social trinitarians include Richard Swinburne (1994), William Lane Craig (2006), Keith Yandell (2009), and William Hasker (2013).

By contrast, “Latin” trinitarians deny that the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct centers of consciousness. On Latin trinitarianism, even though the Father, Son, and Spirit are numerically distinct persons , they are not numerically distinct divine agents . When they act, they do not merely act in perfect harmony (as on social trinitarianism). Rather they are (somehow) a single actor, with a single will, carrying out a single action. The special challenge for Latin trinitarianism is to explain how it can be the case that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, so construed, really do exist as concrete, distinct entities, and are not just different names for the same entity, or different phases in the life of a not-essentially triune God. Brian Leftow offers the most well-developed Latin model, which appeals to an extended analogy to a time-travelling chorus-line dancer (2004).

Unsurprisingly, the sharpest critics of Latin trinitarianism are those who advocate a social trinity, and vice-versa: each side insists that the theoretical costs of the opposing view are too great. So Latin trinitarians charge that social trinitarians do not escape tri-theism (Leftow 1999; see also Merricks 2006); social trinitarians argue that their Latin counterparts cannot explain how the Father and Son could have a genuine, “I–you”, personal relationship, as the Biblical account seems to suggest (e.g., Matt 3:17, Mark 14:36; Hasker 2013: 114–118; McCall 2010: 87–88).

Philosophical responses to the logical problem of the Trinity do not divide exhaustively into social models and Latin models. “Relative identity” theorists argue that identity is kind-relative, so the Father can be the same God as the Son without being the same person as the son (van Inwagen 1995). “Constitution” theorists make a similar claim by drawing on the metaphysics of constitution. According to constitution theorists, a lump of bronze can constitute a statue without being identical to it, since we can destroy the statue (by melting it down) without destroying the bronze. So too, they argue, the divine nature can constitute the three divine persons without being identical to them, or without entailing that they are identical to each other (Brower & Rea 2005). The metaphysics of constitution requires a coherent notion of “numerical sameness without identity”. The sharpest criticism of relative identity accounts of the Trinity takes aim at the underlying notion that identity is kind-relative in the relevant sense. Similarly, the sharpest criticism of constitution views expresses doubts about the cogency and usefulness of the metaphysics of constitution (Merricks 2006).

Scott Williams defends a hybrid “Latin social” model of the Trinity on which the Father, Son, and Spirit are each constituted by the single divine nature, without being numerically identical to the divine nature or to any other person (2013, 2017). Unlike other Latin models, on Williams’s account each of the persons is a distinct agent; unlike other social models, they share numerically one set of powers, including one will (2017). Even so, according to Williams, the persons can each token the indexical “I” with different senses. Critics argue that Williams’s model falters at precisely this point (Hasker 2018b; see also S. Williams 2020).

For an extended discussion, see the entry, Trinity .

By the close of the fourth century, the early Church had agreed that God the Son, the second person of the Trinity, is no less divine than God the Father. But this Trinitarian settlement led directly to another, equally vexing question: how could Jesus of Nazareth, a human man, also be identical to God the Son? After another period of intense debate, the Church defined the doctrine of the Incarnation, which asserts that Christ is one person (or one hypostasis ) who exists in two natures, one fully human, the other fully divine (Tanner 1990: 83; Kelly 1978: 338–343). Yet, as with the doctrine of the Trinity, on its own, this conciliar terminology does not attempt to solve the underlying philosophical problem.

In contemporary philosophy, this problem has been called the “fundamental philosophical problem of Christology”. As Richard Cross puts it:

how is it that one and the same thing could be both divine (and thus, on the face of it, necessary, and necessarily omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, immutable, impassible, and impeccable) and human (and thus, on the face of it, have the complements of all these properties)? (Cross 2009: 453)

In other words, the fundamental philosophical problem of Christology is the problem that arises when a single subject bears incompatible properties. Christ seems to be both necessarily omniscient, as the divine Son, the second person of the Trinity, and yet also limited in knowledge, as the human man, Jesus of Nazareth—and so on for other divine and human attributes. Yet Christ is one person, not two: he just is the divine Son and he just is Jesus of Nazareth. On standard interpretations of logical consistency, nothing can have logically incompatible properties at the same time and in the same respect—hence the problem.

A venerable attempted solution to the problem of incompatible properties makes use of grammatical modifiers to index Christological predications to their respective natures: Christ is limited in knowledge qua his human nature, and omniscient qua his divine nature, where “qua” means “with respect to” or “in virtue of”. More simply: Christ qua human is limited in knowledge; Christ qua divine is omniscient. The thought of Thomas Aquinas furnishes a foundational source for this solution ( Summa Theologiae 3.16.1–12; for broader discussion of patristic and medieval uses, see Cross 2002: 192–205). Thomas Senor forcefully argues that this grammatical solution does not work, for it cannot block the relevant entailment: since the one Christ really is human and really is divine, it follows that the one Christ is also limited in knowledge ( qua human) and omniscient ( qua divine), and so the contradiction remains (Senor 2002; see also Morris 1986).

Kenotic Christologies hold that at the point of incarnation, in order to become a human being, God the Son relinquished the divine attributes (Forrest 2000; Evans 2002, 2006). In a way, the kenotic option neatly solves the problem of incompatible properties, since Christ is not omnipotent and omniscient (etc.) at the same time as he is limited in power and knowledge. Kenotic Christologies have a venerable pedigree, as well as some clear Biblical warrant (Philippians 2; for discussion see Evans 2006; McGuckin 1994 [2004: 189]. But if omnipotence and omniscience are essential divine attributes, then it is not possible for God the Son to relinquish them during the incarnation and regain them after the incarnation while remaining self-identical.

Compositional Christologies try to solve the problem of incompatible properties by appealing to the various “parts” that together compose the whole Christ. According to Thomas V. Morris, Christ is composed of the divine mind of God the Son, a human mind, and a human body. On his telling, Christ counts as fully divine, because he has a divine mind, which is the seat of his omnipotence and omniscience; he also counts as fully human because he has a human mind and a human body (Morris 1986). Morris seeks to dispel the contradiction between divine and human attributes by revising our understanding of Christ’s human attributes. Morris denies that human beings as such are essentially limited in power and knowledge (etc.). This move clears the way for attributing omnipotence and omniscience (etc.) even to the human, incarnate Christ, while also denying that the human, incarnate Christ is limited in power and knowledge. Richard Swinburne (1994) defends a similar Christology, but according to Swinburne, Christ is composed only of God the Son and a human body, which together constitute both a human way of thinking and acting and also a divine way of thinking and acting.

Other compositional Christologies appeal to supposed mereological facts about the incarnation to ground a more sophisticated version of the “qua move” (discussed above). If God the Son has human parts and divine parts, then perhaps the whole mereological composite can borrow properties from its constituent parts without violating the law of non-contradiction. Analogously, we might say that an apple is both colored and not colored, since it is red (colored) with respect to its skin, but white (not colored) with respect to its flesh. There is a sense in which the apple as a whole is both colored and not colored because it borrows properties from its parts. Perhaps something similar can be said about Christ, understood as a mereological composite of God the Son, a human body, and a human soul. Leading advocates of this sort of view include Brian Leftow (1992, 2011) and Eleonore Stump (2002).

Timothy Pawl (2014, 2016) seeks to dispel the fundamental problem by revising the truth conditions of Christological predications like “Christ is omniscient” and “Christ is limited in knowledge”. According to Pawl, it is incorrect that “being omniscient” and “being limited in knowledge” are logically contradictory properties at all. In fact, according to Pawl, once we correctly understand their truth conditions, we can see that they can both be true of the same subject after all. On Pawl’s account, “Christ is omniscient” is true just in case Christ has a nature that is omniscient and “Christ is limited in knowledge” is true just in case Christ has a nature that is limited in knowledge. Because Christ, and only Christ (so far as we know) has two natures, only Christ can be both omniscient and limited in knowledge. At first glance, Pawl’s proposed solution might seem to be the “qua move” once again, in different dress. But it is importantly different: Pawl is content to affirm the very entailments (e.g., “Christ is omniscient and limited in knowledge”) that the qua move seeks to block; he simply denies that this entailment is logically contradictory.

Jc Beall goes a step further and argues that some predicates really are both true and false of Christ, because Christ really is a contradictory being (2019, 2021). Beall defends a contradictory Christology because he accepts a non-standard model of logic, one on which some predicates can be neither true nor false of a subject, and other predicates can be both true and false of a subject. According to Beall, logic as such—that is, his favored account of logic—is neutral about whether any given substantive theory contains true contradictions. To determine whether it does, we must examine the theory’s axiomatic statements. When we examine the axioms of orthodox Christology, according to Beall, we find that they include authoritative conciliar statements that are most naturally read as contradictory—e.g., “Christ is passible and impassible” (2019: 415). Rather than revise or reinterpret such statements so that they are not contradictory, we should accept that they are.

Arguably, the deepest and most fundamental Christian affirmation is that Christ saves. In traditional terminology, another way to express the same affirmation is that Christ “atones” for the sins of human beings. Unlike the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation, however, the early Church never formally defined a single orthodox account of exactly how Christ saves or what it is about his life, death, and resurrection that accomplishes that saving work. As a result, a variety of theories or models of atonement have proliferated throughout the centuries. Contemporary work in analytic philosophical theology typically builds on these models, reformulates them in contemporary language, and seeks to defend them from criticism.

Satisfaction models argue that as a result of their sinfulness, human beings have a debt or obligation to God that they cannot possibly repay. By becoming incarnate, living a sinless life, and voluntarily dying for the sake of humanity, Christ successfully discharges the debts and obligations that human beings owe to God. Anselm’s “Why God Became Human” ( Cur deus homo ) is the locus classicus for the satisfaction theory, which has more recently been defended by Swinburne (1988). Closely related to satisfaction models, penal substitution models claim that human beings deserve punishment from God as a result of their sinfulness. Christ saves by freely agreeing to be punished in their place. Mark Murphy (2009) proposes a similar model of “vicarious punishment”, on which Christ’s suffering actually counts as the required punishment for guilty human beings, since knowing that a loved one suffers in one’s place is itself a form of punishment.

Satisfaction and penal substitution theorists must explain why a perfectly merciful God would require satisfaction or punishment from human beings at all, and why a perfectly just God would allow an innocent person to play the required role (Porter 2004). Accordingly, satisfaction and penal substitution views have been heavily criticized by modern and contemporary theologians for depicting God as a petty, wrathful tyrant. Adolph von Harnack’s nineteenth-century criticism of Anselm remains representative. According to Harnack, Anselm’s account depends on a

mythological conception of God as the mighty private man, who is incensed at the injury done to His honor and does not forego His wrath till He has received an at least adequately great equivalent. (1899: 77)

More recently, feminist theologians and philosophers have criticized satisfaction and penal substitution views for valorizing suffering (Brown and Parker 1989).

Eleonore Stump (2018) argues that typical satisfaction and penal substitution accounts cannot address the sinner’s persistent dispositions toward wrongdoing and concomitant feelings of shame. She dubs her positive proposal the “Marian” interpretation of atonement, and argues that it can explain how sinners are freed from shame and restored to fellowship with God. The proposal defies easy summary but it advances an account of atonement as union with God that is further explained using second-personal, psychological notions like “mind-reading” and empathy (2018: 138–139). Christ on the cross mind-reads—that is, psychically experiences—the mental states of every human sinner. Sinful human beings are thereby united to Christ, and so to God. When the indwelling Holy Spirit leads sinners to respond to Christ with love, they also will what God wills. The resulting state of union with God also heals the stain on the soul that is the sinner’s shame.

Several other models, also prominent in the Patristic and medieval tradition, have so far received little attention from analytic philosophers of religion. These include “ransom” theories on which human beings are freed from Satan’s grasp, and especially “theosis” or “divinization” accounts of atonement and salvation, on which Christ’s saving work consists in perfecting human beings so that they become as divine as a creature can be. (Jacobs 2009 and Mosser 2021 are important exceptions). Similarly, few contemporary philosophers defend the modern “moral exemplar” model, on which Christ saves by being a perfect moral example for other human beings to imitate. (Quinn 1993 offers a highly qualified defense, but holds that Christ is more than just a moral exemplar).

2.4 Sin, Original Sin, and the Fall

The doctrine of sin and the doctrine of atonement are correlative in the same way that a disease and its remedy are correlative. If sin is that from which Christ saves us, then the strength of the remedy (atonement) must vary according the severity of the disease (sin). As a first approximation, a sinful act can be thought of as a morally bad act for which the sinner is responsible. But the language of “sin” adds something to the language of moral wrongdoing: a sin is a failure or fault with respect to God. Like other Christian doctrines, the doctrine of sin poses tricky philosophical problems. To see those problems more clearly, it is useful to disambiguate the doctrine of sin into several distinct components: the first sin, the Fall, original sin, and personal sin.

For extended discussion, see the entry sin in Christian thought .

The problem of the first sin is the problem of how the very first sinful act is even possible, given various Christian axioms about the goodness and creative power of God, and various philosophical assumptions about the nature of freedom and moral responsibility. The problem of the first sin is sometimes treated as a question about the fall of Satan. It turns out to be surprisingly difficult to explain how Satan—by hypothesis, an angel created by God with a rational intellect, an upright will, and wholly good desires and dispositions—could ever make the sinful choice to reject God. Augustine ( City of God , Book 12), Anselm (“On the Fall of the Devil” De casu diaboli ), and Duns Scotus ( Ordinatio 2, dist. 6, q. 2 ) all wrestle with this problem. Contemporary philosophers who try to improve on their efforts include Barnwell (2009, 2017), MacDonald (1999), Rogers (2008), and Timpe (2012). Their responses all seek to explain how Satan’s choice is metaphysically possible, by appealing to their own favored accounts of human freedom and conscious attention. Wood (2016) further distinguishes between the “hard problem” of how Satan’s sinful choice is metaphysically possible, and the “harder problem” of how it can be subjectively rational—rational from the point of view of Satan himself.

The biblical story of Adam and Eve (Genesis 3) recounts the story of the first human sin and its consequences. The traditional story of the fall of Adam and Eve does not seem consistent with either an evolutionary account of human origins or what we know about human history more generally. On some understandings, questions about the historicity of the Fall are not properly philosophical questions at all. Yet it does seem like a properly philosophical task to articulate a doctrine of the fall that is both internally consistent and consistent with other things we know to be true. Moreover, the doctrine of the Fall is conceptually connected to other aspects of the doctrine of sin as well as to the doctrine of salvation.

Peter van Inwagen presents an account of the Fall that maintains many of its most important elements and, he claims, is consistent with evolutionary theory. Importantly, van Inwagen does not assert that this account is true, but only “true for all we know” (2004). In a similar vein, Hud Hudson (2014) offers an ingenious defense of a literal reading of the Genesis account that appeals to contemporary “growing block” theories of time. Despite initial impressions, neither van Inwagen nor Hudson are really concerned with defending quasi-literal readings of Genesis. Instead, they want to show that objections to those readings presuppose highly contestable philosophical—rather than empirical or scientific—assumptions.

In Christian theology, “original sin” in the strictest sense refers to the human condition after the Fall and not to the first human sin itself. The fall is the cause of the condition of original sin: because of Adam and Eve’s sin, subsequent human beings somehow “inherit” a disposition toward sin and an attraction toward evil that makes it inevitable that they will sin. On some stronger interpretations, all subsequent human beings are also justly regarded as guilty by God from birth, even before they have sinned themselves. Even apart from worries about the historicity of the fall, the philosophical challenges posed by this doctrine are obvious. How can people living now be morally responsible for the sins of the first human beings? What is the mechanism by which sin and guilt are “inherited” from past generations? If it is inevitable that all human beings will sin, can God justly punish them?

Some Christian philosophers have simply rejected the stronger versions of the doctrine of original sin as incoherent. Swinburne, for instance, denies that all human beings are born guilty as a result of the sin of their first parents and argues that the condition of original sin only makes it very likely, rather than inevitable, that they will sin themselves (1989: 141–43). Other philosophers have attempted to show that even a strong doctrine of original sin can be philosophically coherent, given the right metaphysical framework. Michael Rea, for instance, draws on fission theory and the metaphysics of temporal parts to suggest a way that contemporary humans might bear responsibility for the sin of Adam by virtue of being counterparts or stages of Adam himself (2007). He also argues that a Molinist-inspired doctrine of “transworld depravity” might accomplish much of what Christians want from the traditional doctrine of original sin (2007). John Mullen (2007) also constructs a Molinist account of original sin and inherited guilt. On Molinism, God knows all the true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, which means that God knows every free choice that every human being would make in every possible situation. According to Mullen, if it were true that every free creature would sin in an ideal, garden of Eden situation, then God could justly punish them in the actual world for what they would have done in that counterfactual world.

“Personal sin” refers to individual sinful acts. Because the philosophical problems associated with personal sin initially seem very similar to the problems associated with moral wrongdoing, there has been comparatively little philosophical work on personal sin. Still, important definitional questions remain about exactly how, if at all, sin should be distinguished from moral wrongdoing, whether there are sinful actions that are not immoral actions, and, conversely, whether there are immoral actions that are not sinful (Mitchell 1984; Dalferth 1984; Adams 1991; Couenhoven 2009).

There are philosophical questions raised by nearly all Christian doctrines and practices, and so there are many fertile areas of inquiry that still remain comparatively underexplored. This brief survey has focused on the most widely treated areas of analytic philosophical theology. But some of the most creative work has branched out into other domains including the Eucharist (Arcadi 2018; Pickup 2015); liturgy, ritual, and worship (Cuneo 2016); bodily resurrection and personal identity (van Inwagen 1978; Merricks 1999; Zimmerman 1999; Rudder Baker 2001); heaven (Walls 2002; Ribeiro 2011), hell (Walls 1992; Adams 1993; Kvanvig 1993; Sider 2002; Buckareff & Plug 2005) and purgatory (Walls 2011; Dumsday 2014).

In 2009 Oliver Crisp and Michael Rea published their edited volume Analytic Theology: New Essays in the Philosophy of Theology . The volume’s contributors collectively try to make the case that analytic philosophy offers a valuable and neglected resource for Christian theologians. A new research program developed in its wake, and the ensuing years have seen the rise of a self-identified school of “analytic theologians”, who use the tools and methods of analytic philosophy to address Christian theological topics.

At present, it is not clear whether there is any meaningful difference between Christian “analytic theology” and Christian “philosophical theology”, which has been treated as a kind of philosophy. As the discussion above indicates, analytic philosophical theology has been produced largely by Christian philosophers working in philosophy departments, rather than by theologians in departments of theology or divinity schools. Classic works of philosophical theology like Swinburne (1994) and Adams (2000) seem like analytic theology avant la lettre , for example, and much recent work called “analytic theology” seems quite similar to previous work called “philosophical theology” or even “philosophy of religion” (e.g., Mullins 2016). Yet some self-described analytic theologians have also insisted that Christian analytic theology is really a form of theology (Torrance [Alan] 2013; Torrance [Andrew] 2019; Crisp, Arcadi, & Wessling 2019). They emphasize that Christian analytic theology is an internal project of faith seeking understanding that, as theology, holds itself accountable to scripture and Church tradition. Yet whether Christian analytic theology is properly regarded as a kind of philosophy or a kind of theology depends on how we draw the underlying distinction between philosophy and theology—if indeed we draw such a distinction at all.

3. Philosophy of Religion, Philosophical Theology, Christian Theology: Is There A Difference and Does it Matter?

It might seem odd that analytic philosophy of religion (APR) includes explicitly Christian philosophical theology of the sort discussed in Section 2 . Yet most philosophers of religion working in the analytic tradition are Christian theists (Bourget & Chalmers 2014; De Cruz 2017). They avowedly want to explore their faith using analytic philosophical tools, and see no problem in calling their work Christian philosophy, philosophical theology , or more recently, “analytic theology”. Of course, philosophy of religion as such is broader than APR, and APR is broader than Christian APR. There are philosophers of religion whose work is analytic but not Christian (e.g., Lebens 2020; Mizrahi 2020; Steinhart 2020; Oppy 2018; Schellenberg 2018; Draper 2019), Christian but not analytic (e.g., Westphal 2001; Pattison 2011), and neither analytic nor Christian (e.g., Hammerschlag 2016; Burley 2016). Even so, the predominance of Christian philosophical theology—or “Plantinga-style Christian philosophy” (Schellenberg 2018)—within APR has recently reopened some contentious debates about the proper relationship between philosophy and Christian theology.

These debates can be grouped around two different—and opposing—lines of criticism. According to the first line, much APR is too Christian and too theological: not really philosophy at all, but a thinly-disguised form of Christian theology—perhaps even a form of apologetics (Levine 2000; Knepper 2013: 9; Draper 2019: 2). Conversely, according to the second line, advanced by prominent theologians, APR is neither fully Christian nor fully theological. On this line of criticism, APR does not really wrestle with the transcendent God of Christian faith, but tends to construct and examine its own false “God of the philosophers” (Milbank 2009; Hart 2013; Oliver 2010; see also Harris & Insole 2005, 17). Although mutually opposing, both lines of criticism raise an important methodological question: how—if at all—should we distinguish philosophy about Christian topics from Christian theology? Section 1 (above) surveyed important responses to this question in the history of Christian thought. This section addresses the question in the context of contemporary challenges to analytic philosophy of religion.

3.1 Analytic Philosophy of Religion: Too Theological?

The charge that APR is “too theological” can be disambiguated into two distinct worries. The first worry concerns the scope of APR when considered as a whole: APR is too narrow, because it focuses excessively on Christian theological topics, to the exclusion of other equally important matters. The second worry concerns the sources and methods of Christian APR specifically: the sources and methods of Christian APR belong more properly to theology than to philosophy.

The charge that APR as a discipline is “too Christian” or “too theological” could be understood as a worry about its scope: perhaps APR focuses too much on Christian theological topics, or at least on versions of monotheism that are compatible with Christianity, and is therefore too narrow in scope. Critics who advance the narrowness worry include Trakakis 2008, Wildman 2010, Knepper 2013, Schilbrack 2014, Lewis 2015, Jones 2019, Draper 2019, Timpe & Hereth 2019, Mizrahi 2020. Although the narrowness worry has wide currency, it is not always clear how to understand it as a properly philosophical criticism. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the narrowness worry is more often aimed at the field of APR as a whole, rather than at individual instances of APR. After all, the general claim that APR is “too Christian” does not entail that any specific argument of any specific philosopher is unsound. Similarly, even if it is true that APR as a whole should be “less Christian”, it is hard to see why that fact would require any individual philosopher to change her research and teaching focus (Schilbrack 2014: 12).

Still, some versions of the narrowness worry are more philosophical than others. According to more philosophical versions, Christian APR frequently fails as philosophy: as a result of their Christian-theological biases, analytic philosophers of religion inadvertently make bad arguments. On this line, Christian analytic philosophers are especially likely to engage in motivated reasoning and ignore counter-arguments or alternative points of view drawn from other religious traditions. Because APR is so narrow, Christian philosophers unwittingly work in an echo-chamber or an epistemic bubble (Schilbrack 2014: 14; Draper 2019: 5; De Cruz 2020). As a result, according to critics, the conclusions of their putatively philosophical arguments are often unwarranted for anyone outside the Christian community, even when they purport to be generally probative.

Less philosophical versions of the narrowness worry assert the general principle that APR should be more capacious, and should include more non-Christian voices, without explicitly challenging the soundness of specific analytic arguments (Knepper 2013; Carroll 2016; Mizrahi 2020). Here the worry is simply that APR does not—but should—reflect the diversity of religious and non-religious viewpoints that actually obtain in the world. Phrased differently, APR as a field wrongly excludes too much good philosophical work that just happens not to fit into the dominant Christian, monotheistic paradigm. Yet one can hold this view without also agreeing that existing APR fails on its own terms or that any specific philosophers should alter their practices.

The charge that APR is too theological could also be understood as a question about philosophical methodology. On this version of the charge, Christian APR does not begin from generally accessible assumptions and argue toward generally acceptable conclusions, as good philosophy should. Instead, it typically begins from Christian assumptions and argues toward Christian conclusions, like theology.

J.L. Schellenberg, for example, argues that philosophy must seek solutions to philosophical problems that are in principle “shareable” by any member of the philosophical community. Because much Christian APR assumes the truth of Christianity, its solutions cannot satisfy this condition, and should properly count as theology rather than philosophy (Schellenberg 2018). J. Aaron Simmons agrees: even though theology “can and should” appeal to evidence restricted to “determinate communities defined by revelational authorities”, philosophy should appeal to “evidence that is, in principle, accessible by all members of the philosophical community” (2019: 147). According to Simmons, the dominant strand of APR has ignored this criterion, and threatens to “become simply a subset of Christian theological practice” (2019: 149; see also Oppy 2018; Draper 2019: 2).

Analytic philosophers of religion have a variety of ways to respond to the charge that APR is too theological. First, with respect to the narrowness charge, they can accuse critics of mistaking the part for the whole, by denying that the charge applies to APR as such, and by pointing to those analytic philosophers of religion who neither assume nor defend the truth of Christianity. Yet this response is undercut by the fact that non-Christian practitioners of APR often make the narrowness themselves (Schellenberg 2018; Oppy 2018; Draper 2019). Second, its defenders also emphasize that much Christian APR does not actually assume the truth of Christianity at all, but instead argues for that truth. (Hasker 2018a: 90; citing Swinburne is a paradigmatic example). This kind of philosophy would clear even Schellenberg’s “shareable in principle” bar. Similarly, even those philosophical projects that eschew Swinburne-style natural theology might still clear the “sharable in principle” bar so long as they engage only in defensive maneuvers—for example, by answering philosophical objections to the plausibility of Christian claims (e.g., van Inwagen 1995; Pawl 2014).

Others argue that even explicit appeals to Christian revelation could in principle still count as philosophical appeals, albeit indirectly. Suppose we agree that theology can appeal to revelation, while philosophy trades only in “generally accessible” arguments. We still must distinguish between direct, first-order appeals to revelation, and indirect, second-order arguments that it is sometimes permissible to appeal to revelation (Wood 2021: 213–215). The second-order arguments could still be generally accessible philosophical arguments, even though the first-order appeals are not. For example, a first-order “theological” appeal might be: “The New Testament asserts p ; therefore p ”. But a philosopher might offer a general epistemological argument, accessible to anyone in the philosophical community, to defend the rationality of that same first-order appeal. (For example, she might offer a general argument that it is rational to form beliefs based on testimony, and the same general argument might establish that it is rational to treat the New Testament as testimonial evidence.) In a similar vein, Plantinga’s claim that belief in God may be “properly basic” is not itself presented as a Christian assumption or a revealed truth, but as a specific application of his general philosophical theory of warrant, which he has defended at length (1983, 1993a, 1993b).

Finally, because there is no single uncontested way to understand the boundaries between philosophy and theology, it is open to Christian philosophers of religion simply to deny the sharp distinction presupposed by critics like Schellenberg and Simmons (see, for example, Plantinga 1984, Wolterstorff 2009). In so doing, they would implicitly endorse a more Patristic “Integration” model instead of either the Medieval “Cooperation” model or the modern “Disjunction” model (see Section 2 above).

While one set of critics accuse APR of becoming too theological, another set takes the opposite line. According to several prominent theologians and philosophers, something about the analytic style of philosophizing makes APR particularly unsuitable for investigating Christian doctrines. On this line of criticism, far from becoming a species of Christian theology, APR is constitutively opposed to Christian theology, and the problem with analytic philosophical theology is not that it is too theological but that it is too analytic. This criticism takes several forms.

Sometimes, theological objections to APR simply reiterate Barthian objections to natural theology, presumably on the assumption that most APR is really a form of natural theology (Moore 2007). Other critics charge analytic philosophers of religion with historical anachronism and ignorance of the Christian tradition. Perhaps “a-historical” analytic philosophers of religion do not understand pre-modern ways of thinking and reading (so runs the charge), and so they wrongly believe that their own constructive work is congruent with the historic Christian tradition, when it in fact depends modern assumptions that are inimical to the Christian tradition (Hart 2013: 123, 129; Milbank 2009: 320). Other critics press the related worry that APR ignores the real Christian tradition altogether in favor of theorizing its own abstract, self-constructed version of the Christian god. Here APR

does not deal with the God of any tradition or encounter, but with a conceptual construct, a simulacrum or ‘the God of the philosophers’…. (Oliver 2010: 467–468; see also Hyman 2010)

Another multi-faceted line of theological criticism criticizes APR for “idolatry”, “univocity”, and “ontotheology”. This line reflects the general worry that APR does not take divine mystery or transcendence seriously enough. “Ontotheology” is a theological term of opprobrium that, in its current usage, derives from Heidegger (1957; see also Marion 1982 [1995]). It means, roughly, treating God like “a being” or “a thing in the world”. According to its theological critics, APR constitutively assumes that God is a possible object of human knowledge, even apart from revelation, and therefore treats God as fundamentally similar to any other object “out there” passively waiting to be discovered. Yet a God like this (so runs the worry) is not really God at all, but something else—an idol.

The worry about ontotheology and idolatry is also a worry about univocity—the view that our terms bear the same meaning when applied to God and creatures (Trakakis 2010). According to opponents of theological univocity, precisely because God is not “a being” or a “thing in the world”, God and creatures differ absolutely; they share no properties and so cannot be described by univocal predications. (So, e.g., the word “good” cannot have the same meaning in the statements “God is good”, and “Socrates is good”.) Worries about theological predication and univocity date back to the Patristic period, but in contemporary philosophy of religion, they are best understood as continuations of the late medieval disputes between followers of Duns Scotus, who defends univocal predication, and his Thomist opponents (T. Williams 2005; Burrell 2008; Cross 2008). As a generalization, most contemporary analytic philosophers of religion endorse a univocal account of theological language, whereas contemporary Christian theologians are more likely to deny univocity in favor of analogical or metaphorical predication, or even non-predicative forms of theological language (Pickstock 2005; Marion 1999).

Notwithstanding the sharp rhetoric, there has been very little direct engagement between analytic philosophers of religion and their theological opponents on these questions. T. Williams (2005), Cross (2008) defend univocal predication, and Adams (2014) tries to rehabilitate ontotheology. Other analytic thinkers offer their own positive accounts of divine transcendence (Crisp and Rea [eds.] 2009: 9–11; Rea 2015, 2020; Jacobs 2015). More generally, analytic philosophers and theologians have a variety of strategies for avoiding the deleterious consequences of univocity and ontotheology (Wood 2021: 130–74).

Adams, Marilyn McCord, 1991, “Sin as Uncleanness”, in special issue Philosophy of Religion of Philosophical Perspectives , 5: 1–27. doi:10.2307/2214089
–––, 1993, “The Problem of Hell: A Problem of Evil for Christians”, in Stump 1993: 301–327.
–––, 2000, Horrendous Evils and the Goodness of God , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 2004, “Anselm on Faith and Reason”, in The Cambridge Companion to Anselm , Brian Davies and Brian Leftow, (eds.), New York: Cambridge University Press, 32–60. doi:10.1017/CCOL0521807468.003
–––, 2014, “What’s Wrong with the Ontotheological Error?”, Journal of Analytic Theology , 2: 1–12. doi:10.12978/jat.2014-1.120013000318a
Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion . Translated in Anselm 2007: 75–98.
–––, “Why God Became Man” [ Cur deus homo ]. Translated in Anselm 2007: 237–326.
–––, “On the Fall of the Devil” [ De casu diaboli ]. Translated in Anselm 2007: 167–212.
–––, 2007, Anselm of Canterbury: Basic Writings , Thomas Williams (tr. and ed.), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Aquinas, Thomas, Summa Theologiae . Translated in Brian J. Shanley, OP (tr. and ed.), Summa Theologiae: The Treatise on the Divine Nature , Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 2006.
–––, Summa Contra Gentiles . Translated in Antony Pegis (tr.), Summa Contra Gentiles: Book I , New York: Hanover House, 1955.
Arcadi, James M., 2018, An Incarnational Model of the Eucharist , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108588560
Augustine of Hippo, Against Julian [Contra Julianum]. Translated in Matthew A. Schumacher (tr.), Against Julian , Vol. 55, The Fathers of The Church, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1957.
–––, The City of God [De civitate Dei]. Translated by Henry Bettenson, New York: Penguin Books, 1972.
Baker-Hytch, Max, 2016, “Analytic Theology and Analytic Philosophy of Religion: What’s the Difference?”, Journal of Analytic Theology , 4: 347–361. doi:10.12978/jat.2016-4.120023010007a
Barnwell, Michael, 2009, “ De casu diaboli: An Examination of Faith and Reason via a Discussion of the Devil’s Sin”, Saint Anselm Journal , 6(2): art. 5.
–––, 2017, “The ‘Harder Problem’ of the Devil’s Fall Is Still a Problem: A Reply to Wood”, Religious Studies , 53(4): 521–543. doi:10.1017/S003441251600038X
Barth, Karl, 1932–1967 [1975], Die Kirchliche Dogmatik , 13 books in 4 volumes, Zürich: Evangelischer Verlag. Translated as Church Dogmatics: The Doctrine of the Word of God , G. W. Bromiley and T. F. Torrance (eds.), G. W. Bromiley (trans.), second edition, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1975.
Beall, Jc, 2019, “Christ—A Contradiction: A Defense of Contradictory Christology”, Journal of Analytic Theology , 7: 400–433. doi:10.12978/jat.2019-7.090202010411
–––, 2021, The Contradictory Christ , Oxford Studies in Analytic Theology, New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198852360.001.0001
Beggiani, Seely J., 2014, Early Syriac Theology: With Special Reference to the Maronite Tradition , revised edition, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. First edition Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983.
Bourget, David and David J. Chalmers, 2014, “What Do Philosophers Believe?”, Philosophical Studies , 170(3): 465–500. doi:10.1007/s11098-013-0259-7
Brower, Jeffrey E. and Michael C. Rea, 2005, “Material Constitution and the Trinity”, Faith and Philosophy , 22(1): 57–76. doi:10.5840/faithphil200522134
Brown, Joanne Carlson, and Rebecca Parker, 1989, “For God So Loved the World?”, in Christianity, Patriarchy, and Abuse , Joanne Carlson Brown and Carole R. Bohn (eds.), New York: Pilgrim Press, pp. 1–30.
Brunner, Emil and Karl Barth, 1946, Natural Theology: Comprising “Nature and Grace” by Professor Emil Brunner and the reply “No!” by Dr. Karl Barth , Peter Fraenkel (trans.), London: Geoffrey Bles.
Buckareff, Andrei A. and Allen Plug, 2005, “Escaping Hell: Divine Motivation and the Problem of Hell”, Religious Studies , 41(1): 39–54. doi:10.1017/S0034412504007437
Burley, Mikel, 2016, Rebirth and the Stream of Life: A Philosophical Study of Reincarnation, Karma and Ethics , New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Burrell, David B., 2008, “Creator/Creatures Relation: ‘The Distinction’ vs.‘onto-Theology’”, Faith and Philosophy , 25(2): 177–189. doi:10.5840/faithphil200825216
Calvin, John, Institutio Christianae religionis , 1536, definitive edition 1559. Translated from the 1559 edition as Institutes of the Christian Religion , J. T. MacNeill (ed.) and F. L. Battles (trans.), London: S. C. M. Press, 1961.
Caputo, John D., 2015, The Folly of God: A Theology of the Unconditional , Salem, OR: Polebridge Press.
Carroll, Thomas D., 2016, “The Problem of Relevance and the Future of Philosophy of Religion”, Metaphilosophy , 47(1): 39–58. doi:10.1111/meta.12168
Cartwright, Richard, 1987, “On the Logical Problem of the Trinity”, in his Philosophical Essays , Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 187–200.
Chignell, Andrew, 2009, “As Kant has Shown…”, in Crisp and Rea 2009: 117–135.
Clement of Alexandria, Stromata , translated in Ante-Nicene Fathers , volume 2, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (eds.), Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. [ Stromata available online ]
Couenhoven, Jesse, 2009, “What Sin Is: A Differential Analysis”, Modern Theology , 25(4): 563–587. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0025.2009.01555.x
Craig, William Lane, 2006, “Trinity Monotheism Once More: A Response to Daniel Howard-Snyder”, Philosophia Christi , 8(1): 101–113. doi:10.5840/pc2006817
Crisp, Oliver D. and Michael C. Rea (eds.), 2009, Analytic Theology: New Essays in the Philosophy of Theology , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199203567.001.0001
Crisp, Oliver D., James Arcadi, and Jordan Wessling, 2019, The Nature and Promise of Analytic Theology , (Brill Research Perspectives in Theology), Leiden: Brill. doi:10.1163/9789004424333
Crisp, Oliver, Gavin D’Costa, Mervyn Davies, and Peter Hampson (eds), 2012, Theology and Philosophy: Faith and Reason , London: Bloomsbury.
Cross, Richard, 2002, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation: Thomas Aquinas to Duns Scotus , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199244362.001.0001
–––, 2008, “Idolatry and Religious Language”, Faith and Philosophy , 25(2): 190–196. doi:10.5840/faithphil200825217
–––, 2009, “The Incarnation”, in Flint and Rea 2009: 452–475.
Cuneo, Terrence, 2016, Ritualized Faith: Essays on the Philosophy of Liturgy , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198757757.001.0001
Dalferth, Ingolf, 1984, “How Is the Concept of Sin Related to the Concept of Moral Wrongdoing?”, Religious Studies , 20(2): 175–189. doi:10.1017/S0034412500015961
Davis, Stephen T., Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins, 2002, The Incarnation:  An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199248451.001.0001
De Cruz, Helen, 2017, “Religious Disagreement: An Empirical Study among Academic Philosophers”, Episteme , 14(1): 71–87. doi:10.1017/epi.2015.50
–––, 2020, “Seeking Out Epistemic Friction in the Philosophy of Religion”, in Voices From the Edge: Centering Marginalized Voices in Analytic Theology , Michelle Panchuk and Michael Rea (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–46. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198848844.003.0002
Diller, Kevin, 2010, “Karl Barth and the Relationship between Philosophy and Theology”, The Heythrop Journal , 51(6): 1035–1052. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2265.2009.00521.x
Draper, Paul, 2019, “Philosophy of Religion: A Vision for the Field”, in Current Controversies in Philosophy of Religion , Paul Draper (ed.), New York: Routledge, pp. 1–7.
Dumsday, Travis, 2014, “Purgatory”, Philosophy Compass , 9(10): 732–740. doi:10.1111/phc3.12165
Duns Scotus, John, Ordinatio II, dist. 6, q. 2. Translated in Duns Scotus on the Will and Morality , Allan B. Wolter, (ed.), Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1997, pp. 100–105.
Evans, C. Stephen, 1989, “Is Kierkegaard an Irrationalist? Reason, Paradox, and Faith”, Religious Studies , 25(3): 347–362. doi:10.1017/S0034412500019892
–––, 2002, “The Self-Emptying of Love: Some Thoughts on Kenotic Christology”, in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins 2002: 246–272.
–––, 2006, “Kenotic Christology and the Nature of God”, in C. Stephen Evans (ed.), Exploring Kenotic Christology: The Self-Emptying of God , New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 190–217.
Flint, Thomas P. and Michael C. Rea (eds.), 2009, The Oxford Handbook of Philosophical Theology , Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199596539.001.0001
Forrest, Peter, 2000, “The Incarnation: A Philosophical Case for Kenosis”, Religious Studies , 36(2): 127–140. doi:10.1017/S003441250000514X
Gould, Stephen J., 1997 [2001], “Nonoverlapping Magisteria”, Natural History 106(2): 16–22 and 60–62. Reprinted in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics , Robert T. Pennock (ed.), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 737–749.
Grosshans, Hans-Peter, 2017, “Reason and Philosophy in Martin Luther’s Thought”, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Religion , John Barton (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780199340378.013.343
Hadot, Pierre, 1995, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault , Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Hammerschlag, Sarah, 2016, Broken Tablets: Levinas, Derrida and the Literary Afterlife of Religion , New York: Columbia University Press.
Hankey, Wayne J., 2001, “Why Philosophy Abides for Aquinas”, The Heythrop Journal , 42(3): 329–348. doi:10.1111/1468-2265.00162
Harnack, Adolf von, 1899, History of Dogma , volume 6 (Part II, Book II, continued), T. K. Cheyne and A. B. Bruce (eds), William McGilchrist (trans.), (Theological Translation Library, 6), London: Williams & Norgate. [ Harnack 1899 available online ]
Harris, Harriet A. and Christopher J. Insole (eds), 2005, Faith and Philosophical Analysis: The Impact of Analytical Philosophy on the Philosophy of Religion , Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Harrison, Peter, 2017, “‘I Believe Because It Is Absurd’: The Enlightenment Invention of Tertullian’s Credo ”, Church History , 86(2): 339–364. doi:10.1017/S0009640717000531
Hart, David Bentley, 2013, The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Hasker, William, 2013, Metaphysics and the Tri-Personal God , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199681518.001.0001
–––, 2018a, “Responding to Challenges”, in Simmons 2018: 286–304. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198834106.003.0018
–––, 2018b, “Can a Latin Trinity Be Social? A Response to Scott M. Williams”, Faith and Philosophy , 35(3): 356–366. doi:10.5840/faithphil2018613104
Heidegger, Martin, 1957, Identität und Differenz , Pfullingen: G. Neske. Translated as Identity and Difference , Joan Stambaugh (trans.), New York: Harper and Row, 1969.
Helm, Paul, 2004, John Calvin’s Ideas , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0199255695.001.0001
Hudson, Hud, 2014, The Fall and Hypertime , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712695.001.0001
Hyman, Gavin, 2010, A Short History of Atheism , New York: Tauris.
Jacobs, Jonathan D., 2009, “An Eastern Orthodox Conception of Theosis and Human Nature”, Faith and Philosophy , 26(5): 615–627. doi:10.5840/faithphil200926560
–––, 2015, “The Ineffable, Inconceivable, and Incomprehensible God: Fundamentality and Apophatic Theology”, in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion 6 , Jonathan L. Kvanvig (ed.), pp. 158–176. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198722335.003.0007
Jones, Tamsin, 2019, “Is Academic Theology an Answer to the Problem of Philosophy of Religion?”, Journal for Cultural and Religious Theory , 18(3): 415–428. [ Jones 2019 available online ]
Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho , translated in Ante-Nicene Fathers , volume 1, Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe (eds.), Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885. [ Dialogue with Trypho available online ]
Kelly, J. N. D., 1978, Early Christian Doctrines , Revised fifth edition, San Francisco: Harper and Row. First edition London: A. & C. Black, 1958.
Kierkegaard, Søren [Johannes Climacus], 1844 [1985], Philosophiske Smuler eller En Smule Philosophi , Kjøbenhavn: Reitzel. Translated as Philosophical Fragments , Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (trans), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985.
–––, 1846 [1992], Afsluttende uvidenskabelig Efterskrift til de philosophiske Smuler , Kjøbenhavn: Reitzel. Translated as Concluding Unscientific Postscript , 2 volumes, Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong (trans), Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Page numbers are from volume 1.
Knepper, Timothy D., 2013, The Ends of Philosophy of Religion: Terminus and Telos , New York: Palgrave. doi:10.1057/9781137324412
Kvanvig, Jonathan, 1993, The Problem of Hell , New York: Oxford University Press.
Lebens, Samuel, 2020, The Principles of Judaism , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198843252.001.0001
Leftow, Brian, 1999, “Anti Social Trinitarianism”, in The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity , Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, and Gerald O’Collins (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 203–249.
–––, 2002, “A Timeless God Incarnate”, in Davis, Kendall, and O’Collins 2002: 273–299.
–––, 2004, “A Latin Trinity”, Faith and Philosophy , 21(3): 304–333. doi:10.5840/faithphil200421328
–––, 2011, “The Humanity of God”, in Anna Marmodoro and Jonathan Hill (eds.), The Metaphysics of the Incarnation , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 20–44. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199583164.003.0002
Levine, Michael P., 2000, “Contemporary Christian Analytic Philosophy of Religion: Biblical Fundamentalism, Terrible Solutions to a Horrible Problem, and Hearing God”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 48(2): 89–119. doi:10.1023/A:1004135605676
Lewis, Thomas A., 2015, Why Philosophy Matters for the Study of Religion—and Vice Versa , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198744740.001.0001
Luther, Martin, 1536 [1966], “Disputation Concerning Man”, translated in Luther’s Works , vol. 34, James Atkinson (ed.), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1966, pp. 133–144.
–––, 1539 [1966], “Disputation Concerning the Passage: ‘The Word Was Made Flesh’”, translated in Luther’s Works , vol. 38, in James Atkinson (ed.), Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1966, pp. 133–44.
MacDonald, Scott, 1999, “Primal Sin”, in The Augustinian Tradition , Gareth B. Matthews (ed.), Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, pp. 110–139.
Mackie, J.L., 1982, The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Marion, Jean-Luc, 1982 [1995], Dieu sans l’être , Paris: Fayard. Translated as God without Being , Thomas A. Carlson (trans.), Chicago: Chicago University Press.
–––, 1999, “In the Name: How to Avoid Speaking of ‘Negative Theology’”, Jeffrey L. Kosky (trans.), in God, the Gift, and Postmodernism , John D. Caputo and Michael J. Scanlon (eds), Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, pp. 20–53.
Mawson, T.J., 2019, The Divine Attributes , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108598101
McCall, Thomas, 2010, Which Trinity? Whose Monotheism? Philosophical and Systematic Theologians on the Metaphysics of Trinitarian Theology , Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans.
McGinn, Bernard, 2008, “Regina Quondam…”, Speculum , 83(4): 817–839. doi:10.1017/S0038713400017048
McGuckin, John Anthony, 1994 [2004], St. Cyril of Alexandria: The Christological Controversy: Its History, Theology, and Texts , (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 23), Leiden/New York: E.J. Brill. Reprinted as Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy , New York: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004.
McMartin, Jason, 2013, “Analytic Philosophy and Christian Theology: Analytic Philosophy and Christian Theology”, Religion Compass , 7(9): 361–371. doi:10.1111/rec3.12051
Merricks, Trenton, 1999 [2009], “The Resurrection of the Body and the Life Everlasting”, in Reason for the Hope Within , Michael J. Murray (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 261–286. Reprinted in Rea 2009b: 364–385.
–––, 2006, “Split Brains and the Godhead”, in Knowledge and Reality: Essays in Honor of Alvin Plantinga , Thomas M. Crisp, Matthew Davidson, and David Vander Laan (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 299–326. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4733-9_13
Milbank, John, 2009, The Future of Love: Essays in Political Theology , London: SCM Press.
Mitchell, Basil, 1984, “How Is the Concept of Sin Related to the Concept of Moral Wrongdoing?”, Religious Studies , 20(2): 165–173. doi:10.1017/S003441250001595X
Mizrahi, Moti, 2020, “If Analytic Philosophy of Religion Is Sick, Can It Be Cured?”, Religious Studies , 56(4): 558–577. doi:10.1017/S0034412518000902
Moore, Andrew W., 2007, “Reason”, in The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology , Kathryn Tanner, John Webster, and Iain Torrance (eds), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 394–412.
Morris, Thomas V., 1986, The Logic of God Incarnate , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
––– (ed.), 1988, Philosophy and the Christian Faith , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
Mosser, Carl, 2021, “Deification and Union with God”, in T&T Clark Companion to Analytic Theology , James M. Arcadi and James T. Turner (eds), New York: Bloomsbury, pp. 269–280.
Mullen, John T., 2007, “Can Evolutionary Psychology Confirm Original Sin?”, Faith and Philosophy , 24(3): 268–283. doi:10.5840/faithphil200724312
Mullins, R.T., 2016, The End of the Timeless God , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198755180.001.0001
Murphy, Mark C., 2009, “Not Penal Substitution but Vicarious Punishment”, Faith and Philosophy , 26(3): 253–273. doi:10.5840/faithphil200926314
Murray, Michael J. and Michael Rea, 2008 [2021], “Philosophy and Christian Theology”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/ >
Oliver, Simon, 2010, “Analytic Theology”, International Journal of Systematic Theology , 12(4): 464–475. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2400.2010.00522.x
Oppy, Graham, 2018, “Philosophy, Religion, and Worldview”, in Simmons 2018: 244–259. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198834106.003.0016
Osborn, Eric, 1997, Tertullian, First Theologian of the West , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511582882
Pattison, George, 2011, God and Being: An Enquiry , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199588688.001.0001
Pawl, Timothy, 2014, “A Solution to the Fundamental Philosophical Problem of Christology”, Journal of Analytic Theology , 2: 61–85. doi:10.12978/jat.2014-1.190824150011a
–––, 2016, In Defense of Conciliar Christology: A Philosophical Essay , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198765929.001.0001
Philipse, Herman, 2012, God in the Age of Science? A Critique of Religious Reason , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199697533.001.0001
Pickup, Martin, 2015, “Real Presence in the Eucharist and Time-Travel”, Religious Studies , 51(3): 379–389. doi:10.1017/S0034412514000444
Pickstock, Catherine, 2005, “Duns Scotus: His Historical and Contemporary Significance”, Modern Theology , 21(4): 543–574. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0025.2005.00297.x
Plantinga, Alvin, 1983, “Reason and Belief in God”, in Faith and Rationality , Alvin Plantinga and Nicholas Wolterstorff (eds), Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 16–93.
–––, 1984, “Advice to Christian Philosophers”, Faith and Philosophy , 1(3): 253–271. doi:10.5840/faithphil19841317
–––, 1993a, Warrant: The Current Debate , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195078624.001.0001
–––, 1993b, Warrant and Proper Function , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195078640.001.0001
–––, 2007, “Appendix: Two Dozen (or so) Theistic Arguments”, in Alvin Plantinga , Deane-Peter Baker (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 203–228. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511611247.010
Porter, Stephen L., 2004 [2009], “Swinburnian Atonement and the Doctrine of Penal Substitution”, Faith and Philosophy , 21(2): 228–241. Reprinted in Rea 2009a: 314–327. doi:10.5840/faithphil20042126
Quinn, Philip L., 1993 [2009], “Abelard on the Atonement: Nothing Unintelligible, Arbitrary, Illogical, or Immoral About It”, in Stump 1993. Reprinted in Rea 2009a: 348–365.
Rea, Michael C., 2007, “The Metaphysics of Original Sin”, in Persons: Human and Divine , Peter Van Inwagen and Dean Zimmerman (eds.), Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 319–356.
––– (ed.), 2009a, Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology, Vol. 1: Trinity, Incarnation, Atonement , New York: Oxford University Press.
––– (ed.), 2009b, Oxford Readings in Philosophical Theology, Vol. 2: Providence, Scripture, and Resurrection , New York: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2015, “Theology without Idolatry or Violence”, Scottish Journal of Theology , 68(1): 61–79. doi:10.1017/S0036930614000908
–––, 2020, “God Beyond Being: Towards a Credible Account of Divine Transcendence”, in Essays in Analytic Theology, Volume 1 , Michael C. Rea (ed.), New York: Oxford University Press, 120–137. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198866800.003.0007
Ribeiro, Brian, 2011, “The Problem of Heaven”, Ratio , 24(1): 46–64. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9329.2010.00482.x
Rogers, Katherin, 2008, Anselm on Freedom , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199231676.001.0001
Rudder Baker, Lynne, 2001, “Material Persons and the Doctrine of Resurrection”, Faith and Philosophy , 18(2): 151–167. doi:10.5840/faithphil20011821
Schellenberg, J.L., 2018, “Is Plantinga-Style Christian Philosophy Really Philosophy?”, in Simmons 2018: 229–243. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198834106.003.0015
Schilbrack, Kevin, 2014, Philosophy and the Study of Religions: A Manifesto , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Senor, Thomas D., 2002, “Incarnation, Timelessness, and Leibniz’s Law Problems”, in God and Time: Essays on the Divine Nature , Gregory Ganssle and David M. Woodruff (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 220–235.
Sider, Theodore, 2002, “Hell and Vagueness”, Faith and Philosophy , 19(1): 58–68. doi:10.5840/faithphil20021918
Simmons, J. Aaron (ed.), 2018, Christian Philosophy: Conceptions, Continuations, and Challenges , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198834106.001.0001
–––, 2019, “Living in the Existential Margins: Reflections on the Relationship Between Philosophy and Theology”, Open Theology , 5: 147–157. doi:10.1515/opth-2019-0014
Steinhart, Eric, 2020, Believing in Dawkins: The New Spiritual Atheism , Cham: Palgrave. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-43052-8
Stump, Eleonore (ed.), 1993, Reasoned Faith: Essays in Philosophical Theology in Honor of Norman Kretzmann , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
–––, 2002, “Aquinas’s Metaphysics of the Incarnation”, in Davis, Kendall, O’Collins 2002: 197–220.
–––, 2013, “Athens and Jerusalem: The Relationship of Philosophy and Theology”, Journal of Analytic Theology , 1(1): 45–59.
–––, 2018, Atonement , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198813866.001.0001
Sweeney, Eileen, 2011, “The Problem of Philosophy and Theology in Anselm of Canterbury”, in Philosophy and Theology in the Long Middle Ages. A Tribute to Stephen F. Brown , Kent Emery, Russell Friedman, and Andreas Speer (eds.), Leiden: Brill, pp. 485–514.
Swinburne, Richard, 1988 [2009], “The Christian Scheme of Salvation”, in Morris 1988: 15–30. Reprinted in Rea 2009a: 294–307.
–––, 1989, Responsibility and Atonement , New York: Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/0198248490.001.0001
–––, 1994, The Christian God , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Tanner, Norman P. (ed.), 1990, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Volume One: Nicaea I to Lateran V , Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Tertullian, ca. 207–208 CE, De carne Christi , translated in Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation , Ernest Evans (ed. and trans.), London: SPCK, 1956.
–––, ca. 198–206 CE, De praescriptione haereticorum , in Patrologia Cursus Completus: Series Latina , J. P. Migne (ed.), Paris, 1857–1912, vol. 2, col. 20.
Timpe, Kevin, 2012, “The Arbitrariness of the Primal Sin”, in Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 5 , Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 186–205.
–––, 2015, “On Analytic Theology”, Scientia et Fides , 3(2): 9–22. doi:10.12775/SetF.2015.013
Timpe, Kevin and Blake Hereth, 2019, “Introduction”, in The Lost Sheep in Philosophy of Religion: New Perspectives on Disability, Gender, Race, and Animals , Blake Hereth and Kevin Timpe (eds.), New York: Routledge, pp. 1–27.
Torrance, Alan, 2013, “Analytic Theology and the Reconciled Mind; The Significance of History”, Journal of Analytic Theology , 1: 30–44. doi:10.12978/jat.2013-1.001113191404a
Torrance, Andrew, 2019, “The Possibility of a Scientific Approach to Analytic Theology”, Journal of Analytic Theology , 7: 178–198. doi:10.12978/jat.2019-7.001322191404
Trakakis, Nick N., 2008, The End of Philosophy of Religion , New York: Continuum.
–––, 2010, “Does Univocity Entail Idolatry?”, Sophia , 49(4): 535–555. doi:10.1007/s11841-010-0222-4
Turner, Denys, 2004, Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511617317
van Inwagen, Peter, 1978, “The Possibility of Resurrection”, International Journal for Philosophy of Religion , 9(2): 114–121. doi:10.1007/BF00138364
–––, 1995, “And Yet They Are Not Three Gods But One God”, in Morris 1988: 241–278. Reprinted in his God, Knowledge, and Mystery: Essays in Philosophical Theology , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, pp. 222–259.
–––, 2004, “The Argument from Evil”, in Christian Faith and the Problem of Evil , Peter van Inwagen (ed.), Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 55–73.
Walls, Jerry L., 1992, Hell: The Logic of Damnation , Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
–––, 2002, Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0195113020.001.0001
–––, 2011, Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation , New York, Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732296.001.0001
Westphal, Merold, 2001, Overcoming Ontotheology , New York: Fordham University Press.
Wildman, Wesley J, 2010, Religious Philosophy as Multidisciplinary Comparative Inquiry: Envisioning a Future for the Philosophy of Religion , Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Williams, A.N., 2007, The Divine Sense: The Intellect in Patristic Theology , New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511487835
Williams, Scott M., 2013, “Indexicals and the Trinity: Two Non-Social Models”, Journal of Analytic Theology , 1: 74–94. doi:10.12978/jat.2013-1.180219220818a
–––, 2017, “Unity of Action in a Latin Social Model of the Trinity”, Faith and Philosophy , 34(3): 321–346. doi:10.5840/faithphil20178385
–––, 2020, “In Defense of a Latin Social Trinity: A Response to William Hasker”, Faith and Philosophy , 37(1): 96–117. doi:10.37977/faithphil.2020.37.1.5
Williams, Thomas, 2005, “The Doctrine of Univocity Is True and Salutary”, Modern Theology , 21(4): 575–585. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0025.2005.00298.x
Wolterstorff, Nicholas, 2009, “How Philosophical Theology Became Possible Within the Analytic Tradition of Philosophy”, in Crisp and Rea 2009: pp. 155–170.
Wood, William, 2016, “Anselm of Canterbury on the Fall of the Devil: The Hard Problem, the Harder Problem, and a New Formal Model of the First Sin”, Religious Studies , 52(2): 223–245. doi:10.1017/S0034412515000098
–––, 2021, Analytic Theology and the Academic Study of Religion , New York: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198779872.001.0001
Yandell, Keith, 2009, “How Many Times does Three Go into One?”, in Philosophical and Theological Essays on the Trinity , Thomas McCall and Michael Rea (eds.), New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 151–168. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199216215.003.0009
Zachhuber, Johannes, 2020, “Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity: Some Reflections on Concepts and Terminologies”, in Eastern Christianity and Late Antique Philosophy , Eva Anagnostou-Laoutides and Ken Parry (eds.), Leiden: Brill, 52–77.
Zimmerman, Dean W., 1999, “The Compatibility of Materialism and Survival: The ‘Falling Elevator’ Model”, Faith and Philosophy , 16(2): 194–212. doi:10.5840/faithphil199916220

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

Murray, Michael and Michael Rea, “Philosophy and Christian Theology”, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/ >. [This was the previous entry on this topic in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy — see the version history .]

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

The vaulted ceiling of the Divinity School.

Philosophy and Theology

Admissions Requirements
Fees and Funding
Studying at Oxford

Course overview

UCAS code: VV56 Entrance requirements: AAA Course duration: 3 years (BA)

Subject requirements

Required subjects: Not applicable Recommended subjects: Not applicable Helpful subjects: A subject involving essay writing

Other course requirements

Admissions tests: PhilAT Written Work: One piece

Admissions statistics*

Interviewed: 38% Successful: 18% Intake: 27 Successful for a different course: 4% Applicant intake for a different course: 7 *3-year average 2021-23

Philosophy contact

Tel: +44 (0) 1865 276926 Email: [email protected]

Theology contact

Tel: +44 (0) 1865 270790 Email: [email protected]

Unistats information for this course can be found at the bottom of the page

Please note that there may be no data available if the number of course participants is very small.

About the course

Philosophy and Theology brings together some of the most important approaches to understanding and assessing the intellectual claims of religion.

The study of Philosophy develops analytical rigour and the ability to criticise and reason logically. It allows you to apply these skills to many contemporary and historical schools of thought and individual thinkers. You will also apply these skills to questions ranging from how we acquire knowledge and form moral judgements to central questions in the philosophy of religion, including the existence and nature of God and the relevance of religion to human life.

The study of Theology provides an understanding of the intellectual underpinning of religious traditions and of the social and cultural contexts for religious belief and practice. It brings together a wide range of skills and disciplines, historical, textual, linguistic, sociological, literary-critical and philosophical.

Central to this degree is a recognition that parallel study of these related disciplines leads to a deeper understanding of each.

The Philosophy Faculty is the largest in the UK and one of the largest in the world. Many faculty members have a worldwide reputation, and its library and other facilities are acknowledged as among the best in the country.

The Faculty of Theology and Religion includes more than 100 academics, including experts in the ancient languages and literature of the world’s religions, historians and systematic theologians. The Faculty’s reputation and excellent library facilities attract scholars from all over the world.

Astrophoria Foundation Year

If you’re interested in studying Philosophy and Theology but your personal or educational circumstances have meant you are unlikely to achieve the grades typically required for Oxford courses, then applying for a Foundation Year might be right for you.

Visit our Foundation Year course pages for more details.

'The course itself exceeded my expectations, not only in the way it was taught, but in the extraordinarily wide range of topics that it was possible to study. It is a course that allows the study of Byzantine church history alongside the philosophical problems of the mind and of language, to name just a few diverse areas. This has really allowed me to follow what I found I was genuinely interested in. The freedom the course gives me to follow my passions in the subject is a massive boost.'

'Choosing to read Philosophy and Theology was a controversial choice in my heavily science-based school - many of my friends were confused why I was taking what they believed to be an ‘old-fashioned’ degree however, they could not have been more wrong. My experience of joint honours has been one of a steady introduction to logical, creative thinking with an overarching emphasis on empathy for those of all different faiths and creeds. I sincerely believe it is one of the most pertinent degrees given current affairs because most importantly of all: it is about how to think.'

Unistats information

Discover Uni course data provides applicants with Unistats statistics about undergraduate life at Oxford for a particular undergraduate course.

Please select 'see course data' to view the full Unistats data for Philosophy and Theology.

Please note that there may be no data available if the number of course participants is very small.

Visit the Studying at Oxford section of this page for a more general insight into what studying here is likely to be like.

A typical week

Your weekly timetable will be divided between one or two tutorials, which may take place at your college or at the college of a specialist tutor. A large part of your week will be spent in independent study to prepare for tutorials. Each week you will also attend up to six lectures, or small classes for some course options.

Tutorials usually involve two students and a tutor. Class sizes may vary depending on the options you choose, but there would usually be no more than around 10 students.

Most tutorials, classes, and lectures are delivered by academics who are specialists in their subject. Many are world-leading experts with years of experience in teaching and research. Some teaching may also be delivered by advanced postgraduate students.

To find out more about how our teaching year is structured, visit our Academic Year page.

Course structure


Four papers are taken:	First University examinations: four papers each assessed by written examination

Years 2 and 3


Students take eight papers, either five in Philosophy and three in Theology, or five in Theology and three in Philosophy, or four in each subject. A thesis in either subject may be offered as one of these. All students study: Knowledge and reality Aristotle’s Remaining papers are chosen from a wide range of options in Philosophy and Theology. Students may choose Theology papers from about 40 options. Options cover a wide range of subject areas including: The options listed on this page are illustrative and may change. More information about current options is available on the and .	Final University examinations: eight papers (assessed either by written examination or by submitted coursework, depending upon the option), seven papers plus a thesis

Students take eight papers, either five in Philosophy and three in Theology, or five in Theology and three in Philosophy, or four in each subject. A thesis in either subject may be offered as one of these. All students study:

Knowledge and reality Aristotle’s

Remaining papers are chosen from a wide range of options in Philosophy and Theology.

Students may choose Theology papers from about 40 options. Options cover a wide range of subject areas including:

The options listed on this page are illustrative and may change.

More information about current options is available on the and .

Final University examinations: eight papers (assessed either by written examination or by submitted coursework, depending upon the option), seven papers plus a thesis

The content and format of this course may change in some circumstances. Read further information about potential course changes .

Academic requirements

	Requirement
	AAA
	AA/AAB
	39 (including core points) with 666 at HL
	View information on , and .

Wherever possible, your grades are considered in the context in which they have been achieved.

Read further information on how we use contextual data .

Helpful:	A subject involving essay writing to A-level, Advanced Higher, Higher Level in the IB or another equivalent can be helpful to students in completing this course, although this is not required for admission.

If a practical component forms part of any of your science A‐levels used to meet your offer, we expect you to pass it.

If English is not your first language you may also need to meet our English language requirements .

If your personal or educational circumstances have meant you are unlikely to achieve the grades listed above for undergraduate study, but you still have a strong interest in the subject, then applying for Philosophy and Theology with a Foundation Year might be right for you. Visit the Foundation Year course page for more details of academic requirements and eligibility.

All candidates must follow the application procedure as shown on our Applying to Oxford pages.

The following information gives specific details for students applying for this course.

Admissions tests


	22 October 2024
	15 August to 4 October 2024

All candidates must take the PhilAT as part of their application.

Guidance on how to prepare can be found on the PhilAT page .

We are putting in place new arrangements for our admissions tests for 2024 onwards. We will provide more information on these arrangements at the earliest opportunity.

Written work

	One piece written in English, which you have composed as part of a current or recent course of study, not exceeding 2,000 words in length (and shorter is fine). It should demonstrate your ability to: Your work may be on any subject and not necessarily Philosophy, Theology or Religion. There is no restriction as to the kind of work you may submit, providing it is your own work. You might choose to submit, for example, a mock A Level essay completed under examination conditions or a homework essay from your IB course. You should submit the work that you think best demonstrates the qualities outlined above. It is not usually necessary to write something especially for your application and if you have composed a suitable piece of work as part of a recent or ongoing course of study, you should submit it. However, if you do not have any recent, suitable written work available, tutors are pleased to accept a piece that has been written for submission. Please read the further guidance available in the answers to .
	10 November 2024

One piece written in English, which you have composed as part of a current or recent course of study, not exceeding 2,000 words in length (and shorter is fine). It should demonstrate your ability to:

Your work may be on any subject and not necessarily Philosophy, Theology or Religion. There is no restriction as to the kind of work you may submit, providing it is your own work. You might choose to submit, for example, a mock A Level essay completed under examination conditions or a homework essay from your IB course. You should submit the work that you think best demonstrates the qualities outlined above.

It is not usually necessary to write something especially for your application and if you have composed a suitable piece of work as part of a recent or ongoing course of study, you should submit it. However, if you do not have any recent, suitable written work available, tutors are pleased to accept a piece that has been written for submission.

Please read the further guidance available in the answers to .

10 November 2024

Read our further guidance on the submission of written work for more information, and to download a cover sheet.

If you have any questions, please contact the college handling your application, or email the Faculty of Theology and Religion at [email protected] .

What are tutors looking for?

Tutors consider your whole application very carefully. They look for evidence of a consistently excellent academic record, for example in GCSE or other examination results.

Your submitted piece of work should demonstrate your ability to:

think clearly and to reason coherently
structure work and arguments in a logical way
write clearly (and grammatically), with clear expression of thought
provide evidence of independence of thought.

Your UCAS personal statement should focus on your academic reasons for wishing to study Philosophy and Theology. References should comment primarily on academic performance.

In interviews, tutors look for interest in the proposed fields of study, a critical and analytical approach to abstract questions and the ability to defend a viewpoint by reasoned argument.

You may be asked to consider a religious, philosophical or ethical question or to study a brief text. Whatever the subject of discussion, interviewers are interested in how you think and how you approach questions. Students are not expected to have prior subject knowledge.

Visit the Philosophy website and the Theology and Religion website for more detail on the selection criteria for this course.

Philosophy and Theology graduates have secured wide-ranging positions as authors, writers, newspaper and periodical editors, academics and teachers.

Recent graduates include a barrister, a member of a political think tank, a student at the Royal Academy of Music and a marketing executive for a philanthropy adviser.

Others have entered careers such as commerce, banking, financial services and communications. Visit the Theology and Religion Faculty website for more information about careers .

John, now a KC says:

‘I could not recommend Philosophy and Theology at Oxford more highly. It was such a wide-ranging "Liberal Arts" type degree with so many subject options. On a practical level theology encourages deep thought and creative thinking whilst my philosophical tutors taught me to question and doubt every claim. That was an ideal preparation for the Bar.’

Note: These annual fees are for full-time students who begin this undergraduate course here in 2024. Course fee information for courses starting in 2025 will be updated in September.

We don't want anyone who has the academic ability to get a place to study here to be held back by their financial circumstances. To meet that aim, Oxford offers one of the most generous financial support packages available for UK students and this may be supplemented by support from your college.


Home	£9,250
Overseas	£38,550

Further details about fee status eligibility can be found on the fee status webpage.

For more information please refer to our course fees page . Fees will usually increase annually. For details, please see our guidance on likely increases to fees and charges.

Living costs

Living costs at Oxford might be less than you’d expect, as our world-class resources and college provision can help keep costs down.

Living costs for the academic year starting in 2024 are estimated to be between £1,345 and £1,955 for each month you are in Oxford. Our academic year is made up of three eight-week terms, so you would not usually need to be in Oxford for much more than six months of the year but may wish to budget over a nine-month period to ensure you also have sufficient funds during the holidays to meet essential costs. For further details please visit our living costs webpage .

Financial support

Home

A tuition fee loan is available from the UK government to cover course fees in full for Home (UK, Irish nationals and other eligible students with UK citizens' rights - see below*) students undertaking their first undergraduate degree**, so you don’t need to pay your course fees up front.

In 2024 Oxford is offering one of the most generous bursary packages of any UK university to Home students with a family income of around £50,000 or less, with additional opportunities available to UK students from households with incomes of £32,500 or less. The UK government also provides living costs support to Home students from the UK and those with settled status who meet the residence requirements.

*For courses starting on or after 1 August 2021, the UK government has confirmed that EU, other EEA, and Swiss Nationals will be eligible for student finance from the UK government if they have UK citizens’ rights (i.e. if they have pre-settled or settled status, or if they are an Irish citizen covered by the Common Travel Area arrangement). The support you can access from the government will depend on your residency status.

Islands
(Channel Islands and Isle of Man)

Islands students are entitled to different support to that of students from the rest of the UK.

Please refer the links below for information on the support to you available from your funding agency:

Overseas

Please refer to the "Other Scholarships" section of our .

**If you have studied at undergraduate level before and completed your course, you will be classed as an Equivalent or Lower Qualification student (ELQ) and won’t be eligible to receive government or Oxford funding

Fees, Funding and Scholarship search

Additional Fees and Charges Information for Philosophy and Theology

There are no compulsory costs for this course beyond the fees shown above and your living costs.

Contextual information

Unistats course data from Discover Uni provides applicants with statistics about a particular undergraduate course at Oxford. For a more holistic insight into what studying your chosen course here is likely to be like, we would encourage you to view the information below as well as to explore our website more widely.

The Oxford tutorial

College tutorials are central to teaching at Oxford. Typically, they take place in your college and are led by your academic tutor(s) who teach as well as do their own research. Students will also receive teaching in a variety of other ways, depending on the course. This will include lectures and classes, and may include laboratory work and fieldwork. However, tutorials offer a level of personalised attention from academic experts unavailable at most universities.

During tutorials (normally lasting an hour), college subject tutors will give you and one or two tutorial partners feedback on prepared work and cover a topic in depth. The other student(s) in your tutorials will be doing the same course as you. Such regular and rigorous academic discussion develops and facilitates learning in a way that isn’t possible through lectures alone. Tutorials also allow for close progress monitoring so tutors can quickly provide additional support if necessary.

Read more about tutorials and an Oxford education

College life

Our colleges are at the heart of Oxford’s reputation as one of the best universities in the world.

At Oxford, everyone is a member of a college as well as their subject department(s) and the University. Students therefore have both the benefits of belonging to a large, renowned institution and to a small and friendly academic community. Each college or hall is made up of academic and support staff, and students. Colleges provide a safe, supportive environment leaving you free to focus on your studies, enjoy time with friends and make the most of the huge variety of opportunities.
Porters’ lodge (a staffed entrance and reception)
Dining hall
Lending library (often open 24/7 in term time)
Student accommodation
Tutors’ teaching rooms
Chapel and/or music rooms
Green spaces
Common room (known as the JCR).
All first-year students are offered college accommodation either on the main site of their college or in a nearby college annexe. This means that your neighbours will also be ‘freshers’ and new to life at Oxford. This accommodation is guaranteed, so you don’t need to worry about finding somewhere to live after accepting a place here, all of this is organised for you before you arrive.
All colleges offer at least one further year of accommodation and some offer it for the entire duration of your degree. You may choose to take up the option to live in your college for the whole of your time at Oxford, or you might decide to arrange your own accommodation after your first year – perhaps because you want to live with friends from other colleges.
While college academic tutors primarily support your academic development, you can also ask their advice on other things. Lots of other college staff including welfare officers help students settle in and are available to offer guidance on practical or health matters. Current students also actively support students in earlier years, sometimes as part of a college ‘family’ or as peer supporters trained by the University’s Counselling Service.

Read more about Oxford colleges and how you choose

FIND OUT MORE

Download the course brochure
Visit the Philosophy Faculty website
Visit the Theology and Religion Faculty website

Our 2024 undergraduate open days will be held on 26 and 27 June and 20 September.

Top-ranked department

The Faculty of Theology and Religion at Oxford is the top ranked Theology, Divinity and Religious Studies Department in the UK and Europe and second in the world in the 2023 QS World University rankings, by subject.

Which Oxford colleges offer my course?
Your academic year
Foundation Year

RELATED COURSES

Foundation Year (Humanities)
Theology and Religion
Religion and Oriental Studies

Feel inspired?

For an introduction to philosophy have a look at:

Myles Burnyeat and Ted Honderich’s Philosophy
Martin Hollis' An Invitation to Philosophy
Simon Blackburn’s Think.

Follow us on social media

Follow us on social media to get the most up-to-date application information throughout the year, and to hear from our students.

Oxbridge Law 24/25 Entry
Non-Oxbridge Law 24/25 Entry
Oxford PPE 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge Economics 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge Modern Languages 24/25 Entry
Cambridge Land Economy 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge Psychology 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge English 24/25 Entry
Oxford Human Sciences 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge History 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge Geography 24/25 Entry
Cambridge Philosophy 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge Classics 24/25 Entry
Cambridge Architecture 24/25 Entry
Cambridge HSPS Programme 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge Medicine 24/25 Entry
Oxford Biomedical Sciences 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge Engineering 24/25 Entry
Cambridge Natural Science 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge Maths 24/25 Entry
Oxbridge Computer Science 24/25 Entry
Oxford Physics 24/25 Entry
Oxford PPL 24/25 Entry
Cambridge Veterinary Science 24/25 Entry
Oxford Chemistry 24/25 Entry
Oxford Biology 24/25 Entry
Oxford Biochemistry 24/25 Entry
Non-Oxbridge Medicine 24/25 Entry
Non-Oxbridge Dentistry 24/25 Entry
IMAT Medicine 24/25 Entry
Can’t Find Your Subject?
Law Interview Programme
PPE Interview Programme
Economics Interview Programme
Oxbridge Medicine Interview Programme
Natural Science Interview Programme
Engineering Interview Programme
Maths Interview Programme
Dentistry Interview Programme
Medicine MMI Interview Programme
Our Guarantee

Our Students

Student Success Stories

University Access Scheme
New Tutor Application Form
Frequently Asked Questions
How Does It Work?

Enrol on an Oxbridge Programme before 31st July & benefit from a complimentary session with an Oxford University lecturer. Schedule your consultation here today.

Enrol on an Oxbridge Programme before 31st July & benefit from a complimentary session with our study psychologist (an Oxford University lecturer). Schedule your consultation here today.

+44 (0) 208 068 0438
[email protected]

SCIENCE PROGRAMMES (25/26 ENTRY)

HUMANITIES PROGRAMMES (25/26 ENTRY)

GET STARTED

Can't find your subject?

OXFORD TESTS (25/26 ENTRY)

CAMBRIDGE TESTS (25/26 ENTRY)

MEDICINE TESTS (25/26 ENTRY)

View Our Free admissions guides & resources

How UniAdmissions Cracked The Oxbridge Formula

Applying for Oxbridge is an opportunity seldom approached correctly. So how do you enter the top 16% of a strong cohort of applicants that get an offer? Discover how UniAdmissions get 2/3 of our students in.

UCAT Registration 2024: What You Need To Know

Every year, thousands of medicine applicants take the UCAT aiming for top scores. To take the test, you must register first. This guide provides all the information you need to secure your UCAT registration.

Inside The UniAdmissions Portal: The UA Advantage

UniAdmissions students have access to the world's first dedicated Oxbridge admissions preparation platform, and this guide will help you discover exactly how the Portal will help you get your offer.

Discover all guides

ABOUT UNIADMISSIONS

Learn about who the world's first Oxbridge prep school are.

Learn about the Portal; the heart of our Programmes.

UniAdmissions' Foundation

The Foundation is our charitable arm to support disadvantaged students.

Students & Tutors

Discover who a UniAdmissions student is and our admissions criteria.

Learn about our high-performing Oxbridge tutors.

We're proud of our alumni. Read about their journey with UniAdmissions here.

Admissions Resources

Free Admissions Guides

Visit our Learning Centre and read our in-depth free guides.

We are the world's biggest Oxbridge application publisher. Learn more here.

Teachers Learning Hub

Learn about how to help your students get their place at Oxbridge.

Get Started

Access Student Portal
Oxbridge Programmes
Open Day Webinar
Tutor Application Form
Common Questions
Download Our Prospectus

Successful Personal Statement For Philosophy At Cambridge

Last Updated: 6th April 2022

Author: Rob Needleman

Welcome to our popular Personal Statement series where we present a successful Personal Statement, and our Oxbridge Tutors provide their feedback on it.

Today, we are looking through a Philosophy applicant’s Personal Statement that helped secure a place at Cambridge University. The Philosophy Course at Cambridge explores human thought, the basis of knowledge, the nature of reason, consciousness and cognition, as well as the foundations of value and political theory.

Read on to see how this candidate managed to navigate philosophical thinking to successfully receive a Cambridge offer.

Here’s a breakdown of the Personal Statement:

SUCCESSFUL?

The universities this candidate applied to were the following:

Enrolling on our Cambridge Philosophy comprehensive Programme will give you access to Personal Statement redrafts.

With our Cambridge Philosophy Premium Programme, your tutor will give you regular actionable feedback with insider tips on how to improve and make your Personal Statement Oxbridge quality for the best chances of success.

Click the button below to learn how you can enrol and triple your chances of success.

Philosophy Personal Statement

“And if you find her poor, Ithaka has not fooled you. / Wise as you will have become, so full of experience, / You will have understood by then, what these Ithakas mean.”

Cavafy was right, indeed. Like any other reflective person, I am essentially a philosophical entity. While most people, perhaps those outside academic philosophy, would consider it a prime example, maybe along with Mathematics, of an established body of a priori truths, of some kind of Ithaka (thus excluding themselves from the possibility of realizing their philosophical essence), I beg to differ. For years, though, unwise as I was according to Cavafy, I was looking for Ithakas like most men, misled by this major misconception. For years, I have been reading Plato and Aristotle, Descartes and Nietzsche always, hastily and impatiently, heading towards truth; towards my rich Ithaka, and always falling on reefs and mythical objections raised by one philosopher against the truths of the other. Always, en route.

When, “wise as I had become” on the road, like old Ulysses, I realized that philosophy is much more than just a truth per se. Instead, philosophy is the pursuit of truth, irrespective of whether that truth is ever achieved; in fact, if and when something ever counts as truth, it does not belong to the realm of philosophy any more. Not until I read Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, had I realized that the aim of philosophy is to designate what can be said and what not, what is non-sense or what might be senseless. This very sub specie aeternitatis realization of philosophy as an activity, a method of approaching truth and reflecting on reality rather than as an established body of justified true belief, was crucial in my selection of philosophy as the subject of my academic study. Since this realization, my chief preoccupation has been to learn as much as possible from the journey to Ithaka, to hone this ability to philosophize effectively, to exercise and engage philosophy as much as possible, whenever and wherever possible.

A culmination of this constant struggle to sharpen my philosophical essence happened this summer in the Epic Questions Summer Institute of U of Va, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. In this intensive, three-week seminar for high-school teachers, I was the official note-taker and the only high-school student to be accepted among the scholars as an intern of Dr. Mitchell S. Green. Courses in Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Mind, Formal Logic, Philosophy of Language, Ethics, Political Philosophy and Bioethics unprecedentedly furthered this philosophical activity and I made the acquaintance of contemporary philosophical thought, reading, such as T. Nagel, R. Chisholm, D. Papineau, B. Williams, along with classical readings.

Hence, to my readings of Plato’s Five Dialogues, Descartes’s Meditations on First Philosophy and Nietzsche’s Übermensch, were added those of the British Empiricists, esp. some of Hume’s Enquiries, Kant, B. Rusell’s The Problems of Philosophy and Mill’s Utilitarianism.

I must admit that I have been uncritically assuming a certain account of human nature (as inherently philosophical), which many may find controversial. And this, itself, thus, turns into a philosophical question. And so on and so forth.

This is exactly the philosophical beauty I live for.

For more inspiration, take a look through our other successful Personal Statement a nalysis articles:

Successful Personal Statement For Natural Science (Physical) At Cambridge

Successful personal statement for economics at cambridge, successful personal statement for land economy at cambridge, successful personal statement for chemistry at oxford, successful personal statement for geography at oxford, successful personal statement for classics at oxford, successful personal statement for law at oxford, successful personal statement for classics at cambridge, successful personal statement for engineering at cambridge, successful personal statement for veterinary medicine at cambridge, successful personal statement for psychological and behavioural sciences at cambridge, successful personal statement for psychology at oxford, successful personal statement for history at oxford, successful personal statement for physics at oxford, successful personal statement for cambridge mathematics and physics, successful personal statement example for computer science at oxford, successful personal statement for english at cambridge, successful personal statement for oxford english language and literature, successful personal statement for medicine at oxford university, successful personal statement for modern languages at oxford, successful personal statement for engineering at oxford, successful personal statement for natural sciences (biological) at cambridge, successful personal statement for economics & management at oxford, successful personal statement for ppe at oxford, successful personal statement for law at cambridge, successful personal statement for dentistry at king’s college london, successful personal statement for medicine at cambridge.

Download our Free Personal Statement Starter Guide

Good Points Of The Personal Statement

The statement is well written, and the student clearly demonstrates their passion for philosophy, as well as their motivation for pursuing further study of it, and something of a personal journey through which their philosophical thinking has developed. The discussion of the nature of philosophical thought ties nicely into their own motivation to study philosophy. The statement shows their broad philosophical education, as well as indicating a strong self-motivating passion for learning (in a much more subtle manner than simply stating that they are self-motivated), as much of this education is in the form of private study. Acceptance to the prestigious seminar is an impressive achievement, and the student is right to stress this, and the ‘unprecedented’ effect it had on their philosophical activity.

Bad Points Of The Personal Statement

The statement is vague in what it terms ‘philosophy’; though the student clearly has an interest in some vague notion of ‘human nature’, they don’t narrow down exactly what they wish to study at university (philosophy being such a broad subject that quite a bit of specialisation is necessary). The time spent listing impressive works that they had read would have been better invested in mentioning just one (or even just one subject that they had read around) that had particularly affected them and expanding on it. Similarly, they could have expanded further on the experience of the seminar (how it affected their philosophical thinking, new ideas encountered while there, etc.), rather than listing the respected philosophers they had met. The grammar is, at points, questionable, indicating the statement required closer proofreading prior to being submitted.

UniAdmissions Overall Score:

This statement is very strong; it conveys a rare passion for the subject and, more importantly, a passion that has been actively pursued in the student’s own time. It could, however, benefit from a little more specificity regarding their thoughts on specific readings, and from reading less like a list of books and philosophers. Overall, the statement reads like an intriguing personal philosophical work.

This Personal Statement for Philosophy is a great example of demonstrating passion which is vital to Admissions Tutors.

Remember, at Cambridge, these Admissions Tutors are often the people who will be teaching you for the next few years, so you need to appeal directly to them.

There are plenty more successful personal statements and expert guides on our Free Personal Statement Resources page.

Our expert tutors are on hand to help you craft the perfect Personal Statement for your Cambridge Philosophy application.

With our Cambridge Philosophy Premium Programme, we help you craft the perfect Personal Statement , score highly on the PAA and teach you how to Interview effectively .

Discover our Cambridge Philosophy Premium Programme by clicking the button below to enrol and triple your chances of success.

UniAdmissions students placed at Oxford And Cambridge

Continue learning about Oxbridge...

Ai writing & ucas personal statements: what you need to know.

When it comes to writing in the 2020s, AI-Generation has become one of the most important issues for many industries,…

Oxbridge Personal Statements: A Complete Teacher’s Guide

As a teacher, you will support students with their UCAS Personal Statements every year, but what about Personal Statements for…

UCAS Personal Statements Are Changing in 2025

On January 12th 2023, UCAS announced that the traditional Personal Statement would be replaced by a multi-question form for university…

Writing an Economics and Management Personal Statement for Oxford? If so, you’re in the right place! In this post, we…

Successful Personal Statement For Computer Science At Oxford

Read through a successful Computer Science Personal Statement for Oxford with a full analysis by Oxbridge Tutors. Find out why…

What Are The Lowest Entry Requirements For Medicine?

With so many Medical Schools it is inevitable that some will offer lower entry requirements than others. But what are…

The Secrets to Oxbridge Admission.

We cracked the Oxbridge formula . Find out what we discovered here.
Looking for application support? Don't work with a random tutor. This is what you need to know first.
Get up-to-date Oxbridge advice with our webinars. Follow our Open Days led by our experts and stay updated.
Begin your Oxbridge journey with UniAdmissions through our programmes of support by clicking here.

Personal Statement Starter Guide

We have developed an 80-page E-Book filled with expert Personal Statement Advice. Inside, you’ll find guides on planning and writing your personal statement, as well as our full collection of 25+ Successful Oxbridge Personal Statements.

Get it directly to your inbox by registering your email.

How would you like to speak to an Admissions Consultant?

Preparing for Theology at University: Reading, Personal Statement and Oxbridge Interview Questions

What is theology.

Theology is the study of divinity (God) and religious belief. Theology is one of the oldest courses offered by many of the UK’s leading universities. At Oxford University the divinity school was one of the first established buildings, with lectures starting as early as 1423! Despite its historic origins, theology is incredibly relevant to the world today with many of the prevalent cultural questions stemming from religious thought and religiously inspired conflict.

The course name for theology can vary between universities depending on whether it is a standalone course or studied in combination typically with religion or philosophy. At Cambridge, the course is called Theology, Religion, and the Philosophy of Religion , whereas at Oxford and Durham it is Theology and Religion . The varying names for the course highlight the variety of disciplines that theology incorporates, including history, philosophy and sociology of religion, meaning a theologian gains insight into a breadth of other humanity subjects . The combination of theology with the study of religion means you study the interesting intersection of theological doctrine and discourse on the development of religion.

Theology Reading Suggestions - What to Read to Prepare/ For Your Theology Personal Statement

Christian Theology by Alistair McGrath

This interesting book encompasses the major developments of Christian Theology from the patristic period immediately following the crucifixion of Jesus, through to a comprehensive overview of the development of Christian doctrine. Doctrine considered include the person of Jesus, the holy spirit and the trinity.

The Major Religions: An Introduction with Texts by T. Patrick Burke

This books usefully outlines the major beliefs of each of the major faiths around the world. It examines different religious views comparatively. It’s an incredibly accessible text making a great introduction to the religious element of theological study.

Recommended reading to prepare for Oxbridge Theology Personal Statement

Religious Texts

Religious texts are the foundation of theological belief. Having some awareness of the Bible, Qu’ran, and the Torah would be a good place to start. As an introduction to theological study, taking a look at the presentation of Jesus in the gospel of John in comparison to the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) would be a great insight into biblical study.

Some Theologians You Might Want To Be Aware Of:

Thomas Aquinas: A famous priest, philosopher and theologian who wrote Summa Theologiae, which covers the main theological points in the Church. Aquinas work spans across God, creation, Christ, and the sacraments. His five ways of reasoning for God’s existence are a cornerstone of philosophy of religion

Nietzsche: Nietzsche is a fascinating modern philosopher who considered theological questions. He is most famous for his critiques of morality and religion. While his own works could be quite confusing, an introduction to would be a helpful starting point to explore his criticism of the Christian religion. His thought has been enormously influential in the development of atheist challenges to Christian belief

Prophet Muhammed: The Prophet Muhammed is a central tenant of Islamic thought for all Muslim believers. Reading a collection of his teachings (hadiths) and life would be fundamental to understanding the beliefs of Muslims today and the Sunni-Shia split in Islam.

Interesting Ideas To Explore

Liberation Theology – Christian theological approach considering the rights of the oppressed

Religious Fundamentalism – considering how fundamentalism and political violence intersect

Feminist Theology – reconsidering how feminist philosophy can fit into traditional male dominated religions

Beyond the Books:

There are many podcasts, talks and debates accessible online.

A couple of recommendations:

Why We Need Religion in a Globalised World - Miroslav Volf (Ted Talk)

In Our Time Podcast, particularly Laksmi, The Buddha, The Diet of Worms, Islamic Law And Its Origins

Museums often have different collections which include religious artefacts. The British Museum for instance has an Islamic collection dedicated to Islamic art and culture

Graphic of different world beliefs, indicating necessary subject exploration as part of Oxbridge Theology application

What is an Oxbridge Theology Interview Like?

The typical structure involves two interviews - both are likely to be subject-based, though you may also have a more general interview if applying to Cambridge. Past students have been asked about their own personal stance with regards to religion and for an explanation of this/ their personal opinions on God, detailed questions surrounding their personal statement, questions on a particular area of Theology e.g. feminist theology, as well as opinions on a particular text mentioned in application or presented as an unseen extract. For example:

Interview 1 Example:

The student was asked detailed questions surrounding their personal statement, picking up on any texts / figures they had mentioned and asking critical questions on the texts / figures

Asked for their personal definition of Theology

Discussion of their current A-level syllabus and areas they found particularly interesting (liberation theology, feminist theology)

Particular emphasis and in-depth discussion of feminist theology – asked to give other examples of when religion has been used as a tool for liberation

Theology Interview Preparation Guide.png

Interview 2 Example:

An in-depth discussion on Augustine and his text ‘Confessions’

The applicant was asked for their opinions on the text, awareness of any criticisms of Augustine’s theories on sin and akrasia – why they found these interesting / disinteresting

They then moved into a wider discussion of ethics, ethical repercussions, and briefly touched on Immanuel Kant and his moral argument (but in far more detail than the A-level syllabus provides)

Examples of Theology Interview Questions

How would you define Theology?

What’s your particular area of interest within the current A-level syllabus? (If studying the A-Level)

Do religions have to be theistic?

Does a religion have to be old?

To prepare, have basic definitions of what is ‘theology’, what is a ‘religion’, what is a ‘God’ – if you know your definitions this is an easy way to impress, but be very specific on the definition – any unnecessary word / phrase that doesn’t slightly fit in will be picked up on and pushed. Do extra critical reading surrounding the books / figures on your personal statement , so that you can bring in certain scholars, and you should be on your way to preparing a successful Theology application!

If you’d like more guidance on how to prepare for your Oxbridge Theology Interview, have a look at our Oxbridge Theology Interview Preparation pack. This includes comprehensive guidance on how to go about preparing for the interview, as well as a bank of further past Oxbridge Theology Interview questions for you to practise with.

By Elspeth (U2 Philosophy and Theology Tutor - Trinity College, Oxford Graduate)

Are You Applying For Theology as a Single Honours or Joint Honours Course at a top UK University/ Oxbridge?

University/ Oxbridge Theology Tutoring

U2 offers ad hoc sessions as well as wider Oxbridge Mentoring programmes ( book a free consultation to discuss options). We have a great team of Oxbridge-educated Theology tutors including 1st Class, Master’s and PhD level graduates.

The Process:

1) We suggest a Theology graduate as a tutor and send their full CV for review. Our tutors are deeply familiar with the admissions process to study Theology in all its combinations at all top UK universities, including the University of Oxford and Cambridge, and are well-placed to guide you through personal statement curation, the entrance exam (if applicable) and interview process. We have tutors from the Cambridge Theology, Religion, and the Philosophy of Religion, and Oxford Theology and Religion courses.

2) We typically suggest beginning with a 1.5 hour informal assessment/ taster session , where the tutor will informally assess the student’s current performance level at for application, including test and interview. Following this, we issue a report with feedback, and structure a plan to best prepare.

3) U2’s approach for regular Theology application sessions: The main focus of tutorial sessions will be to explore material that can be discussed in the personal statement and at interview. Tutors ensure each student refines their interests within Theology, and is exposed to a range of approaches and new concepts, guiding students in their reading and wider subject exploration. Together, we build a case for the student, exploring their special interests in the subject and honing skills for the admissions test if applicable.

Frequency of sessions can be decided between student and tutor. Students can take either ad hoc sessions, or we structure a full programme for preparation, which may include further co-curricular opportunities such as our research projects and Oxbridge mock interview days. Oxbridge tutoring presents a wonderful opportunity to learn from and be inspired by some extraordinary academic minds. We would be delighted to support you through what can be a challenging, but hugely rewarding process.

Sessions from £75/h.

Preparing for Classics at University: Reading, Personal Statement, Oxbridge Interview Questions

Preparing for philosophy at university: reading, personal statement and oxbridge interview questions.

How do I apply?
What is the cost of attendance?
How do I schedule a campus tour?
When is New Student Orientation?
How do I apply to live on-campus?
How do I reset my password?

With our Catholic liberal arts heritage and over 100 degree programs, including nursing and marine biology, from bachelors through PhDs, we've got your options covered. Focus on arts and sciences, business, education, social work, communication, nursing, medical sciences, theology, or law. Take things further with personalized research and experiential learning opportunities, on and off-campus. Enhance your prospects with hands-on internships at some of the country's top organizations.

Colleges and Schools
College of Arts and Sciences
School of Business and Public Administration
College of Health and Wellness
School of Law (Orlando)
School of Nursing
School of Podiatric Medicine

Academic Support
Center for Academic Success and Advising (CASA)
Learning Center
Testing Center

Enrollment Services
Student Accounts
Student Services Center

The path to your perfect career begins with planning and support. Career Development has resources for you to help you make the most of your time at Barry. Guidance is just an appointment away.

Service-learning integrates relevant community service with course work and critical reflection to enrich the learning experience, foster social responsibility and civic engagement, and strengthen communities.

The Honors Program at Barry is designed to challenge, enrich, and prepare especially motivated students to pursue their fullest potential. By participating in a rigorous curriculum rounded out by an array of edifying and interactive events, students explore crucial issues that we face in our daily lives. Students are given the space for discussion and debate and the opportunity to learn from experts in their fields. The Office of Financial Aid can assist with determining eligibility for the Honors Program.

The Monsignor William Barry Memorial Library is located in the center of the beautiful Miami Shores campus of Barry University. The Library is named in loving memory of Monsignor William Barry, one of the founders of Barry University and an inspirational figure in the Catholic Church within the Archdiocese of Miami. The extensive Library research collections include more than 950,000 physical items, over 40,000 print and on-line journal subscriptions, and several thousand on-line books and streaming video resources.

At Barry University, you will experience a small community atmosphere where you can always rely on our administrators and faculty for advice, encouragement and personal attention. We take great pride in giving individual attention from the very beginning. You can start building a personal relationship with one of our admissions counselors who will help answer any questions, and guide you through the entire admissions and enrollment process.

Undergraduate
Find Your Program
How to pay for college
International Students
Financial Aid FAQs
Online Programs

Graduate and Doctoral

Adult learners
Degree-Completion Programs

Admitted Students

Continuing Education (CE) offers a variety of courses and non-credit programs designed to respond to the diverse educational interests and lifelong learning needs of individuals of all ages. We offer certificate, credential exam preparation, and licensure programs for professional and personal enrichment.

High school students: Get a jump-start on your college education with dual enrollment courses from Barry University! You can earn high school and college credit at the same time, right at your own school.

Barry University is committed to provide you with a dynamic and flexible approach to your degree pathway through our online courses and degree programs. We understand that balancing academics, work, and personal commitments can be challenging. That's why our online offerings are designed to fit seamlessly into your busy schedule, allowing you to pursue your educational goals without compromising on other important aspects of your life.

We are committed to providing programs and services that are guided by Barry University's rich educational mission and intended to enhance your Barry experience. Through partnerships with others in the university community, we aim to create experiences that will help transform you into leaders for a just and humane world.

We are an NCAA Division II school and a member of the Sunshine State Conference with 12 varsity teams, including men's baseball, basketball, golf, soccer and tennis; and women's basketball, golf, rowing, soccer, softball, tennis and volleyball. So far, we've won 24 NCAA championships, had 338 All-Americans, 413 Scholar All-Americans, and nine NCAA "Women of the Year" finalists, the most of any Division II school. Not bad at all, but we're going for more.

Campus Life
Living on-campus
Office of Student Life

For students currently enrolled in classes at Barry, we have a wealth of resources you can tap into to bring ease and efficiency to your university experience. Get the help you need with administrative or financial questions, or check out course catalogs to help plan your schedule by semester. All the information you need to excel is at your fingertips.

Skill Development and Well Being
Accessibility Services
Campus Recreation
Counseling & Psychological Services
Health Promotion and Wellness
Health Services
Public Safety

Student Engagement
Campus Ministry
Center for Community Service Initiatives (CCSI)
DePorres Center for Ethical & Inclusive Leadership
Housing and Residence Life
International Programs
New Student Programs
Office of Mission Engagement

Student Resources
Dual Enrollment
Financial Aid

Department of Theology and Philosophy

Yves Congar Award Series

Lecture series yves congar award series the department of theology and philosophy presents the yves congar award for theological excellence.

The Yves Congar Award for Theological Excellence recognizes the contributions of contemporary theologians who embody the spirit of Cardinal Yves Congar, OP (1904-1995), by working, writing, and teaching in light of the tradition while moving that tradition forward to meeting the challenges of today.

2023 Yves Congar Award Ceremony

About the Presentation

While Roman Catholic preachers have a penchant for engaging with literature and popular culture in their preaching, the sciences are seldom drawn upon as homiletic dialogue partners. This presentation will explore how scientists' imaginations and willingness to confront mysteries can be a boon for those called to preach the Word in this digital age. Besides considering the sciences in preaching, this presentation will also consider how neuroscience in particular might contribute to more effective proclamation of the word.

2022 Yves Congar Award Ceremony

There are many ways to understand racism, for example, as a social divide and as a political reality. At its deepest level, racism is a soul sickness, that is, a profound warping of the human spirit. This presentation will describe the social impacts of this spiritual distortion. It will then explore the Gospel's call to repentance and offer an understanding of the profound transformations needed to address this spiritual wound and create a more just society.

Award Recipients

Edward Foley, Capuchin Edward Foley, Capuchin is a Roman Catholic priest and member of the Province of St. Joseph of the Capuchin Order. The Duns Scotus Professor Emeritus of Spirituality and Retired Professor of Liturgy and Music at Catholic Theological Union, he was the founding director of the Ecumenical Doctor of Ministry degree jointly offered by Catholic Theological Union, the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago and McCormick Theological Seminary. An award winning author and celebrated preacher, he has been honored with lifetime achievement awards from national and international organizations and is a recent recipient of a major grant for preaching from the John Templeton Foundation. He also serves his Capuchin community as the Vice-Postulator for the Canonization cause for Blessed Solanus Casey.

"Preaching with the Sciences: The Neuroscientific Turn"

Bryan Massingale, S.T.D Dr. Bryan Massingale. Professor Massingale is a priest of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, the James and Nancy Buckman Professor of Theological and Social Ethics at Fordham University, and the Senior Fellow in its Center for Ethics Education. A leader in Catholic theology, he is President-Elect of the Society of Christian Ethics, a former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, and a former Convener of the Black Catholic Theological Symposium.

"Lecture: A Spirituality of Racial Metanoia"

María Pilar Aquino, S.T.D María Pilar Aquino, born and raised in Mexico, is Professor Emerita of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of San Diego, serves as President of the Catholic Theological Society of America (2019-2020) and as a member of the International Advisory Committee of the World Forum on Theology and Liberation. Prof. Aquino is a founding member and first woman President of the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians in the United States.

"Catholic Theology Today: Dynamisms for Re-Existence"

Massimo Faggioli, Ph.D. Massimo Faggioli, PhD, a married lay Roman Catholic, is full professor in the Department of Theology and Religious Studies at Villanova University (Philadelphia). He worked in the "John XXIII Foundation for Religious Studies" in Bologna between 1996 and 2008 and received his Ph.D. from the University of Turin in 2002. Moving to the US in 2008, he was visiting fellow at the Jesuit Institute at Boston College between 2008 and 2009, and taught at the University of St. Thomas (Minnesota) between 2009 and 2016, where he was the founding director of the Institute for Catholicism and Citizenship.

"Yves Congar and Vatican II in the Church of Today"

Richard R. Gaillardetz, Ph.D. Dr. Richard R. Gaillardetz is the Joseph Professor in Catholic Systematic Theology at Boston College and is currently the chair of the Theology Department. A past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, Prof. Gaillardetz has authored or edited 13 books and numerous articles in fundamental theology, ecclesiology and spirituality.

"Beyond Dogmatism: The Case for Normative Tradition in an Age of Scandal"

Sr. Barbara E. Reid, Ph.D. Sr. Barbara E. Reid, O.P. is a Dominican Sister of Grand Rapids, Michigan; Ph.D. in Biblical Studies from The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., M.A. in Religious Studies and B.A. from Aquinas College in Grand Rapids, MI.

"The Party's Over and the Quest for Truth Continues"

Walter Brueggemann, Ph.D. William Marcellus McPheeters Professor Emeritus of Old Testament at Columbia Theological Seminary.

"The Gospel in an Economy of Extraction"

Lisa Sowle Cahill, Ph.D. Donald Monan Professor of Theology at Boston College

"Catholic Families: Theology, Practices, and 'Evangelization'"

Sandra M. Schneiders, I.H.M. Professor Emerita of New Testament Studies and Christian Spirituality, Jesuit School of Theology at Santa Clara University

"Buying the Field: Women Religious in a Renewing Church"

Robert Schreiter, C.PP.S., Theo. Dr. Vatican Council II Professor of Theology, Catholic Theological Union

"Practical Theology as Contextual Theology: Challenges to Catholic Practical Theology Today"

Roberto S. Goizueta, Ph.D. Professor of Theology, Boston College; past president of the Catholic Theological Association of America and the Academy of Catholic Hispanic Theologians in the United States

"Against the Pursuit of Happiness: The Preferential Option for the Poor and the Denial of Death"

Mary Catherine Hilkert, OP, Ph.D. Professor of Theology at University of Notre Dame, IN; past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America; Madeleva lecturer in Spirituality, 2001

"In Memory of Lois and Eunice: Handing on a Living Tradition of Faith"

Donald J. Goergen, OP, Ph.D., STM Dominican Theologian at the Aquinas Institute of Theology; Prior of St. Dominic Priory, House of Studies, St. Louis; co-founder of the Dominican Ashram

"A Wider Vision: Biblical, Catholic, and Cosmic"

Margaret Farley, RSM, Ph.D. Professor Emerita of Christian Ethics, Yale Divinity School; co-director of the Yale University Interdisciplinary Bioethics Project and the All Africa Conference: Sister-to-Sister

"Gender, Sexuality and Ethics: New Perspectives"

Previous Yves Congar Award recipients include:

Elizabeth A. Johnson, CSJ, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor of Theology, Fordham University
Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz, Ph.D., Professor of Ethics and Theology, Drew University
Rev. Jan Lambrecht, SJ, SSD
Father Fergus Kerr, OP, STLic, Member of Faculty of Divinity, Oxford University
Gustavo Gutierrez, OP, Ph.D., John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame
Ana Maria Pineda, RSM, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Religious Studies and Director of Graduate Program in Pastoral Ministries, Santa Clara University
Rev. Bryan Hehir, ThD, Professor Emeritus, Harvard University
Phyllis Trible, Ph.D., Professor of Theology, Wake Forest University
Rev. Joseph A. Komonchak, Ph.D., Professor of Theology, Catholic University of America
M. Shawn Copeland, Ph.D., Ã‚ Associate Professor of Systematic Theology, Marquette University
Rev. Thomas O'Meara, OP, Ph.D., Professor of Theology, University of Notre Dame

Please note: All associations indicated for lecturers were current at times Award was presented.

Sign in to use the pins

Ask a question Ask
go advanced Search
Please enter a title
Please enter a message
Your discussion will live here... (Start typing, we will pick a forum for you) Please select a forum Change forum View more forums... View less forums... GCSEs A-levels Applications, Clearing and UCAS University Life Student Finance England Part-time and temporary employment Chat Everyday issues Friends, family and work Relationships Health News Student Surveys and Research
post anonymously
All study help
Uni applications
University and HE colleges
University help and courses
University student life

Postgraduate

Careers and jobs
Teacher training
Finance and accountancy
Relationships
Sexual health
Give feedback or report a problem
University and university courses
Universities and HE colleges
Life and style
Entertainment
Debate and current affairs
Careers and Jobs
Scottish qualifications
Foreign languages
GCSE articles
A-level articles
Exam and revision articles
What to do after GCSEs
What to do after A-levels
When is A-level results day 2024?
When is GCSE results day 2024?
Studying, revision and exam support
Grow your Grades

Exam results articles and chat

Exam results homepage
A guide to GCSE and A-level grade boundaries
Year 13 chat
Year 12 chat
Year 11 chat

A-level results

Guide to A-level results day
Get help preparing for results day
A-level retakes and resits
Exam reviews and remarks
Here’s what to expect on A-level results day
Six ways to help results day nerves
Understanding your A-level results slip

GCSE results

Guide to GCSE results day
How GCSE combined science grades work
Stressed about GCSE results day?
Understanding your GCSE results slip

Finding a uni in Clearing

Clearing articles and chat
UK university contact details
Guide to Clearing
Seven things people get wrong about Clearing
How to make a great Clearing call
Finding accommodation after Clearing
How Clearing can help you prepare for results day
All universities
Applying through Ucas
Student finance
Personal statement
Postgraduate study
Uni accommodation
University life
All uni courses
Apprenticeships
Arts and humanities courses
Stem courses
Social science courses

Universities by region

North of England
South of England
Greater London
Distance learning
International study

University guides and articles

All university articles
Applying to uni articles
Personal statements

Personal statement examples

University open days
Studying law at university
Student life at university
Careers and jobs discussion
Apprenticeships discussion
Part-time and temp jobs
Career forums by sector
Armed forces careers
Consultancy careers
Finance careers
Legal careers
Marketing careers
Medicine and healthcare careers
Public sector careers
Stem careers
Teaching careers
General chat
Relationships chat
Friends, family and colleagues
Advice on everyday issues
General health
Mental health
UK and world politics
Educational debate

Undergraduate

Postgraduate Master’s Loan
Postgraduate Doctoral Loan
Disabled Students’ Allowances
Taking a break or withdrawing from your course

Further information

Parents and partners
Advanced Learner Loan

Religious studies personal statements

On this page you'll find a collection of real personal statements written by students applying to study religious studies and related courses at university.

These personal statements are written by real students - don't expect them all to be perfect! But by reading through a few of these samples, you'll be able to get some ideas and inspiration for your own personal statement.

Religious studies personal statement examples

More help with your personal statement.

You can find personal statement examples for other courses by using this subject list, or by returning to our personal statements by subject page.

Get Started

Today's posts
Unanswered posts
Community guidelines
TSR help centre
Cookies & online safety
Terms & conditions
Privacy notice

Connect with TSR

The Student Room and The Uni Guide are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: Imperial House, 2nd Floor, 40-42 Queens Road, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1 3XB

Applying to Uni
Apprenticeships
Health & Relationships
Money & Finance
Personal Statements
Postgraduate
U.S Universities
University Interviews
Vocational Qualifications
Accommodation
Budgeting, Money & Finance
Health & Relationships
Jobs & Careers
Socialising
Studying Abroad
Studying & Revision
Technology
University & College Admissions

Guide to GCSE Results Day

Finding a job after school or college

Retaking GCSEs

In this section

Choosing GCSE Subjects

Post-GCSE Options

GCSE Work Experience

GCSE Revision Tips

Why take an Apprenticeship?

Applying for an Apprenticeship

Apprenticeships Interviews

Apprenticeship Wage

Engineering Apprenticeships

What is an Apprenticeship?

Choosing an Apprenticeship

Real Life Apprentices

Degree Apprenticeships

Higher Apprenticeships

A Level Results Day 2024

AS Levels 2024

Clearing Guide 2024

Applying to University

SQA Results Day Guide 2024

BTEC Results Day Guide

Vocational Qualifications Guide

Sixth Form or College

International Baccalaureate

Post 18 options

Finding a Job

Should I take a Gap Year?

Travel Planning

Volunteering

Gap Year Blogs

Top Rated Personal Statements

Personal Statement Examples

Writing Your Personal Statement

Postgraduate Personal Statements

International Student Personal Statements

Gap Year Personal Statements

Personal Statement Length Checker

Personal Statement Examples By University

Personal Statement Editing and Review Service

Personal Statement Changes 2025

Personal Statement Template

Job Interviews

Types of Postgraduate Course

Writing a Postgraduate Personal Statement

Postgraduate Funding

Postgraduate Study

Internships

Choosing A College

Ivy League Universities

Common App Essay Examples

Universal College Application Guide

How To Write A College Admissions Essay

College Rankings

Admissions Tests

Fees & Funding

Scholarships

Budgeting For College

Online Degree

Platinum Express Editing and Review Service

Gold Editing and Review Service

Silver Express Editing and Review Service

UCAS Personal Statement Editing and Review Service

Oxbridge Personal Statement Editing and Review Service

Postgraduate Personal Statement Editing and Review Service

Theology nurtures this instinct, and by grappling with the most critical questions of purpose, provenance and existence, arguably transcends all other realms of enquiry. It is the subject's profound nature that compels me to pursue it further. While the religious impulse is fundamental to humanity and religion suffuses social constructs, theology will always be contemporary, always reinventing itself and pertain to all of life.

I have found the theology of Dietrich Bonhoeffer particularly inspiring, and am a member of the International Bonhoeffer Society. Such works as 'The Cost of Discipleship' and 'Ethics' are compelling, as are his views on religion in the context of contemporary society. Bonhoeffer described the phenomenon of secularisation as the world's 'coming of age' from earlier metaphysical dependencies into self sufficient ways of understanding.

While I agree that secularism enjoys ascendancy, what intrigues me is how in recent years spirituality has heightened as people have become increasingly disillusioned with the superficiality of materialism and technology. Religious literacy is therefore essential for religious ideas to be reformulated for modern society.

Christian history can be seen as salvation history and thus I find Christian soteriology absorbing. Robert Picrilli's 'Grace, Faith and Free Will' is inspirational on this subject, and helps me ascertain the parameters of debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. Of course, soteriology cannot be divorced from Christology, in that we perceive the nature of a being in its effect upon us; if Christ is Saviour, this assertion about his function is also a statement about his identity. Joseph Ratzinger's 'Jesus of Nazareth' is excellent in supplementing my interest in Christology.

Attending lectures on church history at the Cambridge Saturday School of Theology has fuelled my interest of the link between the intellectual edifice of Christianity as we know it today and the Reformation. I'm particularly intrigued by how the ramifications of this period helped precipitate and shape modernity, in terms of the emergence of individualistic thinking, which for me places theology at the heart of modern history and my own liberal values.

In the same way, I also feel that theology is inextricably linked to philosophy, as rival or complementary modes of investigation, and have launched a philosophy club in my college. I have enjoyed Robert Sokolowski's 'The God of Faith and Reason', which deals with the philosophical scrutiny of theology and illustrates how faith can preserve the integrity of reason, as opposed to being antirational.

As well as pursuing academic goals, I am an active member of the community; I have been elected Chair of the West Sussex Youth Cabinet, and have become a European Youth Ambassador. These dynamic roles ignited my enthusiasm for current affairs and last year I was a finalist in the National Political Journalism competition, which enhanced my ability to construct arguments coherently.

I also have undertaken the Duke of Edinburgh Gold Award. I have an interest in languages, and last year embarked on a Japanese Proficiency course. In my leisure time I read, cycle and play the piano.

There are those who argue that theology demands conformity of ideas, but I feel that the discipline thrives on diversity and debate, and enhances human intellectual autonomy. As Bonhoeffer remarked; 'It is the nature, and the advantage, of strong people that they bring out the crucial questions and form an opinion about them'.

For me, theology is not only a subject, but one that is genuinely rewarding, intellectually liberating, and incrementally significant in a world 'coming of age'.

Profile info

This personal statement was written by Galatea for application in 2008.

Galatea's Comments

I had no idea what to write when it came to my ps, having seen no examples for theology, and I realise now that the ps certainly doesn't have to be as detailed and intense as this one is, but I hope it serves as a useful example anyway to year's crop. In the end I got offers from Cambridge, Durham (with philosophy), KCL, St Andrews and Edinburgh.

This personal statement is unrated

Related Personal Statements

I dont even know what to say.

Wed, 15/10/2008 - 09:33

i dont even know what to say to be honest this has worried me even more about what im going to write its pretty unelivable. its annoying that there is no '[religious studies' ps's cos i dont want to specify in only theoglogy... nice 1 anyway tho

fantastic; succinct,

Wed, 22/10/2008 - 18:48

fantastic; succinct, analytical, academic- a huge help!

Speaking as someone with a

Thu, 04/12/2008 - 13:09

Speaking as someone with a first class degree in theology, I cannot believe that this statement was written by a 17 year old sixth form or college student. It is of course possible that they were a mature student. However, I must say that overall I am skeptical that this is a genuine personal statement at all.

WOW!!! Now THATS a personal

Tue, 17/03/2009 - 03:16

WOW!!! Now THATS a personal statement!

Fab! This really demonstrates

Fri, 26/06/2009 - 20:54

Fab! This really demonstrates ones passion to persue a specific subject which is what writing a personal statement is about.

Thu, 03/12/2009 - 15:32

nice! real nice

i see what you mean mate about being worried about getting in after reading this, tbh I really haven't read any relevant books and so haven't mentioned any in my statement. i wouldn't worry though, this statement is clearly a cut above the rest and no doubt we'll get in :)

Add new comment

COMMENTS

Philosophy and Theology Personal Statement Example
Philosophy and Theology Personal Statement Example. "When I was a childI reasoned like a child" (1 Corinthians 13:11), yet it was only as I grew older and I began to build a personal relationship with faith on an intellectual level that my religious identity began to form in earnest. It was thus that I began to understand the formative power of ...
Successful Theology Personal Statement Examples
Theology Personal Statement Examples. The stage lights illuminate the barren set piece - a simple wooden cross. As I step forward to deliver my monologue wrestling with the mystery of Jesus' sacrificial death, the theatre fades away until only the cross remains. This crucifix simultaneously embodies the profound questions at the heart of ...
Theology Personal Statement Examples
Theology Personal Statement Example 3. Nietzsche said that "in heaven all the interesting people are missing". Until the age of sixteen I was educated in the Catholic school system. I always loved RE and the opportunities for exploring the big questions it offered, but struggled with the limits of the syllabus...
PDF Statement of Personal Theology or Religious Philosophy Level 1
Please provide a statement of your personal theology or religious philosophy in a paragraph or more. Attach an additional sheet if necessary: I believe we are each powerful beyond our imaginings. I believe in using our. power for benevolence in collaboration with this Spirit of Life and Love that breathes.
How to Write a Great Theology Personal Statement: Expert Tips
Tell me about a banana…". Your Theology Personal statement is a reflection of your academic journey and pursuit of the subject. Hence, mapping out this journey to decide what you want to include in your personal statement is a great place to start. Before you begin writing, creating a mind map or list outlining your reasons for interest in ...
Religion and Theology Personal Statement
PERSONAL STATEMENT EXAMPLE Religion and Theology Personal Statement . Submitted by Emily. All Religious Studies Statements Search Religious Studies Courses . ... Throughout my studies of Philosophy and Ethics I have developed a deeper understanding of what morality is and the philosophical side of Christianity. I wish to widen my knowledge and ...
Philosophy and Religion Personal Statement Example
Philosophy and Religion Personal Statement Example. When I was about ten years old, my mother made the decision of taking me to churches of different religions. My parents, very open minded people, wanted me to form my own belief system, without external influence. That was my very first step into a deeper understanding of the world and life ...
Personal statement advice: philosophy
Show your analytical abilities. Some applicants for philosophy degrees will already be studying the subject, but many won't have studied it before. If you are in that position, then Professor Christopher Janaway at University of Southampton has some simple but clear advice to offer: 'We want you to show us that you have a genuine interest in ...
Personal Statement:Theology ps
Theology Personal Statement. Raised in a religious household, I was taught about religion from an early age. The more I was taught, the more questions I had, most along the lines of "If God is so loving, then why..?" As I began to learn more about faith, I thought the idea of atheism increasingly interesting.
Philosophy personal statements
Personal Statement:Philosophy and Hispanic Studies 1. Personal Statement:Philosophy and Psychology. Personal Statement:Philosophy and Psychology 1. Personal Statement:Philosophy and Spanish 1. Personal Statement:Philosophy, Politics and Economics 16. Personal Statement:Philosophy Statement 12.
Philosophy and Christian Theology
Theology presupposes Christian faith, which is an affective response to Christ, and which requires "confidence and assurance of heart" ( Institutes 3.2.33). Yet scholastic philosophy, with its "endless labyrinths" and "obscure definitions", has "drawn a veil over Christ to hide him" ( Institutes 3.2.2).
Oxford from the Inside #95: Writing a Personal Statement: Theology and
In today's episode Siam talks with Andrew about how to go about writing a personal statement in Theology and Religion. Stay tuned for invaluable advice, Andr...
Philosophy and Theology
Your UCAS personal statement should focus on your academic reasons for wishing to study Philosophy and Theology. References should comment primarily on academic performance. In interviews, tutors look for interest in the proposed fields of study, a critical and analytical approach to abstract questions and the ability to defend a viewpoint by ...
Personal Statement:Theology 3
A modern theological book I have enjoyed was David Bentley Hart's The Doors of the Sea. This made me consider the problem of evil afresh, with Hart addressing Dostoevsky's treatment of evil and salvation, and concluding that evil is absurd and has no purpose. Like Hart, a God who justifies the suffering of children is one I cannot accept.
Theology Personal Statement Example 1
Theology Personal Statement Example 1. I am interested in the study of theology for many reasons. I believe that it incorporates so much that is fundamental to humanity from the ethical and moral arguments to the historical and traditional teachings that form the basis of religions. This is why I have chosen to develop my interest further and ...
Successful Personal Statement For Philosophy At Cambridge
With our Cambridge Philosophy Premium Programme, your tutor will give you regular actionable feedback with insider tips on how to improve and make your Personal Statement Oxbridge quality for the best chances of success. Click the button below to learn how you can enrol and triple your chances of success. EXPERT PERSONAL STATEMENT SUPPORT.
Preparing for Philosophy at University
3) U2's approach for regular Philosophy application sessions: The main focus of tutorial sessions will be to explore material that can be discussed in the personal statement and at interview. Tutors ensure each student refines their interests within Philosophy, and is exposed to a range of approaches and new concepts, guiding students in ...
Preparing for Theology at University
3) U2's approach for regular Theology application sessions: The main focus of tutorial sessions will be to explore material that can be discussed in the personal statement and at interview. Tutors ensure each student refines their interests within Theology, and is exposed to a range of approaches and new concepts, guiding students in their ...
Philosophy Personal Statement Examples
Philosophy Personal Statement Example 7. The body: An entity existing in a space-time universe constructed of atoms and energy. The soul: Indefinable, non-physical, indeterminable; the conscience, the mind, a meta-physical property. One of these uses scientific measuring equipment as a means to measure and define, the other, the mind ...
Philosophy and Politics Personal Statement
PERSONAL STATEMENT EXAMPLE Philosophy and Politics Personal Statement . Submitted by Isaac. All Philosophy Statements Search Philosophy Courses . Get a top 10 UK Philosophy degree! Clearing spots available on a top 10 UK Philosophy degree (The Times Good University Guide, 2024), apply to University of Southampton now! ...
English Literature, Theology and Philosophy Personal Statement Example
English Literature, Theology and Philosophy Personal Statement Example. I have a keen desire to pursue knowledge for its own sake. Understanding how cultures work and the meanings behind even the most quotidian acts has led to my interest in subjects that have no concrete answers, and instead, give me the possibility to construct and defend ...
Yves Congar Award Series
Dr. Richard R. Gaillardetz is the Joseph Professor in Catholic Systematic Theology at Boston College and is currently the chair of the Theology Department. A past president of the Catholic Theological Society of America, Prof. Gaillardetz has authored or edited 13 books and numerous articles in fundamental theology, ecclesiology and spirituality.
Religious studies personal statements
Religious studies personal statements. On this page you'll find a collection of real personal statements written by students applying to study religious studies and related courses at university. These personal statements are written by real students - don't expect them all to be perfect! But by reading through a few of these samples, you'll be ...
Theology Personal Statement Example 2
Theology Personal Statement Example 2. Richard Dawkins once remarked that he 'couldn't see how theology is a subject at all'. But embedded in humanity is the universal conception of a Supreme Being, and the existential quest to uncover the obscurity of our origins, and lift the veil of the future. Theology nurtures this instinct, and by ...