Analytic theology

Ideas such as speech-act theory or possible world semantics have been applied to theological questions involving divine revelation or foreknowledge.

In contrast to the formal method, Wood calls this the "substantive model"[This quote needs a citation] of analytic theology.

Oliver Crisp cites leading theologians to demonstrate that there is no agreed upon definition for systematic theology.

The analytic theologian might turn to the history in search of concepts that help her speak about Christ being "forsaken" by God.

[12] Cambridge theologian Sarah Coakley, by contrast, warns that attempts to set down an essentialist definition for analytic theology will distract from the productive work of AT.

"[14] Chignell mentions at least two edited volumes that attempted to bring together philosophers, theologians and scholars of religion to work on questions they had in common.

[15] Contemporary AT, represented by scholars like Oliver Crisp and Michael Rea, has its roots in mid-twentieth-century responses by Christian philosophers to challenges of religious epistemology and religious language about God, and then a turn by Christian philosophers to work on more traditionally theological topics.

[19] In this context of dialogical pluralism, two mechanisms for justifying holding a belief became popular: reformed epistemology and evidentialist approaches that made use of Bayesian probability.

[21] In the 1980s and 1990s, the production of literature by Christian philosophers became more about treating theological topics such as the attributes of God and atonement by scholars like Richard Swinburne and his fellow Orielense David Brown.

[29] The John Templeton Foundation had funded analytic theology-type projects in North America, at the University of Notre Dame's Center for Philosophy of Religion; in Europe, at the Munich School of Philosophy and University of Innsbruck; and in the Middle East, at the Shalem Center and then later the Herzl Institute in Jerusalem.