This study introduces Kitamori's concept of "the Pain of God" and provides an occasion to dialogue between a pioneering Japanese theologian and theologians interested in the theologia crucis. By "the Pain of God," Kitamori attempted to reorient the Christian account of God to the cross of Jesus Christ. As this expression had in the beginning a personal character but later became theological and critical, this study also follows the same line of development. / Part I explains how the notion of "the Pain of God" was formulated in Kitamori's personal life. His search for the certainty of faith culminated in a mystical encounter with the crucified Christ. Kitamori was convinced that through the crucified Christ God embraced him who, being "outside" of God, was therefore an enemy of God. This contradictory embrace was experienced by Kitamori as "the Pain of God." Part I explores the ways in which Kitamori tried to incorporate this insight into his own itinerary of faith and into his early theological education. / Part II shows how Kitamori elaborated a soteriological model based on the "pain of God" through critical engagement with Reformed thinkers, such as Calvin, Schleiermacher, and Barth. It traces his attempt to give the concept of the pain of God an axiomatical place in the doctrines of creation, justification and sanctification, and to explain the inner relation between the immediate love of the creator, the mediate love of Christ and the victorious love of the Spirit. / Part III turns to Kitamori's engagement with church and culture in Japan. Kitamori was convinced that all nations are invited to take part in the history of deepening and actualizing the message of the Gospel in and through their own culture. Regional contributions and limits must be taken in account according to an adequate criterion. This criterion is, according to Kitamori, the pain of God. His critique of the Non-church movement, and his analysis of leading Japanese novelists, provide two windows into his approach. / Part IV offers some critical evaluation. After examination of both the favorable and unfavorable receptions of Kitamori's theology, it asks to what extent Kitamori was influenced by Buddhism, by Nishida's philosophy and by Hegel. It also places Kitamori's ideas over against some contemporary thinkers on divine impassibility. Then it concludes with a brief recapitulation of his theological contribution.

Thesis (M. Div. with Concentration : Church History)--Emmanuel School of Religion, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 48-53).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Regent College, 1989. / Abstract. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 123-129).

Thesis (M. Div. with Concentration : Church History)--Emmanuel School of Religion, 2005. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 48-53).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 102-113).

Suffering will always remain one of the main challenges to the Christian faith since it calls into question the reality of God. Moltmann does not shy away from this challenge and although he limits his response to moral and political suffering he confronts the problem recognizing the moral force of the arguments of protest atheism. His initial reaction, however, is to offer a thorough critique of classical theism which, in his opinion, creates more problems for the Christian faith than it resolves. A revolution in our understanding of God is necessary before theology can meaningfully address the question of suffering. Taking the cross of Christ as his starting point Moltmann rebuilds his doctrine of God by asking how we are to understand the presence of God in the suffering and death of Jesus Christ. The cross is a statement about God before it is an assurance of salvation addressed to man. Only by speaking in trinitarian terms can we make any sense of the cross-event. It is an inner-trinitarian event of suffering, abandonment and death in which the being of God is opened up to the history of the suffering of the world. God is a suffering God. He is present in suffering and suffering is present in God. In communion with him suffering man finds the divine solidarity and experiences, in turn, solidarity with God in his own suffering. This mutual solidarity in suffering thrusts man into practical actions designed to overcome suffering in the world. The suffering God is the decisive Christian argument against suffering. However, Moltmann's perspective is not without problems. In replacing Greek with Hegelian metaphysics, he steps beyond the limits of scripture. At points he appears to dissolve God into history. If not guilty of patripassionism in the classical sense, he comes close to it. He has been labelled "tritheistic" and in some instances leaves the impression of an inhuman God. Moltmann's suffering God is unable to sustain an adequate soteriology. Without a christology of pre-existence the incarnation and kenosis of the Son must be reinterpreted. God cannot, therefore, be said to be a God who has taken upon himself the suffering of humanity. Despite its inadequacies Moltmann's thought has pointed the way forward for future discussion of the relation between God and suffering. He has highlighted the importance of history, the centrality of christology and the challenge of discipleship. Much remains dark to the human mind, but he who is the Light of the world beckons us forward to think and walk in that Light. / Thesis (M.Theol.)-University of Durban-Westville, 1988.

No description available.

Thesis (Th. D.)--Concordia Seminary, 1992. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 595-613), and list of original titles of works in Japanese.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 102-113).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2003. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 102-113).