No description available.

In an influential, mid-twentieth century article, Langdon Gilkey noted that traditional forms of a Christian doctrine of providence had suffered a serious loss of credibility. Karl Barth had argued earlier that, in spite of a failure by many theologians to link a doctrine of providence explicitly to a doctrine of the Trinity, if a doctrine of providence is to be Christian, it should also be trinitarian, since orthodox Christianity understands God to be triune. In view of these assessments, this thesis examines the doctrine of divine providence, and argues that many systematic formulations of it have failed to capture its specifically Christian, which is to say trinitarian, nature, but that when they do they provide a more adequate framework for the doctrine and the hope it offers. Chapter One of this thesis will examine the present status of a doctrine of providence, noting especially those problems that have led to its demise. The thesis will focus on the question as to whether a doctrine of providence can still function as a framework of meaning for human history, and therefore as a source of hope for human endeavour. In view of the intrinsic link between a doctrine of God and a doctrine of providence, addressing problems with traditional forms of providence requires one to respond to contemporary critiques of Christian Classical Theism. This Chapter raises the question as to whether, in addressing problems with a Christian doctrine of providence, the doctrine can be credibly reconstructed within the framework of a trinitarian model of God. Criteria are then suggested by which to evaluate the Christian models of providence reviewed in subsequent chapters. Chapter Two evaluates two Christian theologies of providence by theologians who are not trinitarian, but who address key problems with traditional versions of providence. Chapter Three looks at two theologians who are trinitarian in theology, but who do not apply an explicitly trinitarian structure to their doctrines of providence. Reasons for this are explored, and illustrative options are presented as suggestions for ways one might make this connection. Chapter Four reviews two models of providence which are constructed with explicit connections to a relational model of the triune God. Chapter Five summarises key ideas arising from previous chapters, noting the areas of commonality among the authors reviewed, as well as key differences. This summary constitutes an agenda for further work on a doctrine of providence, and a beginning outline is offered as a suggestion toward developing a trinitarian model of providence within the context of an overarching model of the Trinity-world relation conceived as a divine-human community.

No description available.

The doctrine of the Trinity is fundamental to Christianity, which is the only religion that believes in the Trinity of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. However, while some modem theologians believe the doctrine of the Trinity is not present in the New Testament, others employ a systematic theology method to prove its existence in the New Testament. We are unsatisfied with the conclusions of the first group and with the methodology of the second. Therefore, this thesis searches for a new method to analyze what the New Testament reveals about the Trinity. We think the answer is found in Bauckham’s novel divine identity theory which describes the way God reveals His identity in relation to the cosmos as sole Creator and Ruler, and in relation to Israel as Redeemer and by His unique name YHWH. Since divine identity methodology is successful in showing Jesus' inclusion in the divine identity of the one God of Israel, our research applies the same categories to the Spirit of God in the Old Testament and in John’s Gospel. We also recommend that God's role as Teacher should be seen as another category of the divine identity model. Our conclusion is that the Fourth Gospel and perhaps other New Testament writings reveal the Spirit as participating in the divine identity; therefore, the Gospel of John and possibly other New Testament texts reveal God as Trinity. The categories of divine identity evolve and function within the framework of ancient Jewish monotheism. Thus, they paint the New Testament God in different nuances than the Greek philosophical categories of the Patristics, but the painting depicts God as Trinity nonetheless.

No description available.

No description available.

Samuel Rutherford (1600-1661), one of the greatest Reformed scholastic theologians, lived in the period of Reformed institutionalization known as ‘high orthodoxy’.  Rutherford’s theological formulation is thoroughly trinitarian in structure, emphasizing Christocentric doctrine in its soteriological dimension.  His main theological concern is the relationship between God’s sovereignty and human accountability:  the amicable relationship between the divine eternal decree and its execution in time without jeopardising human freedom.  In order to demonstrate this relationship in an orthodox manner, it is significant that Rutherford uses mainly ‘scholastic’ as well as Ramist, and analytical humanist method.  All three featured prominently in the mainstreams of academic discourse in his period.  Thus, Rutherford’s theological enterprise may be characterized as ‘Reformed orthodox scholasticism’.  However, Rutherford’ theology is not the systematic development of central dogma-predestination, as the later ‘Calvin against the Calvinists’ model argues.  Rather, scholastic orthodoxy should be understood in the context of Reformed Protestantism’s controversies with Jesuits, Arminians, Socinians, and Antinomians and the desire of its leading theologians to institutionalize their own dogma within the broader catholic Christian tradition.  Rutherford thus shares his theological or dogmatic <i>loci</i> with Reformed orthodox scholasticism, using them to lay bare the ‘sophistries’ of his opponents, and at the same time to expound and defend the orthodox faith:  orthodox soteriology in particular.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.