No description available.

No description available.

Hugh Martin (1822–1885) was a prominent ecclesiastical figure in the second half of the nineteenth century in the Free Church of Scotland. Among his sermons, books, articles and letters the doctrine of the atonement is a prevailing concern. His understanding of it is dispersed throughout his writings. Churchmen and theologians hold Martin in high regard, yet his writings and theology have suffered neglect. Therefore his life and writings are introduced alongside a survey of theological positions on the atonement with which he disputed. His ecclesiastical and theological context provides a foundation for expounding his theology. A federal theologian in the tradition of the Westminster Standards he studies the atonement systematically, in its relations to other doctrines. The atonement is founded upon a comprehensive theology and is dependent upon the doctrines of God and creation. The covenant of grace, priesthood of Christ and justification are doctrines of chief importance for understanding the nature and extent of the atonement. A chapter on each expounds his thought concerning them and their relations and bearing upon the atonement. Upon recovery of his theology an assessment is offered in light of more recent theological developments. Martin’s theology of atonement provides a response to several criticisms against federal Calvinism. Strengths and weaknesses of his writings are observed and suggestions made concerning doctrinal points for further study.

No description available.

What is the significance of the deployment of madness in the early Christian ascetic experience of holiness? The first Byzantine holy fools – themselves critics of monastic orders – represent the consistent and logical conclusion of the theology and practice of the early Christian ascetics, and in particular that of the followers of Anthony and Pachomius. The flight to the desert of the first Christian anchorites and coenobites was an attempt to transform the experience and theology of holiness in church and society by transgressing the rules and thoughts of the city in a practical outworking of negative theology. The transgressive behaviour of the holy fools renewed that transformation by accepting neither secular nor religious truth and life. Where desert fathers and mothers had transformed the production of norms by their obedience and ascetic transcendence of human life, holy fools undermined the religious production of norms through their masterless obedience, defeat of vainglory, and foreignness to self. The transformation of the production of ethical knowledge amongst early Christian ascetics – through control of passions, representations, and silence – was followed through by the holy fools’ apophatic babble and rejection of religious loci of knowledge production in liturgy, confession, religious community and ecclesial authority. As a continuation of ascetic methods of reforming the self’s relation to society by brutal truthtelling and truth-hearing, the holy fools used self-ostracising insult and laughter to follow divine truth into the periphery without legislating universal modesty and submission to group truths. As such, the holy fools exemplify the practices most idealised in early Christian asceticism – humility, suspicion of fixed orders and truths, apophatic critique of doctrine and legislation – with renewed innovation and commitment to city life. They applied the strategic moves and principles of negative theology to the Christian theology and practice of holiness through aspiring to desert freedom, the practice of ignorance, and the unserious self.

This study explores the healing praxis of Bill Johnson as it is outworked in the context of Bethel Church, California. Engaging in practical theology, this study uses the pastoral research cycle to examine and analyse this healing praxis. Drawing on primary source material and empirical research findings, it identifies the central tenets of Johnson’s healing praxis by teasing out the espoused and operant theology. The research findings are brought into dialogue with Randall Collins’ interaction ritual chains theory, as well as with others who have developed Collins’ theory. This thesis critiques Johnson’s theology and recommends that he engage more intentionally with academic theology particularly in relation to Christology, soteriology and eschatology. This thesis seeks to modify Johnson’s Christological position through a dialogue with academic kenotic theology. It proposes that Johnson account for the elements of mystery, suffering and disappointment often neglected in his theology. Additionally, this study offers a means of conceptualizing the local and global significance of Bill Johnson and Bethel Church in relation to the healing praxis. It is the first academic study focusing on these subjects and as such provides insight into the local and global phenomenon stemming from Johnson and the Bethel Church community.

The research sets out to inquire into Paul's initial thoughts on the Holy Spirit. Paul’s convictions, that he was called to be an apostle to the Gentiles and that God has given the Spirit upon the Gentiles apart from Torah obedience, are foundational for any enquiry on the subject. The key questions are: Did Paul expect a bestowal of the Spirit upon the Gentiles apart from Torah obedience when he went into Gentile mission? And, how can we account for Paul's conviction that God has poured out the Spirit upon the Gentiles? Central to our argument is Paul's conviction that God has graciously endowed the gift of the Spirit upon his Gentile converts, an understanding that is rooted primarily in his own conversion/call experience and secondarily in his experience with and as a missionary of the Hellenistic community in Antioch. By investigating the range of expectations of the Spirit that were present in Hebrew scripture and in the wider Jewish literature, the study found that such a concept is rare, and that it is usually the covenant community to which the promise of the Spirit is given. Further, Paul's own pre-Christian convictions about the Spirit, which particularly evolved from his own self-perception as a Pharisee and persecutor of the church, display a continuity between his own thought patterns and those of Second Temple Judaism. Paul’s Damascus experience was an experience of the Spirit. His experience of the 'glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ' (2 Cor.3.1-4.6) provided him with the belief that there is now a new relationship with God, which is possible through the sphere of the Spirit. In addition, Paul was influenced by the Hellenists, whose theological beliefs included a perception of the church as the eschatological Temple where the Spirit of God is the manifest presence of God. It is in these notions that one may trace the origins of Paul's thoughts on the Holy Spirit.

In recent years as supposedly “Lutheran” readings of Paul's doctrine of “justification by faith” have increasingly come under attack, and as the weaknesses of the New Perspective on Paul have been identified, there has been a growing interest in reading the apostle as teaching something best understood in participationist terms (chapter 2). Particularly, there have been multiple attempts to retrieve the patristic concept of “theosis” as a counterpart of union with Christ. This move is particularly associated with the work of Michael J. Gorman, Stephen Finlan, M. David Litwa and Ben C. Blackwell and is connected to the recent interest in deification as a widespread concept in Christian theology, one with significant ecumenical potential (as attested by the Finnish Lutheran School). To date, however, inadequate attention has been paid to the complex character and history of theosis in the theological tradition, meaning that the word is used in biblical studies in a way that is over-simplistic. All of the studies to read Paul in terms of theosis have been too over-imposing (Litwa), too narrow (Blackwell) or too general (Gorman, Finlan) in their comparison of Paul with the Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Orthodox traditions to properly address the validity of the category of theosis for the analysis of Paul. This study will deal with this deficiency by tracing the four trajectories of theosis in the patristic era (chapter 3). This dissertation proffers a concept, tentatively labelled triadosis, which intends to present the whole complex that is treated elementally in the various trajectories. Further exploring what we have labelled triadosis in the later theological traditions, chapter 4 rereads Luther and Calvin with the help of the Finnish Lutheran School and J. Todd Billings. These scholars argue that the idea of union with Christ is central for both Luther and Calvin and always includes the Father and the Spirit, hence presuming a Trinitarian dimensio The final chapter addresses the deficiencies of three major proponents of theosis as an appropriate category to describe Paul's soteriology. This analysis stresses that the historical rediscovery of deification in surrounding culture should not minimise the apostle's distinction from his polytheistic contemporaries (Litwa). Equally, the Christocentric soteriology misplaces the appropriate emphasis on the Father and the Spirit (Blackwell). Finally, the use of essentialist terminology should be grounded in patristic and contemporary theological discussions (Gorman). Thus, the theme of triadosis helps the reader to view Paul's soteriology as the Father's endeavour to bring redeemed humanity in union with himself in Christ through the power of the Holy Spirit.

In 1953 a Special Commission on Baptism was appointed by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, under the convenorship of The Very Rev Dr Thomas F. Torrance, to carry out a fresh examination of the Doctrine of Baptism, in order to lead the Church to theological agreement and uniform practice. The Commission had emerged after years of disagreement related to the meaning of baptism and its administration, especially in light of infant baptism. What followed was seven years of Interim Reports and the production of a Biblical Doctrine of Baptism. Since then, Act XVII (1963) pertaining to Baptism has been revisited on several occasions. It is the contention of this thesis that Torrance greatly influenced the work of the Commission and shaped substantially the doctrine that emerged. The result was an understanding of baptism that whilst rooted in the Reformed tradition, departed from it. By suggesting that baptisma was closely aligned to Christ’s vicarious death, and that the sanctifying nature of the incarnation was the primary justification for the baptism of infants, a different trajectory was proposed. This created a tension between two differing paradigms, one that led to discriminate baptism and another, that could have led to indiscriminate baptism. The result was confusion in the General Assembly, and failure to unify doctrine and practice. In light of this, this thesis will explore the baptismal theology of Thomas F. Torrance. It will then examine the reports of the Special Commission, the minutes of their meetings, and the verbatim minutes of the General Assembly during that period, in order to establish Torrance’s influence upon the Commission and the reception of the reports within the church. Identifying that the main areas of tension lay in sacramental and covenantal theology, it will then offer an overview of both the Reformed tradition and the Special Commission to see points of agreement and disagreement, in order to assess the extent to which the Special Commission departed from Reformed principles. Finally, it will explore the influence of the Special Commission’s work on the Church of Scotland since 1963, highlighting the watershed in baptismal theology that occurred in 2003, with the acknowledgement that believers’ baptism, and not infant baptism, was the theological norm.

Concerning religious matters there are a wide variety of views held that are often contradictory. This observation creates a problem when it comes to thinking about the rationality of religious belief. Can religious belief be rational for those who are aware of this widespread disagreement? This is a problem for a view in religious epistemology known as reformed epistemology. Alvin Plantinga, one of the leading defenders of this view, has argued that there is no successful argument to show that religious belief is irrational or in any other way epistemically unacceptable – he calls these arguments de jure arguments. I respond to this claim by seeking to develop two new versions of de jure argument that Plantinga has not dealt with. The first of these I call the return of the Great Pumpkin; and the second, the problem of religious disagreement. The return of the Great Pumpkin is an objection that develops an earlier objection that Plantinga has considered called, simply, the Great Pumpkin objection. This objection is that Plantinga’s methodology for defending the rationality of religious belief could be adopted by anyone, no matter how strange their beliefs – even someone who believed in the Great Pumpkin could use it. I develop this objection further by showing that it would be possible for a person with clearly absurd beliefs to find themselves in the same situation as the hypothetical Christian whom Plantinga is seeking to defend. There is, however, a response available to Plantinga, which involves showing how the historical and sociological context in which the person finds themselves makes a difference to the rationality of some of the beliefs that they hold. This discussion naturally leads into the second version of the de jure argument which asks whether knowledge of several religious communities who hold incompatible beliefs undermines the rationality of religious belief. This discussion engages with work in religious epistemology, but also more widely with the literature on the epistemology of disagreement. I consider whether, and in what circumstances, finding out that others disagree with you could ever rationally require you to give up one or more of your beliefs. This issue involves discussion of epistemic peers and defeaters. One of the arguments I consider is that if a religious believer continues to hold on to her religious beliefs in the face of disagreement then that will give her a reason to think that she is epistemically superior, which will lead to dogmatism, and a sort of epistemic arrogance. I respond to such an argument by showing that there is a problem with the inference involved in this argument.