This thesis explores the role of Anselm of Canterbury (1033-1109) in the development of theological thought in the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries. It aims to demonstrate that Anselm’s thought had a greater impact on the early development of scholastic theology than is often recognized, particularly in the areas of the doctrine of the incarnation and redemption, but also in his discussion of freedom and sin. Through his explanation of the economy of salvation in terms of making satisfaction for sin, and his rejection of modes of discussion that focussed on the rights and role of the devil, Anselm’s writing on the theology of the redemption provided a framework for the discussion of later authors such as Hugh of St Victor, Peter Abelard, Bernard of Clairvaux and authors associated with the School of Laon, among others. Such discussion often utilized Anselm as an explicator of difficult passages in patristic theology, notably Augustine, and his work was most controversial when he was thought to have contradicted earlier authority. Anselm was involved in contemporary polemics with both Jews and Christian theologians, as well as producing works that explored profound theological and metaphysical ideas. In his emphasis on the place and role of reason in divine questions, he crossed the boundaries between ‘monastic’ and ‘scholastic’ thought. Through an exploration of Anselmian elements in the thought of a variety of authors from the late eleventh and early twelfth centuries, this thesis aims to contribute to a broadening understanding of the legacy of this great thinker.

The main purpose of this thesis is to explore and compare the unique approaches to the neopatristic synthesis of Georges V. Florovsky and Vladimir N. Lossky. I will also demonstrate how these differences are manifested in their doctrine of creation. But first, to place their works in context, I consider their respective histories, views of Tradition, and methodologies. As a minor theme, I will show that both men were influenced by the Sophiological controversy: Fr. Sergius Bulgakov and Fr. Pavel Florensky are unseen interlocutors, to very different effects, in both Florovsky and Lossky. One main concern that arises is what truly determines Orthodox theology. Florovsky’s method is very historical, and his view of Tradition follows the neopatristic synthesis quite closely, even programmatically. His premise that God created freely, coupled with the absolute ontological distinction between creature and Creator, leads him to the conclusion that man is absolutely free and undetermined. This is the foundation of his personalist theology. Yet most of his work on creation is in hidden contradistinction to Russian religious philosophy, specifically the Sophiology of Bulgakov. Lossky’s work is also based on the Fathers, but he adds much that is his own creative theological work. He does not follow the neopatristic synthesis as programmatically as Florovsky. The basis of Lossky’s entire anthropology is found, by way of analogy, in his Trinitarian theology. But the major difference between his work and Florovsky’s is that Lossky is indebted to Russian religious philosophy: he shares much with the work of Florensky, as well as some of the intuitions of Bulgakov. This is particularly apparent in his concepts of the image of God in man and of the person. But he also arrives at his personalism through his apophatic method, applied in a universal manner, and his true synthesis of the Fathers with contemporary thought.

In this dissertation, the author argues that Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in the second century, reads the scriptures as the living proclamation of the Creator by which he creates and forms human flesh and blood. The scriptural narrative originates in God’s creation of all things ex nihilo and traces the movement of humanity toward its eschatological perfection in the incarnate, crucified, and risen Christ. Thus, the author argues that, for Irenaeus, the scriptures are as anthropological as they are theological. The biblical narrative possesses a continuity that is rooted in the substance of the human body. The very body that was created out of the dust in Adam, preserved from the flood in Noah, catechized by the law in Abraham and Moses, and became accustomed to the Spirit in the prophets is assumed by the Son of God from the Virgin Mary, crucified on the tree of the cross, and raised from the grave. The author maintains that Irenaeus views the scriptures as a single narrative describing precisely that flesh and blood given at the eucharistic altar in the fellowship of the church. Irenaeus reads the scriptures, not only in an intimate relationship with the creation of all things in the beginning and their recapitulation in Christ, but also in accord with an ecclesial dimension. The biblical narrative describes the identity of the baptized, who are joined to the body of Jesus through the baptismal and eucharistic life of the church. From this perspective, the author insists that the meaning of the scriptures, for the second century bishop, is not merely rational, moral or mystical, but truly ontological.

The Norwegian lay preacher Hans Nielsen Hauge (1771-1824) has been described as a prophet who brought religious, social, economic and political change to nineteenth-century Norway. This thesis examines Hauge’s first four texts as prophecy using the paradigm ‘prophetic imagination’ as an analytical model to provide a comprehensive explanation as to how his speech acted to ‘evoke consciousness and perception alternative to the consciousness and perception of the dominant culture’ by means of the cooperative action of ‘prophetic criticism’ and ‘prophetic energising’ (Brueggemann 2001:13). A formal analysis of Hauge’s texts identified idiosyncratic ‘framing devices’ which act to indicate the presence of prophetic speech at both the general and the specific level. These devices, particularly the prophetic call narratives, were also found to act to legitimate Hauge’s prophetic speech. Formal elements of prophetic speech were identified in Hauge’s specific prophetic utterances, enabling these to be classified as forms of two major prophetic genres: announcements of judgement (criticising) or announcements of salvation (energising). Apocalyptic, the third major prophetic genre, was identified as playing a greater role in Hauge’s early texts than has been previously acknowledged. An analysis of Hauge’s apocalyptic thought indicated that his prophetic task was motivated by basic beliefs rooted in this idiosyncratic worldview. The supplementation of Brueggemann’s paradigm with Wright’s worldview schema permitted the scrutiny of Hauge’s use of prophetic narrative against this apocalyptic backdrop (Wright 2001). This subsequently permitted the identification of the symbols which were dismantled by Hauge’s prophetic criticism - the personnel, practice and place of institutional religion, and the symbols which were transformed or generated by his prophetic energising - ‘true shepherds’, ‘priests and kings’, and membership of ‘a prophethood of all believers’. The adoption of these symbols explains the self-confidence expressed by Hauge’s followers and their subsequent involvement in all areas of public life.

This thesis offers an analytical interpretation of the doctrine of sanctification in Karl Barth’s earlier theology, specifically from the years 1916 through 1929. Its goal is to contribute to a more complete understanding of Barth’s earlier theology by examining his doctrine of sanctification during this period, explicitly highlighting Barth’s serious concern for and detailed articulation of the divine-human relationship. In this thesis I argue for a particular understanding of Barth’s doctrine of sanctification, namely, that the doctrine was concerned, above all else, with the exposition of a specific relationship between God and man, a relationship in which God draws close to man as his Lord and in doing so establishes genuine human existence and action. For Barth sanctification is precisely the description of genuine human existence and flourishing because of and within the sheer abundance of divine grace and mercy, not in cooperation or independence from it, but as the most fitting existence of one who has been reconciled with God. In sum, sanctification manoeuvres as an aspect or form of God’s reconciling activity; it is testimony of God’s own faithfulness and love for humanity; and it is supremely concerned with the renewed relationship between God and sinful man, with the impact of the person and work of Jesus Christ on the sinner who now stands in fellowship with God. Barth’s focus here falls primarily upon the divine claim over man and the decisive determination this has for the reconciled sinner’s existence, specifically as he joyfully acknowledges this claim in faith and obedience.

This thesis is an interpretive analysis of Karl Barth’s doctrine of divine providence in <i>Church Dogmatics </i>III/3, 48-51.  Throughout, the volume is analysed in an expositional manner.  An initial introduction observes the current state of research with respect to III/3.  After that, a second chapter observes Barth’s interaction with the Protestant orthodox doctrine, and each subsequent chapter follows the arrangement of III/3, section by section.  A conclusion draws these insights together and clarifies Barth’s position, taking the observations of this study into account.

This thesis examines the popular sermons of St. Augustine of Hippo and the transformation theory of practical theologian James Loder in the search to find a version of the “transformative sermon”.  The need to seek such a sermonic form is the result of a damaging form/content divide in modern homiletics, where sermons focus too exclusively on underlying anthropologies of either “we are what we know”, or “we are what we feel”.  Augustine offers a different anthropology: “we are what we love”, and it is argued that there is in his sermons a deep transformational logic which seeks to excite and redirect the hearer’s love towards God. After an overview of Augustine’s sermonic corpus, his sermons are examined in their unique elements, introducing as he does a new form of the sermon – a mixture of great rhetorical sophistication, theological profundity, and a deliberate artlessness which attempts to make his audience “co-creators” of the preaching event.  Then his theology of transformation is examined in three of his major theological works, <i>The Confessions</i>, <i>The Trinity,</i> and <i>The City of God.</i>  Then I examine Augustine’s expectations of transformation as a result of his sermons, first in his literature about preaching, and secondly, in his sermons themselves.  Finally, I examine in depth the actual logic or substructure in his sermons that seeks to create transformation, identified as a four fold structure involving specific psychological, theological, ethical-communal and rhetorical components. This transformational logic is then examined through the lens of a contemporary transformation theory, that of James E. Loder’s which thickens the description of Augustine’s sermonic moves. Finally, the two thinkers are combined to produce a preliminary form of the transformative sermon, one which goes some way to resolving the modern polarities in homiletics today.

Rowan Williams and Robert Jenson are two of the most interesting and creative contemporary theologians. This thesis proposes that their theology coheres around their accounts of the resurrection of Jesus, which is thus seen as the central controlling coordinate of their systems of thought. After setting out the characteristic contours of Williams’ work (in chapter 2), a major body of material is devoted to an exposition of the resurrection’s place and role within that thought (chapter 3). The resurrection appears here as an enabling doctrine, posing Jesus Christ as the living agent before whom the human community can live an authentic, transformed life. Two further chapters accomplish similar analytical work for Robert Jenson (chapters 5 and 6). Jenson’s audacious theological innovations – including particularly his notion of the temporal infinity of God and his understanding of the church as the totus Christus – can be traced back to his account of Jesus’ resurrection. Critical comments are offered at the end of both these sections of analysis (in chapters 4 and 7). A recurring worry is that the personal identity and integrity of the risen Jesus has somehow dropped out of view in the work of Williams and Jenson. What the resurrection of Jesus means for God and for us is often more evident in their thought than what it means for Jesus himself. Plotting Jesus’ resurrection within a broader sequential context (e.g. alongside his ascension) is a suggested corrective to this. Finally, a brief constructive chapter (8) gathers together some comments useful to the task of plotting the resurrection of Jesus within systematic theology today. These are arranged around three lines of enquiry, which have been operative throughout the thesis: what does the resurrection of Jesus denote, connote and generate within systematic theology?

This thesis analyses the theology of Karl Barth from the period of his academic professorship in Göttingen (1921-25).  Texts examined include unpublished or posthumously published lecture courses given by Barth on Scripture, Reformed theology and Christian dogmatics.  The thesis proposes that the unifying perspective of Barth’s theology in these years was a conviction about the eschatological presence of God with human beings, and that his theology in Göttingen is characterised by the attempt to articulate this perspective, by the tensions this ultimately generates with certain <i>theologoumena</i>, and by the effort to resolve these tensions in his dogmatic theology.  An initial comparison is made with the theology of Rudolf Bultmann, after which the argument proceeds by detailing Barth’s understanding of revelation and of the task of dogmatics, his approach to the theology of the Protestant Reformers, his Christology, as well as his doctrines of the Spirit, the Christian life, and the sacraments.  The view that Barth’s theology is intrinsically anti-historical or dualistic is discussed and rejected, on the basis that the fundamental reality Barth pre-supposes is God’s presence in the world; and yet, it is argued that the eschatological construal of this presence generates dilemmas for the understanding of Christian ministry, and for the relating of Christology to moral theology.

In the course of his work on J.N. Farquhar's contribution to Protestant missionary thought in India before 1914, Eric Sharpe became convinced that A.G. Hogg had much to offer to the study of missionary theology between 1900 and 1940. Sharpe's interest in Hogg led him to publish a small book in the Confessing the Faith in India Series on The Theology of A.G. Hogg. At that time, Sharpe hoped to produce a larger study on Hogg. He since has been prevented from this by the limitations of time and the demands of a heavy work schedule. This study does not follow the development of Hogg's thought in perhaps the same way as Sharpe might have done, but it is due to his co-operation and consent that it has been undertaken at all. The idea for the study, however, was suggested by my supervisor, Professor A.F. Walls, who suspected that there was ground for real consideration in Hogg's contribution to missionary thought, particularly in the light of the Tambaram debate. Since C.F. Hallencreutz published his definitive work on Hendrik Kraemer's development towards 1938, and later produced a small book on the trends of thought at Tambaram and after, Hogg's place in the Tambaram debate has required a detailed analysis. Was Hogg merely one contributor among others, one, moreover, who should be grouped among those liberal theologians who drew a direct line from the revelation in the other religions to the Christian revelation Or did Hogg offer a distinctive standpoint which makes his significance for the Tambaram debate greater than has been recognized previously This question is at the core of our study. But in the end it does not define our whole purpose. Ultimately, it is Hogg's missionary theology which we must consider, and that means tracing it right from its beginning in 1903. Moreover, the Tambaram debate merely focused attention on what is the critical issue for any missionary theology, namely, how the Christian is to regard the religious life and experience of those who seek God outside of Christ. Hogg consistently sought to answer this question, but at Tambaram offered his resolution as an alternative to the argument of Hendrik Kraemer's The Christian Message in a Non-Christian World. The study of Hogg's participation at Tambaram thus enables us to evaluate the lasting theological significance of his contribution to missionary thought.