Thesis (Th. M.)--Dallas Theological Seminary, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves [48]-52).

Thesis (M.A.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1990. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 114-125).

Thesis (Th. M.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1994. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 156-180).

Thesis (M.A.R.)--Emmanuel School of Religion, Johnson City, Tenn., 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 103-106).

This project seeks to utilize the thought of Josiah Royce to address problems stemming from the contemporary American criminal justice system, with a specific focus on the process known as “ex-offender reentry.” Whereas most mainstream reentry efforts focus on the individual perpetrator in isolation from their relationship to the whole, e.g. in and through various self-help programs, I use Royce’s secularized and irreducibly interpersonal model of atonement to illustrate the ways in which (re)integrating “ex-offenders” requires effort not only on the part of the perpetrator themselves, but so too from the community at large. In so doing I rely heavily on Royce’s realism (i.e. anti-nominalism) concerning the nature of relations. I do so first by problematizing the self/other dichotomy in and through adopting Royce’s model of subjectivity, in which relations with others are at least partially internal, that is, constitutive of our own identities. Second, by using Royce’s affirmation of the reality of relations to show, insofar as criminal acts damage not only individuals but also interpersonal and communal relations, that these relations cannot be restored unilaterally. What is more, since relations between so-called offenders and their respective communities are often less than ideal prior to the criminal acts in question, I seek to develop the transformative element of Royce’s model of atonement, to the effect that communities might paradoxically be better off for having gone through processes of atonement than if no such need had arisen. It is regarding this point especially that I find Royce’s thought to be most obviously related to the contemporary transformative justice movement, which sees responses to criminal wrongdoing as an opportunity for communities to address inequities that not infrequently give rise thereto. Finally, I utilize Royce’s personalism and “doctrine of two levels” to argue that the notion of personal responsibility, while usually applied exclusively to individuals, is equally applicable to communities and institutions. In the end I argue that a genuine commitment to transformative justice not only calls for atonement, in Royce’s sense, as a response to individual acts of wrongdoing, but also as a response to the forms of collective wrongdoing that have created circumstances in which the reentry phenomenon so disproportionately impacts largely urban, minority communities.

This thesis brings together two fields of theological ideas. On the one hand, at the heart of Christian theology and faith are the person and work of Jesus Christ, centred on God's initiative of Atonement through the cross. Here God addresses the whole condition of creation and humanity, usually expressed in terms of dealing with sin. On the other hand, the growing field of Christian disability theology is seeking a positive theological account of disability, viewing it as an integral part of the variety of humanity, and resisting normate assumptions that cast what is regarded as disability in a wholly negative light. Drawing these fields together, does the way we think about the Atonement, and what God addresses and achieves through the Atonement, need to be disrupted and re-formed in light of the insights of disability theology? Conversely, if disability theology is to be distinctively Christian, should the Atonement play a far more foundational role within it than it has to date? If so, given the often negative juxtaposition of disability and sin within theology and in biblical texts, how is all this to come about? The approach taken is first to examine both of these fields and the extent of their current interaction. In particular, their use of ideas and metaphor are explored, to determine whether these provide the means for making that interaction more fruitful. However, the interaction is found to be partial at best, and the ideas and metaphors shared are not found to provide the means for the task at hand. Based on that work, however, a proposal is developed for reconsidering what sort of event the Atonement is, and the nature of God's presence within it. Building on insights from Frances Young, Jurgen Moltmann, Eberhard Jungel and Paul Fiddes, it is proposed that the Atonement should be understood as God's deepest, once for all participation in the risk (both moral and contingent) of creation, through which all that alienates us from God and each other is addressed. This opens up a theological space to talk of disability, sin and the cross together, one that does not require all aspects of what we identify as disability to fit into a binary sin/not sin analysis. This Atonement-as-participation also provides an account of the Atonement that is inherently inclusive of humanity in all its variety, where disability is not a special case. This enables God's initiative of the Atonement to function as a foundation for the various themes within disability theology as these continue to develop.

This thesis is a study on the theology of an Anglican bishop, John Davenant (1572-1641), in the context of the early modern era. In particular it focuses on his understanding of the extent and intent of the atoning death of Christ. Davenant played an important role in the development of early orthodox Reformed theology, especially on this controversial doctrine. Some scholars have claimed that Davenant's position was a forerunner of Amyraldianism in the seventeenth century. Others have argued that his view was different from Amyraldianism. However, no scholar has substantiated the latter argument based on Davenant's extensive writings as to how far Davenant's view on the extent of the atonement was distinct from the position of John Cameron, the Father of Amyraldianism. The contention of this thesis is that Davenant's views of predestination, the atonement and free-will were the main factors that affected his twofoldintention view, and they differed from the positions of John Cameron. The exposition of those doctrines by John Davenant both in his various writings and in his testimony at the Synod of Dort serve as the object of the investigation. Cameron's writings are also selectively investigated and his views on those doctrines are compared with Davenant's positions. The Canons of Dort are analysed in order to examine whether Davenant's doctrinal position is situated within the confessional orthodoxy in the early seventeenth century. Davenant's position on the universal aspect of the atonement was based on the universal proclamation of the Gospel. Davenant stressed the immutability of God's will for the elect. Cameron's view on the universal aspect of the atonement depended on the divine will for the salvation of every individual which could be frustrated due to human free choice. Since the decree of sending Christ preceded the decree of election according to Cameron's view on the order of the divine decrees, Cameron's view was different from Davenant's. Cameron held to a distinction between moral and physical ability and intellectual persuasion of the Holy Spirit upon the human mind. These things were not shared by Davenant. The conclusion arrived at is that Davenant's twofold-intention view was distinct from Cameron's hypothetical universalism. Thus this study substantiates the claim that Davenant was not a forerunner of Amyraldianism and his view was situated within the boundary of confessional orthodoxy codified in the Canons of Dort.

This dissertation argues that a biblical theology of the priestly mediation of the new covenant is necessary for understanding the extent of the atonement and that such a study will result in a clear affirmation of definite atonement. Chapter 1 shows how theologians have truncated Christ's priestly office and how biblical scholars have neglected to apply the priesthood to matters of the atonement's efficacy and extent. This chapter validates the need for a whole Bible typology of the priestly work of Christ. Chapter 2 proposes an approach to typology that sets forth the methodological commitments of this dissertation. It argues that typology should be prospective in its orientation, Christotelic in its aim, and covenantal in its structure. It explains these three facets at length, helping the reader to understand how the dissertation uses typology. Chapter 3 introduces the priestly prototype in the person and work of Adam. Next, it asserts that Noah and Abraham functions as priestly types when they offer sacrifice, mediate covenants, and offer blessings. With each type, theological reflections are given in conversation with the New Testament fulfillment of Adam, Noah, and Abraham. Chapter 4 examines the legislation of the priesthood. It asserts that three functions of the priesthood emerge in the Law of Moses: The priest is (1) a Kohen Victor, who defends the holiness of God's sanctuary, (2) a Kohen Mediator, who offers sacrifice for atonement, and a (3) Kohen Teacher, who teaches the covenant community the torah of God. This threefold orientation provides the authorized "mold" (Vorbild) by which the priestly type (Nachbild) can be formed and evaluated. Chapter 5 argues that the prophets condemned the Levitical priests for their disobedience to God's law and their failure to fulfill their assigned duties (guarding, sacrificing, and teaching). The prophets' criticisms function in this dissertation as an inspired rubric for evaluating theological proposals for Christ's priesthood and the atonement. In particular, this chapter argues that general atonement does not match the stipulations of the priesthood, and is therefore liable to prophetic censure. Chapter 6 outlines the priestly expectations of the Former and Latter Prophets. It suggests that the eschatological priest is a royal figure from the line of David who defends God's holiness (Kohen Victor), sacrifices himself for his people (Kohen Mediator), and instructs the covenant community with absolute efficacy (Kohen Teacher). On the basis of these prophetic anticipations, this chapter argues that the priest of the new covenant will provide a definite and particular atonement. Chapter 7 shows from the New Testament how Christ Jesus fulfills all of the Old Testament promises in regards to the priesthood. Specifically, it demonstrates the threefold ministry of Christ--Kohen Victor, Kohen Mediator, and Kohen Teacher. Following the chronological development of Christ's priestly ministry (i.e., on earth, on the cross, in heaven), it will argue that the atonement's extent must be particular and definite, not general and indefinite. Chapter 8 summarizes the biblical theological data espoused in chapters 3 to 7. It applies the priesthood to five areas of systematic theology (i.e., theological hermeneutics, the extent of the atonement, the person of Christ, the universal offer of the gospel, and reconciliation of the cosmos). It concludes with an appeal for holding definite atonement on the basis of Christ's priesthood. In addition, it suggests various avenues for doing future research on the priesthood of Christ.

Thesis (M. Min.)--Calvary Theological Seminary, 1999. / "ʻăzāʹzēl" appears in Hebrew characters on t.p. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 53-56).

No description available.