No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

The argument of my thesis concerns the understanding of the doctrine of sin in systematic theology, and, as a corollary of this, the scope of the doctrine in terms of its content. My argument is that the doctrine of sin is particularly prone to being defined with a strictness or narrowness which causes it to lose much of its meaning; that such limiting treatment tends to be accompanied by distorted relationships with, or over-determination by, other key doctrines, particularly that of salvation; and that it is helpful to see this tendency as a failure to see sin as a symbol with a complex of meanings, this complex being essential to the doctrine. A brief introductory survey of the usual perspectives on sin and of recent monographs firstly indicates the major issues raised by sin. Then more detailed analysis of the work of Barth, Brunner, Rahner, Pannenberg and Ricoeur provides examples of different methods of dealing with sin and leads to the conclusion that the tension between freedom and inevitability is essential to the doctrine of sin: it is part of sin's meaning and attempts to suppress, explain or relocate it lead to unacceptable tensions elsewhere. The use of Ricoeur's analysis of the symbolism of evil as a critical tool demonstrates the significance of the Adamic narrative for Christian doctrine, and the way in which its neglect can lead to the acquisition of ideas characteristic of non-Christian mythologies. The positive suggestion of the thesis is that sin should be seen as a tensive symbol incorporating a wide complex of meanings and involving a specific mythology of "the beginning" and that its paradoxical nature should be maintained as indicating a conflict within humanity, and seen in relationship to the suffering of God in Christ.

The economic and security significance of maritime and political interests around the world has altered with the changing international security environment, as has the importance of secure sea routes to meet global demand. Oman increasingly relies on the sea for maritime trade and exploitation of marine resources, but without a common maritime policy and strategy to align its commercial and maritime interests, its offshore resources will remain under-developed. Oman’s primary interest is to ensure national maritime security by maintaining an effective navy and other agencies to guard its sea areas, and protect its maritime trade. However, it still lacks a formal maritime doctrine to underpin its policies This study argues that a maritime doctrine will assist Oman to utilise its maritime power and protect its national interests. In the absence of archive material, this study has drawn upon personal interviews with maritime experts and practitioners, and reviewed and analyzed a wide range of official publications and secondary sources on maritime policy and doctrine. It highlights the relationship between economic growth and maritime trade in Oman, examines the role of Oman’s shipping industry and related activities, and compares the experiences and expertise of several nations that have established maritime doctrine. Oman’s need for a maritime doctrine in order to protect its national interests and sovereignty is pressing. It should connect and coordinate its maritime power, military strategy, policies, and standing operating procedures through a single maritime doctrine that will provide the basis for mutual understanding between units of the Sultan’s Armed Forces, related government agencies, and national policy-makers, ensuring operational familiarity and efficiency. In proposing a discrete administrative body to oversee the codification of principles and procedures, the study fills a significant gap in Oman’s national maritime policy and strategy, since the expression of maritime doctrine will help protect the integrity and interests of the state and its people.

In 1733 Ebenezer Erskine, William Wilson, Alexander Moncrieff, and James Fisher seceded from the Church of Scotland and formed the Associate Presbytery. Later they were joined by Ralph Erskine and Thomas Mair. The collective writings of thesee According to them, the Church was Christ's mediatory kingdom and divine right presbyterianism was essential in Scotland because it was taught in Scripture, summarized in the standards, sworn in national covenants, and established by civil and e Both of these pillars of Scottish covenant theology acknowledged the same Christological distinction. According to the covenant of works, mankind was alienated from the Triune Creator God; whereas in the covenant of grace the elect were redeem Instead of examining their theological foundation, the Seceders explained these inconsistencies in their doctrine by various theological distinctions (e.g. Christ's internal and external headship over the Church visible and invisible).

Thesis advisor: James Keenan / Thesis advisor: Brian Dunkle / From its earliest days, Christianity has debated about when and how force can be used to repel harm without incurring sin. Although moderation and restriction have often been advocated both on a personal and on a social level, strict passivity has rarely been the proposed solution in mainstream Christianity when individuals or nations are confronted with harm. The Just War tradition, in its many variations, was born precisely out of this desire to make sense of how force can be used in a Christian way. And it soon became the prevalent theory throughout Christianity to address issues of violence, war, and force in general. What this thesis intends to argue is that Just War theory, despite all its pervasiveness, is flawed in some crucial aspects when scrutinized from a Christian viewpoint. Three such aspects seem to be especially relevant: Just War tradition is not grounded enough in Scripture; its jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria do not protect in a satisfactory way the innocent who face harm; and it is a theory that is only reactive to force being imposed upon others. Because of these three flaws, it will be claimed that in the process of giving its support to Just War theory Christianity has largely forgotten an older, broader tradition. The “be angry, but do not sin” tradition has Scriptural and philosophical roots that, when combined, can bring a Christian virtue ethics to a much better understanding of when and how forceful intervention in the social sphere is required. At the very least, this anger tradition does not fall prey to the three criticisms that are addressed towards Just War – and that seems to make it especially valuable. Righteous anger, then, and not Just War, should be what guides Christianity in its thinking about how and when force can be used without incurring sin. That is the contention of this thesis. / Thesis (STL) — Boston College, 2017. / Submitted to: Boston College. School of Theology and Ministry. / Discipline: Sacred Theology.

Texte remanié de: Mémoire de DEA--Droit pénal--Toulouse 1, 2004. / Bibliogr. p. 159-169. Index.

Inaug.-diss.--Würzburg. / "Literaturverzeuchnis": p. [7-8].