This dissertation deals with Futurist Eschatologies in Africa and Europe: Pannenberg, Moltmann, Mbiti and Kato. It therefore engages with intercultural hermeneutics and theologies of different contexts. It is set on the premise that Christianity as worldwide community of believers depends on the reasoning from different cultures and contexts. The dissertation engages with the four theologians individually at first and then brings their positions into a dialogue. The individual engagement serves the purpose of determining the context of each of the theologians. The context is found in the biographies of Kato, Moltmann, Mbiti and Pannenberg. Even though the four theologians are born within a timespan of eleven years their life circumstances differ greatly. But the dissertation also engages with context referring to the way Mbiti, Kato, Pannenberg and Moltmann relate their eschatologies to the rest of their theology and how they determine the importance of eschatology for life in time. The dissertation furthermore compares the writings of the four theologians. Therefore, special attention is given to Hermeneutics, the understanding of time and certain eschatological topics such as death, resurrection and judgement. Similarities and differences in different approaches of the four theologians are described and analysed. In conclusion, the dissertation stresses the importance of theological context. The term theological context refers to the correlation between different perspectives of theology. The dissertation opts for an eschatology that is founded solidly in Christology. / Thesis (M.Th.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg, 2008.

The aim of this thesis is to compare the concept of sin in the theologies of Ellen G. White and Leonardo Boff. Chapter 1 examines Ellen G. White's concept of sin. White's historical and theological backgrounds coupled with her use of the "great controversy" motif provide a better grasp of her understanding of sin. White defines sin as the transgression of God's Law. She views sin to comprise at least two dimensions, namely, the individual and the social. White regards these two aspects of sin to have equal significance. White's detailed treatment of the sanctuary teaching also highlights the two dimensions of sin. In Chapter 2 Boff' s idea of sin is investigated. Boff' s historical background, which exposed him to the poor, influenced his perception of sin. Boff's theological background together with his familiarity with Karl Marx's social analysis prompted Boff to define sin as the negation of God's love in a human history bedevilled by class conflict. Boff views sin to have the individual and social dimensions. Yet, in terms of importance, Boff believes that the social dimension of sin is more consequential than the individual one. In Chapter 3 White's and Boff s views on sin are compared. From this comparison it is evident that both White and Boff recognize the bipolarity of sin. Both seem to agree that christians should take an active role in correcting social evils because love for God is manifested by how we relate to our neighbor. Boff devotes less space to the individual aspect of sin than White. Chapter 4 shows that White's theological tradition has a lot to learn from Boff and his tradition and also vice versa. An awareness of the current priestly ministry of Christ evident in White's theology could help Boff to bring some balance to his stance on the social and the individual dimension of sin. Boff' s use of Marx's social analysis should also help Seventh-day Adventists, the inheritors of White's theology, not to interpret White's theology of sin only along individualistic lines while overlooking its social dimension. / Philosophy, Practical & Systematic Theology / D.Th. (Systematic Theology)

The aim of this thesis is to compare the concept of sin in the theologies of Ellen G. White and Leonardo Boff. Chapter 1 examines Ellen G. White's concept of sin. White's historical and theological backgrounds coupled with her use of the "great controversy" motif provide a better grasp of her understanding of sin. White defines sin as the transgression of God's Law. She views sin to comprise at least two dimensions, namely, the individual and the social. White regards these two aspects of sin to have equal significance. White's detailed treatment of the sanctuary teaching also highlights the two dimensions of sin. In Chapter 2 Boff' s idea of sin is investigated. Boff' s historical background, which exposed him to the poor, influenced his perception of sin. Boff's theological background together with his familiarity with Karl Marx's social analysis prompted Boff to define sin as the negation of God's love in a human history bedevilled by class conflict. Boff views sin to have the individual and social dimensions. Yet, in terms of importance, Boff believes that the social dimension of sin is more consequential than the individual one. In Chapter 3 White's and Boff s views on sin are compared. From this comparison it is evident that both White and Boff recognize the bipolarity of sin. Both seem to agree that christians should take an active role in correcting social evils because love for God is manifested by how we relate to our neighbor. Boff devotes less space to the individual aspect of sin than White. Chapter 4 shows that White's theological tradition has a lot to learn from Boff and his tradition and also vice versa. An awareness of the current priestly ministry of Christ evident in White's theology could help Boff to bring some balance to his stance on the social and the individual dimension of sin. Boff' s use of Marx's social analysis should also help Seventh-day Adventists, the inheritors of White's theology, not to interpret White's theology of sin only along individualistic lines while overlooking its social dimension. / Philosophy, Practical and Systematic Theology / D.Th. (Systematic Theology)