No description available.

God expresses Himself with emotions. This is well attested in Scripture, with statements of love (1Jn 4:8), anger (Ex 4:14), and delight (Isa 62:4). But the real question is not whether God has emotions, but what is the source of those emotions. If God emotes in the context of our suffering, and our suffering is not abated, does this mean that God is impotent or indifferent? Both possibilities yield a frightening conclusion. Rightly understanding the character and nature of God in this regard is paramount. For the past two thousand years, the prevailing doctrine was that God was in some way impassible, in that He is without passions or emotions with respect to his creation. This means that God does not change his feelings or thoughts about events on the earth. Even though certain passages called the “divine repentance” passages in the Old Testament (Ge 6:6-7; Ex 32:12-14; 1Sa 15:11, 35; Nu 23:19) appeared to contradict God’s impassibility, this was solved through the idea of anthropopathism, that is, the belief that God describes Himself with emotional terms. Prior to 1930, most of the English Bible renderings of the divine repentance passages preferred the word “repent,” because the prevailing theology was rooted in the impassibility of God, and these passages were deemed to be anthropopathic. But with the doctrine of God’s impassibility now in question, English Bible translations began to reflect the view that God actually reacts to our suffering with strong emotion. Words such as “sorry,” “grief,” “regret,” and even “changed his mind” were now used to describe the reaction of God whenever God appeared to be disappointed with his creation, or worse, if He was disappointed with his own plan. The purpose of this study is to provide an exegetical solution to the problem of God’s response in the divine repentance passages in four Old Testament historical texts. These passages are labelled as such because of the use of the Hebrew verb ~xn which describe God as “sorry” or “repenting.” For those who hold to God’s full immutability, the preferred view through the ages was that the Hebrew ~xn was to be taken as anthropopathically. This study will want to explore the possibilities of an alternative view for the Hebrew ~xn in the divine repentance passages which allow for God’s passibility while holding to his full immutability. Specifically, this study not only strives to answer the question “Does God repent?”, but through a sound methodology also wants to answer the larger question of the source of God’s emotion when his judgment or grace is in view. The methodology followed in this study is two-fold. First, it is biblical-theological, meaning that it utilises a whole-Bible theology, and following the work of Walter Kaiser and James Hamilton, posits that the Old Testament contains a theme or centre of grace within judgment. At the Fall in Ge 3, God simultaneously introduced judgment and grace into the world. That judgment and grace has never left. As one looks through the Bible, these are the two unbroken strands that weave their way through every chapter and every book. In addition, this study is also an exegetical study, and follows the grammaticalhistorical- lexical-syntactical methodology of Walter Kaiser. God disclosed Himself objectively through the words of a book. This book records actual historical events, as well as specific declarations and commands from God Himself. It is necessary that the words of this book be correctly understood in their context so that a correct understanding of God will result. Using this methodology, this study will explore the meaning of God’s ~xn in each divine repentance passage. The lexical study will be combined with the biblical-theological approach of a theme or centre of “grace within judgment” that flows through the Old Testament. Because of this, is it possible that God, who is fully immutable, provide us everything that we need to navigate a world of sin, suffering and uncertainty? The answer could very well be in the understanding of God’s ~xn in light of our suffering and sin. / PhD (Old Testament), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Catholic University of America, 1944. / Bibliography: p. xi-xvii.

Thesis (Th. M.)--Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology, Brookline, Mass., 1998. / Original [Greek] texts of Elias Meniates' sermons on repentance and confession included in appendix. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 154-159).

No description available.

Repentance is the first message of Jesus Christ, but the doctrine of repentance has been corrupted by the legalistic-penance doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Arminianism, and synergism. The desire for the restoration of true repentance was the cause of the Reformation and Reformed theology has tried to build true repentance in soteriology. Calvin’s doctrine of repentance is balanced between subjectivity and objectivity, and repentance is a requisite element of salvation. Calvin made a connection between repentance and Practicus Syllogismus to emphasise the necessity of good works in salvation. K. Barth’s doctrine of repentance, which sees repentance as being the work of God alone, can be defined as forensic repentance. Genuine repentance only takes place in Christ. Christians can participate in the repentance of Christ, which then becomes their repentance. G. C. Berkouwer used the term ‘correlation’ to explain the balance between faith and repentance and to overcome the problem of subjectivity and objectivity in his doctrine of repentance. Faith and repentance are not interdependent, but are closely connected in the grace of God in Christ. By faith the sinner knows that he is a sinner and understands the necessity of repentance. Repentance is a means of strengthening faith. In the Roman Catholic Church penance is a requisite element in soteriology. There is no salvation without penance, and forgiveness of sins and salvation cannot be accomplished without a priest. This is a legalistic-penance theory which converts repentance through the righteousness of Christ into penance by man’s co-operation, changing the Christo-centric focus to include, partially, the merit of the Church and the Priest. Hyung-Nong Park called repentance a ‘co-operative’ work between God and man, but this does not imply synergism. He assumes that repentance is only given to the regenerated and to the Christian who has the sign of God’s children in regeneration. Repentance itself becomes a sign of redemption. With the exception of Barth, Reformed theologians tried to pursue the balance between subjectivity and objectivity in the doctrine of repentance. Calvin, Berkouwer and Park each tried to overcome the problems of the doctrine of repentance, Calvin with ‘Duplex acceptio hominis” or ‘Operum Justitia,’ Berkouwer with ‘Correlation’ and Park with his own term, ‘Co-operative’. True repentance is not declarative, forensic or human speculation. It is neither purely subjective nor purely objective, nor is it legalism or the result of synergism. Repentance is the action of man, but is provoked by the action of God, and by the power of God, man turns to God. This is a product of the grace of God; by His grace man has the opportunity to repent. Repentance requires good works, but neither man’s righteousness nor his merit save him from death; rather, it is man’s obedience and gratitude to God. True repentance, as well as true faith, is a sign of salvation and must be regarded as the heart of the Gospel, along with ‘justification by faith.’ When repentance has a proper role and position in Reformed soteriology, ‘justification by faith’ will not be human speculation or antinomianism, but will have the position of the heart of the true gospel in Reformed theology. / Thesis (PhD (Dogmatics and Christian Ethics))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Dogmatics and Christian Ethics / unrestricted

James Baldwin, a Black American writer, contends that the root cause of America’s racial problem is not necessarily prejudice or hatred but guilt. In his essay, “White Man’s Guilt,” Baldwin says that most of the arguments white people use today against the reality of America’s racial problem can be reduced to a plea: “Do not blame me. I was not there. I did not do it” (Price 411). In many of his essays, Baldwin explores white America’s long history of guilt, denial, and justification, and he explains that many white Christians—in an attempt to avoid blame and protect their power, their privilege, and their identity as good, innocent, moral people—have perpetrated immense trauma against Black people. Since the time of slavery, white Christians have created a variety of theological justifications for racial inequality, and these justifications generally shift blame to Black people and to God. “Now, this is not called morality,” proclaims Baldwin, “this is not called faith, this has nothing to do with Christ. It has to do with power, and part of the dilemma of the Christian Church is the fact that it opted…for power and betrayed its own first principles” (Price 438). Contemporary research in the field of race and religion has shown that racism—and the denial of it—is often worse in white Christian communities today. A close examination of how and why white Christians have participated in racism demonstrates that racism is more than a few isolated incidents of “bad” people engaging in individual acts of prejudice, hatred, or violence. In this thesis, I will put Baldwin’s observations and insights about white people and white Christians in conversation with other scholars of white Christian ideology to demonstrate that racism is a widespread moral sin rooted in guilt and the attempt to avoid blame, maintain power, and protect identity. I will argue that preaching love, forgiveness, and unity often misses the mark, and that Baldwin’s solution of repentance offers a more effective approach in helping white Christians to combat racism today.

Racism, White supremacy, and Whiteness are deeply ingrained in U.S. society and in our U.S. Catholic Church. White U.S. Catholics are infected with these sins, even our prayer can be tainted. We, who continue to benefit from White privilege and who are descendants of those who created White supremacy, are responsible for bringing an end to its reign with God’s help. In order to heal, we must recognize our sin and repent. Repentance is deeply rooted in our tradition and is a necessary spiritual practice for White U.S. Catholics to prepare the soil for individual, communal, and systemic changes to create the Beloved Community and advance the reign of God.

The present study examines the figure of Mary Magdalene in the poetry of Lope de Vega and Richard Crashaw. I propose that while setting Mary Magdalene as the perfect example to convert, both authors could also express their conversion through the composition of two different poems: “Las Lágrimas de la Magdalena” by Lope de Vega and “Saint Mary Magdalene or, The Weeper” by Richard Crashaw. Each poem is centered on the idea of Mary Magdalene’s copious tears as the performative mark of her repentance which will effect her conversion. These two conversions are placed within two European literary traditions, Spain and England; as well as two different processes: on the one hand, Lope de Vega would go from a licentious life in his early years to becoming a priest at the end of his life, thus, devoting his life to religion. On the other hand, Richard Crashaw’s conversion would take place in between two conflicting religious beliefs, i.e., his transition from Protestantism to Catholicism. The other main goal of this work is studying these poems through the Baroque movement developed at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Hence, Lope de Vega’s poem is full of Baroque characteristics typical of the Spanish conceptism despite his reluctance consider his poetry Baroque. Crashaw, on his side, presents a poem which differs from the literary production in England in the first part of the seventeenth century. His Baroque sensibility would be, accordingly, influenced by his readings of the Spanish Golden Age authors. Therefore, anomaly, exaggeration, tempus fugit, conceptism, contradiction, paradox, and binary oppositions are Baroque characteristics both authors have in common in regard to their own particular description of both Mary Magdalene’s biblical stories and tears. Lastly, both poems will lead us to draw parallels with the Song of Songs in terms of spiritual conversation, and feminine identification.

No description available.