Thesis (D. Min.)--Harding University Graduate School of Religion, 2005. / "April 2005." Includes bibliographical references (leaves [255]-260).

Thesis (M.A.)--Catholic Theological Union, 1987. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 261-274).

Thesis (PhD.(Dogmat.))-University of Pretoria, 2007. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 448-488)

Thesis (D. Miss.)--Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, 1993. / Abstract. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 126-132).

The theologies of Robert W. Jenson and James H. Cone have not been interpreted together. This thesis argues that the two theologians are profoundly similar. The study argues that Jenson's and Cone's theologies converge in such manner that they may be described as sharing a common task; namely, the development of a theology of revolution. 'Theology of revolution' denotes both a doctrine of God that is metaphysically revolutionary, and a theology that enables revolutionary politics. Specifically, both theologians diagnose a problem with Christian theology, and their diagnoses are finally the same: theology has inherited from Greek theology assumptions about deity that construe eternity and time as contradictory, resulting in an abstraction from historical life, and a denigration of historical particularity, contingency, and concreteness. In Cone's analysis, white supremacy, as well as a heretical Christology, emerges from this theological assumption; in Jenson's analysis, oppressive political ideologies and inadequately orthodox Christology emerges from this inherited Hellenistic assumption. For both theologians, at stake is Christian eschatology, which, for both, is determinative of political life. Jenson and Cone alike argue that the God of Jesus is the God of history, and is therefore the God of eschatological revolution who enables and inspires revolutionary politics in history. Cone's theology has extensively developed a politics of this eschatology, but has insufficiently developed its corresponding metaphysics; Jenson has devoted enormous energy to developing the revisionary metaphysics of the gospel, arguing that the gospel's God is revolutionary, but has only occasionally addressed politics, and has largely neglected the implications of his theology for the problem of white supremacy. This study argues that just as Jenson's and Cone's theological programmes converge, their theologies are also mutually corrective for one another, enabling one another to better articulate a theology of revolution. Chapter One will address the theological and political context out of which Cone's theology arises, clarifying the theological and political programmes to which Cone is reacting in order to identify the revolutionary intentions of his theology. Chapter Two argues that political concerns partially occasion Jenson's theology, and that his occasional political writings that propose a revolutionary politics are constitutive of his effort to develop a revisionary metaphysics. Chapter Three explicates Cone's eschatological doctrine of God, in which God is the eschatological revolution, by means of analysing Cone's Christology. Chapter Four develops Jenson's proposal for a revolutionary politics, analysing how this proposal arises from his eschatological doctrine of God. Chapter Five analyses how Cone's proposal for a revolutionary 'Black Power' politics is a broader proposal for a revolutionary eschatology, in which eternity is the revolutionary fulfilment of time in the future. Chapter Six elaborates Jenson's revisionary metaphysics by explicating his Christology, showing how this Christology results in a revolutionary, eschatological doctrine of God. The Conclusion of the study restates and clarifies the argument of the study, that Jenson and Cone have developed a mutually corrective theology of revolution.

No description available.

by Yeung Kwok Keung. / Thesis (M.Div.)--Chinese University of Hong Kong, 1995. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-78). / ACKNOWLEDGMENTS --- p.i / CONTENTS --- p.ii / Chapter 1. --- INTRODUCTION --- p.1 / Chapter 2. --- BACKGROUND : ASIAN THEOLOGY AS CONTEXTUAL --- p.3 / Chapter 2.1 --- The Call for Doing Contextual Theology --- p.3 / Chapter 2.1.1 --- Factors leads to the rise of contextual theology --- p.3 / Chapter 2.12 --- Different Models of Contextual Theology --- p.6 / Chapter 2.2 --- Constructing Contextual Theology in Asia --- p.9 / Chapter 2.3 --- Summary --- p.12 / Chapter 3. --- SONG'S CONCEPTION OF CONSTRUCTING ASIAN THEOLOGY --- p.14 / Chapter 3.1 --- Doing Theology with Asian Resources --- p.14 / Chapter 3.2 --- Song's concept of culture --- p.17 / Chapter 3.2.1 --- Definition of Culture --- p.17 / Chapter 3.2.2 --- Images and Symbols --- p.20 / Chapter 3.3 --- Song's Doing Theology in Asia --- p.22 / Chapter 3.3.1 --- Raw Material and Context of Theology --- p.23 / Chapter 3.3.2 --- ´بReclaim Our Own Asianness' --- p.25 / Chapter 3.3.3 --- New Orientation in Doing Theology --- p.26 / Chapter 3.3.4 --- Doing Asian Theology by Telling Stories --- p.29 / Chapter 3.4 --- Summary --- p.30 / Chapter 4. --- CRITICAL ASSESSMENTS OF SONG'S THEOLOGICAL PROJECT --- p.32 / Chapter 4.1 --- The Interpretation of Culture --- p.35 / Chapter 4.1.1 --- Prejudices in Reading Culture --- p.36 / Chapter 4.1.2 --- Reading of Cultural Texts --- p.39 / Chapter 4.2 --- The Notion of Culture --- p.46 / Chapter 4.2.1 --- Culture and Human Beings --- p.47 / Chapter 4.2.2 --- The Scope of Asian Cultures --- p.56 / Chapter 4.3 --- Reflexivity and Symbolic Domination --- p.60 / Chapter 4.3.1 --- Reflexivity of Theory --- p.60 / Chapter 4.3.2 --- Symbolic Capital and Symbolic Domination --- p.63 / Chapter 4.4 --- Summary --- p.70 / Chapter 5. --- CONCLUSION --- p.72 / BIBLIOGRAPHY --- p.74

Thesis (M.A.)--Wheaton College Graduate School, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 141-152).

Thesis (M.A.)--Brigham Young University, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 138-149).

Questions regarding the fate of the unevangelized have been contemplated for centuries and now, in this post-Christian world, issues of the church's claim that Jesus is the unique Son of God have been added to the debate. Does God truly desire the salvation of all human beings? Is Jesus Christ the full and unequalled revelation of God? This work explores, through means of comparison and contrast, the theological positions of exclusivism, pluralism, and inclusivism. Particular attention is given to each school's history, biblical arguments, theological arguments, and convictions concerning the purpose of missions, as well as an evaluation of each school's position. The author concludes that while exclusivism maintains a high Christology and pluralism a wide-ranging salvation, only inclusivism adequately harmonizes these positions in a cogent manner. / Systematic Theology & Theological Ethics / M. Th. (Systematic Theology)