No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

That the study of the history of Christian doctrine and dogma had its heyday in nineteenth-century German Protestantism is well known. What is not well known is that theologians in two Presbyterian denominations in Victorian Scotland, the Free Church and the United Presbyterians, made the most concerted attempts in an English-speaking Protestant tradition to account historically for the genesis and progress of doctrine. This dissertation recovers this half-century of Reformed theological labour and neglected chapter in Victorian church history through close analysis of how prominent theologians in these evangelical bodies wrestled with the new, disconcerting idea that doctrine develops in history. The story that emerges tells of Scottish Presbyterian theology in the period c. 1845-c. 1900 coming to recognize that church doctrine was not simply the repetition of biblical teaching. Doctrine was the church's confession of God's truth—and the church was in history. Nonetheless, because the historical spirit was far from monolithic in the nineteenth century, the manner in which theologians from this tradition negotiated their Reformed and evangelical doctrinal inheritance with the claims of history was markedly diverse.William Cunningham (1805-61) rejected John Henry Newman's groundbreaking An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845) by reiterating the classical Protestant doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture. Although subsequent theologians also held this belief, their understanding of revelation was being historicized. Robert Rainy (1826-1906) drew upon a concept of "salvation history" then current among conservative German theologians to argue that doctrine was not deposited in Scripture as Cunningham assumed; rather, it formed as the church interpreted God's acts in history. Rainy's tacit admission that doctrine, being historically conditioned, was also historically conditional was radicalized by A. B. Bruce (1831-1899). In concert with the influential Ritschlian critique of dogma, Bruce urged evangelical theology to tear down the "scholastic" dogmas of yesteryear to rebuild anew on the witness of the historical Jesus. In firm opposition, James Orr (1844-1913) creatively deployed philosophical idealism to show how orthodox dogma had developed over centuries as the rational unfolding of Spirit in history. Accordingly, the system of doctrine maintained in evangelical Protestantism was largely inviolable.Along with summarizing some themes common in the diverse handling of the problem of history and dogma by Free Church and United Presbyterian divines, the concluding chapter tentatively suggests where their labours intersect contemporary ecumenical interest in the issue of the historical development of doctrine. / Il est bien connu que l'histoire du dogme et de la doctrine chétienne a connu son apogée au sein du protestantisme allemand du dix-neuvième siècle. Ce qui est moins connu c'est que des théologiens de deux dénomination presbytériennes de l'écosse victorienne, la Free Church et les Presbytériens Unis, ont fait le plus d'efforts concertés, au sein d'une tradition protestante anglophone, de rendre compte historiquement de la genèse et du progrès de la doctrine. Cette dissertation couvre ce demi-siècle de travail théologique réformé, un chapitre négligé de l'histoire de l'église, particulièrement par une analyse attentive de la manière dont d'éminents théologiens des deux corps évangéliques sus-mentionnés ont lutté avec cette idée que la doctrine connaît des développements dans l'histoire.Le récit qui en émerge rend compte de la théologie presbytérienne écossaise dans la période débutant dans les environs de 1845 à 1900 venant à reconnaître que la doctrine ne se cantonnait pas seulement à rèpéter les enseignements bibliques. La doctrine était la confession de l'Église Par rapport la vérité de Dieu – une église située dans l'histoire. Mais parce que l'esprit historique du temps était loin d'être monolithique, la manière dont les théologiens ont composé tant avec leur héritage doctrinal réformé et évangélique que les revendications de l'histoire fut marqué par la diversité. William Cunningham (1805-61) a rejeté le document innovateur de John Henry Newman, An essay on the ChristianDoctrine (1845) en rehitérant la position protestante classique sur la suffisance de l'Écriture. Par contre, même s'ils partageaient cette position, des théologiens ultérieurs avaient une compréhension plus historique de la révélation. Robert Rainy (1826-1906) utilisa le concept « d'histoire du salut » alors en usage chez les théologiens conservateurs allemands pour faire valoir que la doctrine n'était pas contenue, proprement dit, dans l'écriture comme le suggérait Cunningham, mais plutôt elle prit fome à mesure que l'Église a interprété l'inetervention de Dieu dans l'histoire. Cette admission tacite de Rainy, à savoir que la doctrine étant historiquement conditionnée était aussi historiquement conditionnelle, fut radicalisée par A.B.Bruce (1831-1899). De concert avec l'influente critique Ritschlienne du dogme, Bruce a poussé la théologie évangélique à mettre en pièces les dogmes « scholastiques » d'hier afin de reconstruire à neuf sur le témoignage du Jésus historique. Complètement à l'opposé, James Orr (1844-1913) a, de manière créative, déployé un idéalisme philosophique afin de démontrer comment le dogme orthodoxe a pris forme à travers les siècles comme le dévoilement rationnel graduel de l'Esprit dans l'histoire. Par conséquent, le système de doctrine maintenu dans le protestantisme évangélique était en grande partie inviolable.Tout en résumant certain thèmes communs dans le maniement du problème de l'histoire et du dogme par les théologiens de la Free Church et de l'Église Presbytérienne Unie, le chapître final suggère prudemment les lieux où leurs travaux croisent l'intérêt oecuménique contemporain dans la problématique du développent historique de la doctrine.

Five years after Luther fixed his theses to the church door in Wittenberg, the Reformation was dealt a heavy blow in the development of the controversy over the Eucharist. The controversy opened up a deep split in the Protestant ranks, dividing Lutherans and Zwinglians not only confessionally, but politically as well. When the Protestants were in greatest need of unity, both at the bargaining table and on the battlefield, in confrontation with the Catholic Emperor Charles V, their inability to agree on the Eucharist kept them divided and weakened. [...]

<p> This dissertation attempts to form a <i>missio Dei </i> paradigm that is impelled by God Himself pursuing the purpose of being glorified in the worship of all peoples. It begins by tracing the mutation of the category of purpose in Enlightenment thought, showing how a succession of operative teleologies have shaped Protestant mission theology, contributing to an inconclusive formulation of <i>missio Dei</i> mission theology. </p><p> Using intertextual methods of biblical theology, select motifs are examined with attention to indicators of overriding purpose that suggest major plot lines of purpose in the Bible. Two large motifs are selected, God's name and glory among the nations, and the related theme of the worship of the nations. </p><p> Many texts of the Bible highlight God pursuing His purpose to be known, not only as a God who is great, but as a God who loves; and even more, that He desires to be recognized as the God who is loved in worship by His people. Inherent in God's purpose to be known among the nations&mdash;what I refer to as the revelatory <i>telos</i>&mdash;is a relational <i> telos</i>: He will be worshiped in loving obedience by a people formed in the risen Christ from every people. </p><p> The primary component of the paradigm is not a narrative merely to be continued, but instead, it is a theodrama that must be enacted toward fulfillment. The Christotelic drama is fulfilled as people are formed in worshiping communities that openly love and obey Him. </p><p> Three other essential components of the paradigm are explored: First, seeing the trinity in mission, focused by the "God-ward" relationality of the paradigm, provides a robust and yet ordered intra-trinitarian relationality in which love is received as well as given by God. Second, a Christotelic ecclesiology envisions the church endowed with mission as a gift, joined with Christ to collaborate with God in missiological synergism. Third, a contingent eschatology offers a motivation framework of teleological necessity. </p><p> The significance of this study is multifaceted. A conclusion outlines possible contributions to ethnodoxology, contextualization challenges and mission mobililization.</p>

<p> Grounded in the belief that the parish priest is called to be a source of prophetic challenge to the Church and the culture through his preaching, this project offers a resource for the encouragement of today's Catholic priest in his role as a prophetic preacher. Chapter One begins by exploring the tradition of prophetic proclamation reflected in the writings of the classical biblical prophets in order to present a description of prophetic preaching. Chapter Two examines the psychological, ecclesial, and cultural factors that may potentially encourage or discourage prophetic preaching for the Catholic priest today. Eight essential elements for the encouragement of vibrant prophetic preaching in today's Church are identified in Chapter Three. The chapter then considers the experience of both priests and laity with prophetic preaching in light of these elements by interpreting data gathered through surveys and focus group sessions conducted for this project. Drawing on the insight gathered from these first three chapters, Chapter Four presents a resource for the encouragement of prophetic preaching among today's priests in the form of a written article. This article examines six perspectives on prophetic preaching which are rooted in the biblical tradition of prophecy, accompanied by practical considerations for preaching and two sample homilies. </p>

According to Hans Kung, Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians have reached fundamental agreement on the doctrine of justification. If this is so, then we can also expect to find such agreement on the doctrine of sin, for these two doctrines are but different sides of the same coin. This study tests this hypothesis by comparing Karl Barth's and Karl Rahner's views of sin. Fruitful comparison of Barth and Rahner is made possible by the material overlap in their theologies resulting from Barth's move away from Protestant liberalism toward a more orthodox theology and Rahner's move away from Neo-Scholasticism to a more critical theology. Comparison is made difficult by (1) the traditionally different points of departure of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant theology of sin, and (2) the difference between Rahner's transcendental method and Barth's narrative strategy. While Rahner founds his theology of sin on the concept of human responsibility, Barth takes God's effective act of redemption as the basis for his thinking about sin. Proceeding from the concept of responsibility, Rahner seeks the transcendental conditions of its possibility, but Barth begins with the story of sin's conquest by Jesus Christ, interpreting all other biblical material in its light. Despite their differences, Barth and Rahner essentially agree in all five areas in which they were compared. (1) They both argue that sin can be known truly only from the revelation of God. (2) Surprisingly, we find agreement in the cluster of issues surrounding the concept of freedom, Barth and Rahner agreeing that human beings have no neutral position vis-a-vis God, and that the sinful act is not free in the same sense as the obedient act. (3) They both describe sin as a three-fold "no": to God, to true human nature and to the neighbor. (4) For both theologians, the subject of the sinful act is the good human creature who is elevated by the address of God or the supernatural existential. (5) According to Barth and Rahner, sin results intrinsically in slavery and condemnation; sin is Hell, and Hell is sin.

Emil Brunner's theology is divided into three periods: predialectical (1914-1920), dialectical (1921-1927), and eristic-dogmatic (1928-1960). Each period is characterized by a particular epistemological construct, describing the source and medium of religious knowledge. The epistemological construct determines the content of Brunner's theology during each respective period. This dissertation analyzes Brunner's epistemology and shows how it applies to his doctrine of the atonement. Brunner's pre-dialectical theology grants an active epistemological role to the human religious subject. Abelard's exemplarist soteriology, which also emphasizes human initiative, best fits the mold of such an epistemology. Brunner's dialectical epistemology places the initiative entirely on the side of God. To coincide with this new epistemology, Brunner adopts Anselm's Cur Deus Homo as a soteriological model. Brunner refines his epistemology during his final period, granting a role to both God and humanity. His soteriology moves toward the type described by Gustav Aulen in Christus Victor.

No description available.