Pub Date : 2022-02-01DOI: 10.1177/10638512221076359
J. Bergen
Stephen’s dying prayer, “‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them,’” (Acts 7:60) is considered in light of the challenge it presents for the immediate and unconditional forgiveness that may be expected of victims of violence, and the legacy of supersessionist interpretation. In dialogue with several sermons by Augustine on Stephen, I frame a reading that links imitation of Stephen with spiritual struggle and formation, and connects forgiveness with accountability and the call to repentance. The anti-Jewish dimensions are recast in terms of not holding the sin against all who cast stones, contrary to an interpretation that effectively denies forgiveness to “non-believing” Jews. These dynamics of forgiveness are epitomized by the “Testament” and martyrdom of Fr. Christian de Chergé.
{"title":"Stephen’s Dying Prayer (Acts 7:60) and the Challenge of Forgiveness","authors":"J. Bergen","doi":"10.1177/10638512221076359","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221076359","url":null,"abstract":"Stephen’s dying prayer, “‘Lord, do not hold this sin against them,’” (Acts 7:60) is considered in light of the challenge it presents for the immediate and unconditional forgiveness that may be expected of victims of violence, and the legacy of supersessionist interpretation. In dialogue with several sermons by Augustine on Stephen, I frame a reading that links imitation of Stephen with spiritual struggle and formation, and connects forgiveness with accountability and the call to repentance. The anti-Jewish dimensions are recast in terms of not holding the sin against all who cast stones, contrary to an interpretation that effectively denies forgiveness to “non-believing” Jews. These dynamics of forgiveness are epitomized by the “Testament” and martyrdom of Fr. Christian de Chergé.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126066434","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01DOI: 10.1177/10638512221076356
Kathryn Greene-McCreight
Galatians 4:4 has a rich exegetical career, touching on the eternal decision of the Father in the divine sending of the Son; the pre-existent Christ; Mary's role in Christ's humanity and ethnicity; the one church of Jews and Gentiles.
{"title":"Born of Woman, Born Under the Law: A Theological Exegesis of Galatians 4:4","authors":"Kathryn Greene-McCreight","doi":"10.1177/10638512221076356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221076356","url":null,"abstract":"Galatians 4:4 has a rich exegetical career, touching on the eternal decision of the Father in the divine sending of the Son; the pre-existent Christ; Mary's role in Christ's humanity and ethnicity; the one church of Jews and Gentiles.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129271167","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01DOI: 10.1177/10638512221076303
Carl E. Braaten
This brief volume tells the story of half a millennium of the Lutheran theological tradition from its origin in Luther’s initial call for reform to its present global condition of conflict and confusion. I cannot think of anyone better equipped to tell this sorry tale than Paul Hinlicky, no stranger to conflict and controversy himself. This book is a concise digest of things he was written about Luther and Lutheran theology over many years in weighty tomes and learned articles. Hinlicky concludes his book with “A Brief Prolegomena to Any Future Lutheran Theology,” informing his readers on where he stands in the midst of the “contested contemporary world of Lutheran theology.” As Hinlicky surveys world Lutheranism he observes a decadent and dying post-Christendom Lutheranism in Eastern and Western Europe, he sees the younger churches planted by the nineteenth-century missionary movement developing indigenous theologies of their own, he sees American Lutheranism divided between pseudo-orthodox evangelical fundamentalism and ecumenically oriented evangelical Catholicism, and both of them being challenged by a resurgence of liberal Lutheranism blending with various liberationist and feminist theologies. What Hinlicky proposes as a more promising alternative emerges from his narrative of the successive types of Lutheranism, starting with Luther’s own multiple, self-contradictory theological positions, followed first by the period of confessional Lutheranism culminating in the Formula of Concord, next by seventeenth-century scholastic orthodoxy which, contrary to Luther, put Aristotle back into the driver’s seat, then the rise of Pietism, critical of “dead orthodoxy,” led by the fervent devotional writings of Johann Arndt, Philip Jacob Spener, and August Hermann Francke. Both Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism came tumbling down with the relentless rationalistic critique of traditional Christian dogmatics by the leading philosopher of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. Kant’s critiques of pure and practical reason opened the Book Review
{"title":"Book Review: Lutheran Theology: A Critical Introduction by Paul R. Hinlicky","authors":"Carl E. Braaten","doi":"10.1177/10638512221076303","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221076303","url":null,"abstract":"This brief volume tells the story of half a millennium of the Lutheran theological tradition from its origin in Luther’s initial call for reform to its present global condition of conflict and confusion. I cannot think of anyone better equipped to tell this sorry tale than Paul Hinlicky, no stranger to conflict and controversy himself. This book is a concise digest of things he was written about Luther and Lutheran theology over many years in weighty tomes and learned articles. Hinlicky concludes his book with “A Brief Prolegomena to Any Future Lutheran Theology,” informing his readers on where he stands in the midst of the “contested contemporary world of Lutheran theology.” As Hinlicky surveys world Lutheranism he observes a decadent and dying post-Christendom Lutheranism in Eastern and Western Europe, he sees the younger churches planted by the nineteenth-century missionary movement developing indigenous theologies of their own, he sees American Lutheranism divided between pseudo-orthodox evangelical fundamentalism and ecumenically oriented evangelical Catholicism, and both of them being challenged by a resurgence of liberal Lutheranism blending with various liberationist and feminist theologies. What Hinlicky proposes as a more promising alternative emerges from his narrative of the successive types of Lutheranism, starting with Luther’s own multiple, self-contradictory theological positions, followed first by the period of confessional Lutheranism culminating in the Formula of Concord, next by seventeenth-century scholastic orthodoxy which, contrary to Luther, put Aristotle back into the driver’s seat, then the rise of Pietism, critical of “dead orthodoxy,” led by the fervent devotional writings of Johann Arndt, Philip Jacob Spener, and August Hermann Francke. Both Lutheran Orthodoxy and Pietism came tumbling down with the relentless rationalistic critique of traditional Christian dogmatics by the leading philosopher of the Enlightenment, Immanuel Kant. Kant’s critiques of pure and practical reason opened the Book Review","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124409554","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-02-01DOI: 10.1177/10638512221076339
Christopher R. J. Holmes
This article introduces a symposium in honour of Joseph Mangina, the previous editor of Pro Ecclesia. Mangina's two books on Karl Barth lead to his commentary on the book of Revelation, for Barth shows that Scripture matters because God matters—a conviction that informs all Mangina's work. Scripture's claims about God have practical and affective consequences for the Christian life, most prominently in our gratitude to God for his love of creatures. Thus Mangina's commentary on Revelation is not merely an exercise in interpretation but specifically theological exegesis, whose telos is an encounter in gratitude and joy with the reality of God in Jesus Christ, which no theory of interpretation can secure for us.
{"title":"Reading Scripture with Gratitude: Joseph Mangina's Contribution to Theological Exegesis","authors":"Christopher R. J. Holmes","doi":"10.1177/10638512221076339","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221076339","url":null,"abstract":"This article introduces a symposium in honour of Joseph Mangina, the previous editor of Pro Ecclesia. Mangina's two books on Karl Barth lead to his commentary on the book of Revelation, for Barth shows that Scripture matters because God matters—a conviction that informs all Mangina's work. Scripture's claims about God have practical and affective consequences for the Christian life, most prominently in our gratitude to God for his love of creatures. Thus Mangina's commentary on Revelation is not merely an exercise in interpretation but specifically theological exegesis, whose telos is an encounter in gratitude and joy with the reality of God in Jesus Christ, which no theory of interpretation can secure for us.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115575039","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-27DOI: 10.1177/10638512221076401
P. Ziegler
This short essay reflects theologically upon aspects of the enigmatic passage 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 and contends that while certainly directed at assuaging the eschatological anxieties of the Christian congregation to whom it is addressed, this passage is not, as is often suggested, uninterested in eschatological doctrine as such. Rather, I argued that it is precisely the apocalyptic vision of the victorious and eloquent epiphany of the Lord that funds the peace and hope to which Christians are called in the midst of tumultuous times, and that this orientation is decisive for both faith and theology.
{"title":"How it Ends: Brief Remarks on Reading 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12","authors":"P. Ziegler","doi":"10.1177/10638512221076401","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221076401","url":null,"abstract":"This short essay reflects theologically upon aspects of the enigmatic passage 2 Thessalonians 2:1-12 and contends that while certainly directed at assuaging the eschatological anxieties of the Christian congregation to whom it is addressed, this passage is not, as is often suggested, uninterested in eschatological doctrine as such. Rather, I argued that it is precisely the apocalyptic vision of the victorious and eloquent epiphany of the Lord that funds the peace and hope to which Christians are called in the midst of tumultuous times, and that this orientation is decisive for both faith and theology.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"31 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129156962","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-24DOI: 10.1177/10638512221076312
James J. Buckley
This remarkable book is for reading and studying—and (most unusually) praying—together. The title and subtitle are a clean summary of the thesis and approach. But they wisely reveal as well as hide: “deification”—“through the cross”? “Eastern”—and “Christian”? So I would make this required reading and studying and praying on salvation-theology for professors and pastors and anyone else who is reading thus far. But here I speak briefly as a provincial Roman Catholic theologian to give readers some small sense of the riches here. I begin with the sub-title and move toward the title. This is a “theology of salvation.” But it is written with “the distinctly modern befuddlement in the face of this central Christian doctrine” in mind (1). This includes befuddlement over the claim that Christ’s suffering and death save. It is exemplified in the marginalizing Christ’s death as expiatory sacrifice, the proliferation and fragmentation of un-normed “models” or “metaphors” of salvation (Aulen, Turner, Gunton, and McIntyre), and “the lack of experiential access to this doctrine” (23). The dismissal of clear Scriptural themes (such as expiatory sacrifice) for exemplifying the befuddlement is not as subtle a befuddlement as various proposals of un-normed “models” or “metaphors,” but each arises from and leads to the experiential vacuity of “salvation.” Anatolios’ alternative to these befuddlements is an “Eastern Christian” theology of salvation. What is this? In one of those rare moments when he calls attention to himself, Anatolios says he is a member of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, “which claims the same Byzantine dogmatic, liturgical, and spiritual heritage as the Byzantine Orthodox Churches, while also maintaining communion with the Church of Rome” (38, note 56). But “Eastern Christian” means a good deal more than this autobiographical sidenote. I have never read a book that so clearly and effectively criticizes Book Review
{"title":"Book Review: Deification Through the Cross: An Eastern Christian Theology of Salvation by Khaled Anatolios","authors":"James J. Buckley","doi":"10.1177/10638512221076312","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221076312","url":null,"abstract":"This remarkable book is for reading and studying—and (most unusually) praying—together. The title and subtitle are a clean summary of the thesis and approach. But they wisely reveal as well as hide: “deification”—“through the cross”? “Eastern”—and “Christian”? So I would make this required reading and studying and praying on salvation-theology for professors and pastors and anyone else who is reading thus far. But here I speak briefly as a provincial Roman Catholic theologian to give readers some small sense of the riches here. I begin with the sub-title and move toward the title. This is a “theology of salvation.” But it is written with “the distinctly modern befuddlement in the face of this central Christian doctrine” in mind (1). This includes befuddlement over the claim that Christ’s suffering and death save. It is exemplified in the marginalizing Christ’s death as expiatory sacrifice, the proliferation and fragmentation of un-normed “models” or “metaphors” of salvation (Aulen, Turner, Gunton, and McIntyre), and “the lack of experiential access to this doctrine” (23). The dismissal of clear Scriptural themes (such as expiatory sacrifice) for exemplifying the befuddlement is not as subtle a befuddlement as various proposals of un-normed “models” or “metaphors,” but each arises from and leads to the experiential vacuity of “salvation.” Anatolios’ alternative to these befuddlements is an “Eastern Christian” theology of salvation. What is this? In one of those rare moments when he calls attention to himself, Anatolios says he is a member of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church, “which claims the same Byzantine dogmatic, liturgical, and spiritual heritage as the Byzantine Orthodox Churches, while also maintaining communion with the Church of Rome” (38, note 56). But “Eastern Christian” means a good deal more than this autobiographical sidenote. I have never read a book that so clearly and effectively criticizes Book Review","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"100 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128825653","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-24DOI: 10.1177/10638512221076307
Li-Wei Liu
The Ecclesiology of Thomas F. Torrance is the first academic monograph that focuses exclusively on Thomas F. Torrance’s doctrine of the Church. Based on her doctrinal dissertation at the University of Otago, Kate Tyler begins the book with an essential ecclesiological question: what, or who, is the church? She maintains that “the Church must be understood as an empirical community in space and time that is ultimately shaped by the Triune God who is a perichoretic communion of the three divine persons” (ix). Tyler is convinced that, as Torrance has shown, studies of ecclesiology must both be grounded upon and begin with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The flow of this book is thus analogous to Torrance’s conviction that “ecclesiological inquiry must proceed from above rather than below” (xi): chapters 1–4 unfold the integral correlation between the doctrinal loci of the Trinity and the Church, and chapters 5–9 then draw out the theological and ecclesial implications for a trinitarian ecclesiology according to Torrance’s understanding. Tyler begins her study by highlighting the contours of major contemporary ecclesiological inquiries such as communion ecclesiology and themissio Deimovement, and then suggests that all of these ongoing conversations share a central focus on the trinitarian shape of the Church. What follows is a helpful overview of contemporary scholarly contributions on the ecclesiology of Torrance. The first chapter introduces both Torrance’s family influence and the core ideas that shaped his approaches to theological thinking. The highlights here include how Torrance’s missionary heritage influenced the missional and ecclesiological orientation of his works, as well as how he appropriates Michael Polanyi’s theory of personal knowledge in the domain of dogmatic theology for fostering an incarnational (i.e., kataphysic, “according to nature”) and scientific mode of thinking that avoids the pitfall of epistemological dualism (i.e., the modern fact-value dichotomy). Book Review
{"title":"Book Review: The Ecclesiology of Thomas F. Torrance: Koinōnia and the Church by Kate Tyler","authors":"Li-Wei Liu","doi":"10.1177/10638512221076307","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512221076307","url":null,"abstract":"The Ecclesiology of Thomas F. Torrance is the first academic monograph that focuses exclusively on Thomas F. Torrance’s doctrine of the Church. Based on her doctrinal dissertation at the University of Otago, Kate Tyler begins the book with an essential ecclesiological question: what, or who, is the church? She maintains that “the Church must be understood as an empirical community in space and time that is ultimately shaped by the Triune God who is a perichoretic communion of the three divine persons” (ix). Tyler is convinced that, as Torrance has shown, studies of ecclesiology must both be grounded upon and begin with the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The flow of this book is thus analogous to Torrance’s conviction that “ecclesiological inquiry must proceed from above rather than below” (xi): chapters 1–4 unfold the integral correlation between the doctrinal loci of the Trinity and the Church, and chapters 5–9 then draw out the theological and ecclesial implications for a trinitarian ecclesiology according to Torrance’s understanding. Tyler begins her study by highlighting the contours of major contemporary ecclesiological inquiries such as communion ecclesiology and themissio Deimovement, and then suggests that all of these ongoing conversations share a central focus on the trinitarian shape of the Church. What follows is a helpful overview of contemporary scholarly contributions on the ecclesiology of Torrance. The first chapter introduces both Torrance’s family influence and the core ideas that shaped his approaches to theological thinking. The highlights here include how Torrance’s missionary heritage influenced the missional and ecclesiological orientation of his works, as well as how he appropriates Michael Polanyi’s theory of personal knowledge in the domain of dogmatic theology for fostering an incarnational (i.e., kataphysic, “according to nature”) and scientific mode of thinking that avoids the pitfall of epistemological dualism (i.e., the modern fact-value dichotomy). Book Review","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"73 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134467124","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-22DOI: 10.1177/10638512211053888
D. Collins
That phrase, generous orthodoxy, comes from a theologian named Hans Frei. It‘s an oxymoron, of course. To be orthodox is to be committed to a tradition. To be generous, as Frei defines it, is to be open to change. But Frei thought the best way to live our lives was to find the middle ground because orthodoxy without generosity leads to blindness and generosity without orthodoxy is shallow and empty.
{"title":"Hans Frei and the Orthodox Generosity of Jesus","authors":"D. Collins","doi":"10.1177/10638512211053888","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211053888","url":null,"abstract":"That phrase, generous orthodoxy, comes from a theologian named Hans Frei. It‘s an oxymoron, of course. To be orthodox is to be committed to a tradition. To be generous, as Frei defines it, is to be open to change. But Frei thought the best way to live our lives was to find the middle ground because orthodoxy without generosity leads to blindness and generosity without orthodoxy is shallow and empty.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"500 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123067074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1177/10638512211047579
R. Dean
Amid a crisis in biblical interpretation brought to a head by the Church Struggle in Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer delivered an address in August 1935 to a group of Confessing Church pastors entitled “Contemporizing New Testament Texts.” Bonhoeffer sounded a clarion call for the retrieval of a thoroughly theological hermeneutic that would liberate preachers for the bold proclamation of the Gospel within a culturally compromised church. This paper will present a reading of Bonhoeffer's daring address that seeks to both situate it within its unique historical context and attend to the ways that it calls into question many of the cherished hermeneutical and homiletical assumptions that dominate contemporary preaching for the sake of a more faithful proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
{"title":"The Heresy of Relevance: Bonhoeffer's Warning to Preachers","authors":"R. Dean","doi":"10.1177/10638512211047579","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211047579","url":null,"abstract":"Amid a crisis in biblical interpretation brought to a head by the Church Struggle in Germany, Dietrich Bonhoeffer delivered an address in August 1935 to a group of Confessing Church pastors entitled “Contemporizing New Testament Texts.” Bonhoeffer sounded a clarion call for the retrieval of a thoroughly theological hermeneutic that would liberate preachers for the bold proclamation of the Gospel within a culturally compromised church. This paper will present a reading of Bonhoeffer's daring address that seeks to both situate it within its unique historical context and attend to the ways that it calls into question many of the cherished hermeneutical and homiletical assumptions that dominate contemporary preaching for the sake of a more faithful proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124186648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-08DOI: 10.1177/10638512211050938
D. Hill
This paper attempts to provide a bridge between the two predominant Baptistic accounts of divine presence in Eucharist, with the help of Eleonore Stump’s account of second-personal presence and theories of emergence. Predominantly understood in either Zwinglian (memorialist) or Reformed (instrumentalist) categories, a dividing wall is erected with baptistic theology over the question of whether or not communion is strictly an act of human remembrance or involves divine presence in some form or fashion. After identifying three key problems with the memorialist account, this paper attempts to provide a middle way between the two views, arguing that the Spirit appropriates the bread and wine as tokens through which he communicates the thoughts, intentions, desires, and second-personal presence of Christ to the gathered body in order to strengthen the church's union with Christ.
{"title":"Tokens of Presence: Second-Personal Presence and Baptistic Accounts of the Eucharist","authors":"D. Hill","doi":"10.1177/10638512211050938","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211050938","url":null,"abstract":"This paper attempts to provide a bridge between the two predominant Baptistic accounts of divine presence in Eucharist, with the help of Eleonore Stump’s account of second-personal presence and theories of emergence. Predominantly understood in either Zwinglian (memorialist) or Reformed (instrumentalist) categories, a dividing wall is erected with baptistic theology over the question of whether or not communion is strictly an act of human remembrance or involves divine presence in some form or fashion. After identifying three key problems with the memorialist account, this paper attempts to provide a middle way between the two views, arguing that the Spirit appropriates the bread and wine as tokens through which he communicates the thoughts, intentions, desires, and second-personal presence of Christ to the gathered body in order to strengthen the church's union with Christ.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125476013","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：