Pub Date : 2021-08-01DOI: 10.1177/10638512211028356
Alden C. McCray
1. Steven J. Duby, God in Himself: Scripture, Metaphysics and the Task of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019). Earlier drafts of these articles were originally presented at the November 2020 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. We were grateful to be joined there by Jonathan T. Pennington, whose comments in response to God in Himself added warmth and wisdom to our discussions. Steven J. Duby’s God in Himself
1. 史蒂文·j·杜比，《自我的上帝:圣经、形而上学和基督教神学的任务》(Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019)。这些文章的早期草稿最初是在福音派神学协会2020年11月的会议上提出的。我们很感谢Jonathan T. Pennington的加入，他对上帝自身的回应为我们的讨论增添了温暖和智慧。Steven J. Duby的《上帝在他自己
{"title":"Steven J. Duby’s God in Himself","authors":"Alden C. McCray","doi":"10.1177/10638512211028356","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211028356","url":null,"abstract":"1. Steven J. Duby, God in Himself: Scripture, Metaphysics and the Task of Christian Theology (Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2019). Earlier drafts of these articles were originally presented at the November 2020 meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society. We were grateful to be joined there by Jonathan T. Pennington, whose comments in response to God in Himself added warmth and wisdom to our discussions. Steven J. Duby’s God in Himself","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"10 5","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"120912129","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 : 2021-08-01DOI: 10.1177/10638512211028355
Laurene Simms
Matthew Levering’s eloquent contribution to the study of pneumatology, Engaging the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit: Love and Gift in the Trinity and the Church, is a compelling defense of the proper names—Love and Gift—of the third Person of the Trinity. The principal aim of this volume is to counter all who question the scriptural and theological justification for applying these names to the Holy Spirit in the inner life of the Trinity as proper names, meaning that these two names distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son within the immanent Trinity. Levering presents three key arguments from those who take issue with attributing the names Love and Gift: some thinkers assume that these names for the Holy Spirit are only metaphorical, as does Jürgen Moltmann, or they agree with Sinclair Ferguson that the names are not biblically justified, or else they side with Steven Studebaker, who thinks the names Love and Gift indicate the passivity and subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. To refute such objections, Levering sets out to survey the landscape of contemporary pneumatology and to respond to the concerns presented by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theologians. In the end, Levering successfully demonstrates the perennial validity of the Augustinian and Thomistic doctrine that stands behind the proper names of Love and Gift. In Levering’s substantial introduction, he lays the foundation for defending the proper names of Love and Gift for the Holy Spirit. He does so by contrasting the Augustinian and Thomistic vision with three attempts in contemporary theology to explicate the theology of the Spirit—the accentuation of the role of the Holy Spirit, contextualization in postmodern trinitarian theology, and social trinitarianism—and the juxtaposition reveals the weaknesses of the modern approaches. Levering maintains that the Augustinian/Thomistic conception of the names Love and Gift, and the understanding of the subsisting relations in the Trinity that follows therefrom, offers a richer account than the 1028355 PRE0010.1177/10638512211028355Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2021
{"title":"Book Review: Matthew Levering, Engaging the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit: Love and Gift in the Trinity and the Church","authors":"Laurene Simms","doi":"10.1177/10638512211028355","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211028355","url":null,"abstract":"Matthew Levering’s eloquent contribution to the study of pneumatology, Engaging the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit: Love and Gift in the Trinity and the Church, is a compelling defense of the proper names—Love and Gift—of the third Person of the Trinity. The principal aim of this volume is to counter all who question the scriptural and theological justification for applying these names to the Holy Spirit in the inner life of the Trinity as proper names, meaning that these two names distinguish the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son within the immanent Trinity. Levering presents three key arguments from those who take issue with attributing the names Love and Gift: some thinkers assume that these names for the Holy Spirit are only metaphorical, as does Jürgen Moltmann, or they agree with Sinclair Ferguson that the names are not biblically justified, or else they side with Steven Studebaker, who thinks the names Love and Gift indicate the passivity and subordination of the Holy Spirit to the Father and the Son. To refute such objections, Levering sets out to survey the landscape of contemporary pneumatology and to respond to the concerns presented by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox theologians. In the end, Levering successfully demonstrates the perennial validity of the Augustinian and Thomistic doctrine that stands behind the proper names of Love and Gift. In Levering’s substantial introduction, he lays the foundation for defending the proper names of Love and Gift for the Holy Spirit. He does so by contrasting the Augustinian and Thomistic vision with three attempts in contemporary theology to explicate the theology of the Spirit—the accentuation of the role of the Holy Spirit, contextualization in postmodern trinitarian theology, and social trinitarianism—and the juxtaposition reveals the weaknesses of the modern approaches. Levering maintains that the Augustinian/Thomistic conception of the names Love and Gift, and the understanding of the subsisting relations in the Trinity that follows therefrom, offers a richer account than the 1028355 PRE0010.1177/10638512211028355Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2021","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"24 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132320652","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 : 2021-08-01DOI: 10.1177/10638512211016241
Geoffrey Butler
As a lifelong Pentecostal, concepts like the fourfold interpretation of Scripture advanced by the Church Fathers and the hermeneutical methods employed by theologians of centuries past tend to be nonexistent in my congregational circles. To be sure, I deeply appreciate my own tradition and what it offers to the wider body of Christ; thus, I cannot help but smile at Byassee’s assertion in chapter 5 that God is Pentecostal. Yet as I progressed through college and seminary, I also developed a love for Christian history. I have enjoyed visiting local churches much more liturgical than my own and probing the theological works of saints long dead (yet whose influence remains very much alive). It has, simply put, felt like discovering an entire family history I did not know that I had. Byassee’s work thus comes as a thought-provoking and challenging one, reminding his readers that this family’s approach to its sacred text is more diverse, profound, and enriching than many believers might have imagined. And, as the title would suggest, despite an assumed familiarity, both the text of Scripture and the one to whom it points often remain full of surprises. Byassee frames the Scriptures first and foremost as the story of Israel, prior to his analysis of how the saints throughout the ages have approached the text. “Only by grace, through Jesus,” he stresses, “are we given access to Israel’s stories, Scriptures, salvation” (p. 4). Thus, the chapters that ensue—focusing on such characters as Origen, Augustine, Mary, and Gregory—may be understood in the broader context of this narrative. This volume, after all, bears the subtitle, “Reading the Bible in Communion with the Saints,” a corporate affair if there ever was one. Moreover, by finishing with a chapter entitled “Reading the Bible with the Early Church,” which is dedicated to detailing the four senses of Scripture, Byassee suggests that the various traditions and figures that he engages throughout the work all contribute to this climax. 1016241 PRE0010.1177/10638512211016241Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2021
作为一个终身的五旬节派信徒，像教父们提出的圣经四重解释和几个世纪前神学家使用的解释学方法这样的概念，在我的会众圈子里往往是不存在的。当然，我非常欣赏我自己的传统，以及它对基督更广泛的身体所提供的东西;因此，我不禁对Byassee在第五章中关于上帝是五旬节派信徒的断言微笑。然而，当我在大学和神学院学习时，我也对基督教历史产生了热爱。我喜欢参观比我自己的教堂更有礼仪性的地方教堂，并探索早已去世的圣徒的神学作品(但他们的影响仍然非常活跃)。简单地说，感觉就像发现了我不知道自己拥有的整个家族史。因此，Byassee的作品既发人深省又富有挑战性，提醒他的读者，这个家庭对其神圣文本的处理方式比许多信徒想象的更加多样化、深刻和丰富。而且，正如标题所暗示的那样，尽管假定熟悉，但圣经文本和它所指向的人都经常充满惊喜。Byassee首先将《圣经》框定为以色列的故事，然后再分析历代圣徒是如何接近经文的。他强调，“只有靠着恩典，通过耶稣，我们才能接触到以色列的故事、圣经、救赎”(第4页)。因此，接下来的章节——关注奥利金、奥古斯丁、玛丽和格列高利等人物——可以在这个叙事的更广泛的背景下理解。毕竟，这本书的副标题是“与圣徒共融中诵读圣经”，这是一个集体活动，如果有的话。此外，Byassee以“与早期教会一起阅读圣经”一章结束，这一章致力于详细介绍圣经的四种意义，他认为他在整个作品中参与的各种传统和人物都促成了这一高潮。1016241 PRE0010.1177/10638512211016241Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical theology, book Review, book Review, 2021
{"title":"Book Review: Jason Byassee, Surprised by Jesus Again: Reading the Bible in Communion with the Saints","authors":"Geoffrey Butler","doi":"10.1177/10638512211016241","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211016241","url":null,"abstract":"As a lifelong Pentecostal, concepts like the fourfold interpretation of Scripture advanced by the Church Fathers and the hermeneutical methods employed by theologians of centuries past tend to be nonexistent in my congregational circles. To be sure, I deeply appreciate my own tradition and what it offers to the wider body of Christ; thus, I cannot help but smile at Byassee’s assertion in chapter 5 that God is Pentecostal. Yet as I progressed through college and seminary, I also developed a love for Christian history. I have enjoyed visiting local churches much more liturgical than my own and probing the theological works of saints long dead (yet whose influence remains very much alive). It has, simply put, felt like discovering an entire family history I did not know that I had. Byassee’s work thus comes as a thought-provoking and challenging one, reminding his readers that this family’s approach to its sacred text is more diverse, profound, and enriching than many believers might have imagined. And, as the title would suggest, despite an assumed familiarity, both the text of Scripture and the one to whom it points often remain full of surprises. Byassee frames the Scriptures first and foremost as the story of Israel, prior to his analysis of how the saints throughout the ages have approached the text. “Only by grace, through Jesus,” he stresses, “are we given access to Israel’s stories, Scriptures, salvation” (p. 4). Thus, the chapters that ensue—focusing on such characters as Origen, Augustine, Mary, and Gregory—may be understood in the broader context of this narrative. This volume, after all, bears the subtitle, “Reading the Bible in Communion with the Saints,” a corporate affair if there ever was one. Moreover, by finishing with a chapter entitled “Reading the Bible with the Early Church,” which is dedicated to detailing the four senses of Scripture, Byassee suggests that the various traditions and figures that he engages throughout the work all contribute to this climax. 1016241 PRE0010.1177/10638512211016241Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2021","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122257488","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 : 2021-07-25DOI: 10.1177/10638512211033615
Jared Michelson
Schleiermacher is an increasingly important resource for contemporary systematic theology, particularly as Barth’s criticisms of Schleiermacher, which were thought to have undermined his dogmatic relevance, are subject to severe criticism. With reference to the doctrine of God, Barth argues that Schleiermacher’s theology generates a “God behind God” and is problematized by Feuerbach. I offer a detailed reading of Schleiermacher’s mature account of the divine being and attributes and suggest in view of this interpretation that a slightly nuanced version of Barth’s critique rightly applies to Schleiermacher’s doctrine of God. I make this argument in dialogue with the many contemporary voices arguing in Schleiermacher’s defense and raise some critical questions for those seeking to retrieve Schleiermacher’s doctrine of God.
{"title":"A Barthian Critique of Schleiermacher’s Doctrine of God: Questioning the Schleiermacher Renaissance","authors":"Jared Michelson","doi":"10.1177/10638512211033615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211033615","url":null,"abstract":"Schleiermacher is an increasingly important resource for contemporary systematic theology, particularly as Barth’s criticisms of Schleiermacher, which were thought to have undermined his dogmatic relevance, are subject to severe criticism. With reference to the doctrine of God, Barth argues that Schleiermacher’s theology generates a “God behind God” and is problematized by Feuerbach. I offer a detailed reading of Schleiermacher’s mature account of the divine being and attributes and suggest in view of this interpretation that a slightly nuanced version of Barth’s critique rightly applies to Schleiermacher’s doctrine of God. I make this argument in dialogue with the many contemporary voices arguing in Schleiermacher’s defense and raise some critical questions for those seeking to retrieve Schleiermacher’s doctrine of God.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124648279","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 : 2021-06-13DOI: 10.1177/10638512211025007
Joel Mayward
American filmmaker Martin Scorsese’s theologically imbued cinematic approach arguably reached its apotheosis in his 2016 film Silence, an adaptation of Shūsaku Endō’s 1966 novel. Through my theological film criticism, a novel constructive form of theologizing I call “theocinematics,” I propose that Silence is both a cinematic theology about vocation in its meditation on a fervent young priest’s discernment of the voice of Christ and Scorsese’s modus operandi par excellence—Silence is film as theology and filmmaking as vocation. In my analysis, I draw from philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics and his concept of “the summoned self” to provide a framework for an intersubjective divinely given vocation. I also attend to film theorist Michel Chion’s notion of the acousmêtre and its use in Silence to depict the summoning voice of Christ.
{"title":"The Cinematic Summoned Self: The Call of Christ in Martin Scorsese’s Silence","authors":"Joel Mayward","doi":"10.1177/10638512211025007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211025007","url":null,"abstract":"American filmmaker Martin Scorsese’s theologically imbued cinematic approach arguably reached its apotheosis in his 2016 film Silence, an adaptation of Shūsaku Endō’s 1966 novel. Through my theological film criticism, a novel constructive form of theologizing I call “theocinematics,” I propose that Silence is both a cinematic theology about vocation in its meditation on a fervent young priest’s discernment of the voice of Christ and Scorsese’s modus operandi par excellence—Silence is film as theology and filmmaking as vocation. In my analysis, I draw from philosopher Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneutics and his concept of “the summoned self” to provide a framework for an intersubjective divinely given vocation. I also attend to film theorist Michel Chion’s notion of the acousmêtre and its use in Silence to depict the summoning voice of Christ.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"150 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116361959","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 : 2021-06-02DOI: 10.1177/10638512211016240
N. Sutanto
This essay offers a reflection that seeks to clarify and complement Steven Duby’s God in Himself, especially on the natural awareness of God. First, in response to Duby’s assessment of Bavinck’s critique of certain forms of natural theology, I draw particularly from Cory Brock’s recent monograph on Bavinck’s critical appropriation of particular strands of post-Kantian romantic philosophy in order to articulate the affective dimensions of general revelation. This explains Bavinck’s preference for the term “general revelation” over “natural theology,” for the former emphasizes humanity’s pre-categorical dependence on God’s revealing work internal to the human psyche, manifesting as the feeling (gevoel) of dependence. Second, then, following Bavinck’s own connection of Schleiermacher to Augustine’s turn to the subject, I provide a retrieval of Augustine’s and Bonaventure’s accounts of illumination, which escalates the agent’s dependence on God’s revelation to a maximal degree.
{"title":"Gevoel and Illumination: Bavinck, Augustine, and Bonaventure on Awareness of God","authors":"N. Sutanto","doi":"10.1177/10638512211016240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211016240","url":null,"abstract":"This essay offers a reflection that seeks to clarify and complement Steven Duby’s God in Himself, especially on the natural awareness of God. First, in response to Duby’s assessment of Bavinck’s critique of certain forms of natural theology, I draw particularly from Cory Brock’s recent monograph on Bavinck’s critical appropriation of particular strands of post-Kantian romantic philosophy in order to articulate the affective dimensions of general revelation. This explains Bavinck’s preference for the term “general revelation” over “natural theology,” for the former emphasizes humanity’s pre-categorical dependence on God’s revealing work internal to the human psyche, manifesting as the feeling (gevoel) of dependence. Second, then, following Bavinck’s own connection of Schleiermacher to Augustine’s turn to the subject, I provide a retrieval of Augustine’s and Bonaventure’s accounts of illumination, which escalates the agent’s dependence on God’s revelation to a maximal degree.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"102 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124146563","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 : 2021-05-30DOI: 10.1177/10638512211017525
Dolf te Velde
The notion of analogy plays an important role in Steven Duby’s project of theologia. Traditional Reformed theology understands analogy as an “analogy of attribution” based on the creature’s participation in God’s own perfections. Duby’s discussion of analogy addresses its grounds, main forms and variations, and limitations. In response, this article suggests supplementing Duby’s broadly Thomistic explanation with key elements from the Scotist theory of univocal predication. The first benefit of this integration is a clearer balance of apophatic and kataphatic tendencies in the doctrine of God. The second result is a more sophisticated account of the doctrine of divine simplicity, combining Thomas’ emphasis on the common ratio for predicating terms of God and creatures with the Scotist notions of disjunctive properties and distinctio formalis. While speaking about God’s essence by different concepts is necessary because of our limited understanding, it is also grounded in the reality of God Himself.
{"title":"Analogical Predication and Divine Simplicity","authors":"Dolf te Velde","doi":"10.1177/10638512211017525","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211017525","url":null,"abstract":"The notion of analogy plays an important role in Steven Duby’s project of theologia. Traditional Reformed theology understands analogy as an “analogy of attribution” based on the creature’s participation in God’s own perfections. Duby’s discussion of analogy addresses its grounds, main forms and variations, and limitations. In response, this article suggests supplementing Duby’s broadly Thomistic explanation with key elements from the Scotist theory of univocal predication. The first benefit of this integration is a clearer balance of apophatic and kataphatic tendencies in the doctrine of God. The second result is a more sophisticated account of the doctrine of divine simplicity, combining Thomas’ emphasis on the common ratio for predicating terms of God and creatures with the Scotist notions of disjunctive properties and distinctio formalis. While speaking about God’s essence by different concepts is necessary because of our limited understanding, it is also grounded in the reality of God Himself.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"260 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121348345","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 : 2021-05-25DOI: 10.1177/10638512211016245
E. Martínez
Students of theology are sometimes encouraged to choose between great theologians in an “either/or” fashion. This is contrary to the theological method both of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Balthasar writes in My Work: In Retrospect that his mission in the Church is to be in constant dialogue with multiple notable thinkers from all the stages of the long history of the Church. He avoids theological polarizations. These are often “arbitrary rigid lines” in the greater scheme of the constellation of the communion of saints. Bearing this in mind, the reader of Balthasar cannot interpret it as a condemnation when Balthasar does not grant Aquinas the exclusivity that Catholic theology tends to give him. Even though Balthasar considers High Scholasticism a rationalization of theology, he accepts it as a necessary phase in the development of doctrine. For example, when comparing Dante to Aquinas, Balthasar says of the latter that he was more of a philosopher than a theologian. This cannot overshadow Balthasar’s praise of Aquinas for his clear and intelligible ordering of the created world in relation to God. Balthasar considers the doctrine of the real distinction to be the culmination of all Christian philosophy. As Nichols shows in this book, Balthasar is incomprehensible without the Angelic Doctor. Similarly, the reader of Aquinas should remain open to other theological voices. Nichols encourages all of us to “test everything” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). The term “Thomist” has carried many different meanings. Perhaps those scholars who define the term as a style of thinking in light of a sacred tradition are the closest to achieving the compatibility and complementarity of two great thinkers. To perform this synthesis, Nichols divides the book into two large sections. The first is a combination of three chapters that correspond to the three volumes of Balthasar’s Trilogy. The second deals with several topics in dogmatic and pastoral theology. The seven chapters are preceded by an introduction and 1016245 PRE0010.1177/10638512211016245Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2021
{"title":"Book Review: Aidan Nichols, Balthasar for Thomists","authors":"E. Martínez","doi":"10.1177/10638512211016245","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211016245","url":null,"abstract":"Students of theology are sometimes encouraged to choose between great theologians in an “either/or” fashion. This is contrary to the theological method both of Saint Thomas Aquinas and Hans Urs von Balthasar. Balthasar writes in My Work: In Retrospect that his mission in the Church is to be in constant dialogue with multiple notable thinkers from all the stages of the long history of the Church. He avoids theological polarizations. These are often “arbitrary rigid lines” in the greater scheme of the constellation of the communion of saints. Bearing this in mind, the reader of Balthasar cannot interpret it as a condemnation when Balthasar does not grant Aquinas the exclusivity that Catholic theology tends to give him. Even though Balthasar considers High Scholasticism a rationalization of theology, he accepts it as a necessary phase in the development of doctrine. For example, when comparing Dante to Aquinas, Balthasar says of the latter that he was more of a philosopher than a theologian. This cannot overshadow Balthasar’s praise of Aquinas for his clear and intelligible ordering of the created world in relation to God. Balthasar considers the doctrine of the real distinction to be the culmination of all Christian philosophy. As Nichols shows in this book, Balthasar is incomprehensible without the Angelic Doctor. Similarly, the reader of Aquinas should remain open to other theological voices. Nichols encourages all of us to “test everything” and “hold fast what is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). The term “Thomist” has carried many different meanings. Perhaps those scholars who define the term as a style of thinking in light of a sacred tradition are the closest to achieving the compatibility and complementarity of two great thinkers. To perform this synthesis, Nichols divides the book into two large sections. The first is a combination of three chapters that correspond to the three volumes of Balthasar’s Trilogy. The second deals with several topics in dogmatic and pastoral theology. The seven chapters are preceded by an introduction and 1016245 PRE0010.1177/10638512211016245Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2021","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131824391","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 : 2021-05-25DOI: 10.1177/10638512211016793
Scott R. Swain
In chapter 4 of his book, God in Himself, Steven Duby grounds theology’s use of metaphysical language and concepts in Scripture’s prior usage of such language and concepts. The following article seeks to fortify Duby’s argument by showing how the discourse of the gospel subversively fulfills the quest of Greco-Roman philosophy and religion to ground divine worship in a proper understanding of the divine nature.
{"title":"God, Metaphysics, and the Discourse of Theology","authors":"Scott R. Swain","doi":"10.1177/10638512211016793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211016793","url":null,"abstract":"In chapter 4 of his book, God in Himself, Steven Duby grounds theology’s use of metaphysical language and concepts in Scripture’s prior usage of such language and concepts. The following article seeks to fortify Duby’s argument by showing how the discourse of the gospel subversively fulfills the quest of Greco-Roman philosophy and religion to ground divine worship in a proper understanding of the divine nature.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132809543","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 : 2021-05-24DOI: 10.1177/10638512211017251
S. Duby
In this article, I respond to each of the three authors who have engaged my book God in Himself. Regarding Gray Sutanto’s response, I offer comments on his effort to integrate Schleiermacher and Calvin on the human “feeling of dependence” and the sensus divinitatis and to draw upon the insights of Bonaventure to frame our natural knowledge of God. Regarding Scott Swain’s response, I seek to build on his thoughts about the necessary use of metaphysical concepts by considering some additional biblical material and by clarifying the way in which metaphysical concepts might be treated as developments of ordinary, common human knowledge of reality. Finally, regarding Dolf te Velde’s response, I seek to clarify further why I think Scotus and Aquinas may not be too far apart on the nature of theological predication and why I think Aquinas’ view of analogy and divine simplicity is still sufficient for confirming the veracity of Christian speech about God.
在这篇文章中，我回应了三位作者，他们都参与了我的书“上帝在他自己”。关于Gray Sutanto的回应，我对他整合Schleiermacher和Calvin关于人类“依赖感”和神性感知的努力以及借鉴Bonaventure的见解来构建我们对上帝的自然知识提出了评论。关于斯科特·斯温的回答，我试图通过考虑一些额外的圣经材料，并通过澄清形而上学概念可能被视为普通的、人类对现实的共同知识的发展的方式，来建立他关于形而上学概念的必要使用的思想。最后，关于Dolf te Velde的回答，我试图进一步澄清为什么我认为斯科特和阿奎那在神学预言的本质上可能没有太大的分歧，以及为什么我认为阿奎那关于类比和神的简单性的观点仍然足以证实基督教关于上帝的言论的真实性。
{"title":"Further Thoughts on Natural Theology, Metaphysics, and Analogy","authors":"S. Duby","doi":"10.1177/10638512211017251","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10638512211017251","url":null,"abstract":"In this article, I respond to each of the three authors who have engaged my book God in Himself. Regarding Gray Sutanto’s response, I offer comments on his effort to integrate Schleiermacher and Calvin on the human “feeling of dependence” and the sensus divinitatis and to draw upon the insights of Bonaventure to frame our natural knowledge of God. Regarding Scott Swain’s response, I seek to build on his thoughts about the necessary use of metaphysical concepts by considering some additional biblical material and by clarifying the way in which metaphysical concepts might be treated as developments of ordinary, common human knowledge of reality. Finally, regarding Dolf te Velde’s response, I seek to clarify further why I think Scotus and Aquinas may not be too far apart on the nature of theological predication and why I think Aquinas’ view of analogy and divine simplicity is still sufficient for confirming the veracity of Christian speech about God.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"09 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127305473","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：