Pub Date : 2020-08-30DOI: 10.1177/1063851220952309
David Ney
Some readers will complain that A Profound Ignorance is a challenging book. Whatever the challenge, it cannot be attributed fully either to the book’s material and prose, or to the “coddling of the American mind” (to borrow a phrase from Haidt and Lukianoff) which predisposes readers today to cry wolf at the scent of alterity and burst into flight. The challenge of Radner’s work in both authorial and readerly aspects is a more complex matter. It comprises not merely linguistic and intellectual demands, but obediential and penitential ones. The potential fruits of engaging Radner thus proceed from the superficiality of learning fascinating historical tidbits, to a deeply transformed understanding of the modern Christian predicament, to the utter profundity of divine encounter. Eminent Jewish scholar Peter Ochs once observed, as he commented on one of Radner’s other volumes, that Radner’s text propelled him, in a way that few texts other than the Torah had, to fumble about for his headcovering. Caveat Lector: like Radner’s other volumes, A Profound Ignorance needs to be confronted, wrestled with, lingered over, and accompanied by prayer. There are three aspects of the book’s challenge that demand comment. The first is that, as his “subversive pneumatology,” A Profound Ignorance asks readers to step outside of a particular pneumatological orientation that is now taken for granted in the West. In the twentieth-century, this orientation birthed the contemporary theological discipline of Pneumatology. For Radner, this new birth is not the triumphant overcoming of a primitive binitarianism. It is, rather, the decoupling of the theology of the Holy Spirit from its maternal Christological and ecclesial moorings. As Radner puts it, “the problem of modern Pneumatology is that it seeks to escape the world of flesh and blood which is the body and blood of our Lord” (p. 84). Yet Radner spends little time condemning contemporary culprit theologians, much less naming them. For 952309 PRE0010.1177/1063851220952309Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2020
{"title":"Ephraim Radner, A Profound Ignorance: Modern Pneumatology and Its Anti-modern Redemption","authors":"David Ney","doi":"10.1177/1063851220952309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220952309","url":null,"abstract":"Some readers will complain that A Profound Ignorance is a challenging book. Whatever the challenge, it cannot be attributed fully either to the book’s material and prose, or to the “coddling of the American mind” (to borrow a phrase from Haidt and Lukianoff) which predisposes readers today to cry wolf at the scent of alterity and burst into flight. The challenge of Radner’s work in both authorial and readerly aspects is a more complex matter. It comprises not merely linguistic and intellectual demands, but obediential and penitential ones. The potential fruits of engaging Radner thus proceed from the superficiality of learning fascinating historical tidbits, to a deeply transformed understanding of the modern Christian predicament, to the utter profundity of divine encounter. Eminent Jewish scholar Peter Ochs once observed, as he commented on one of Radner’s other volumes, that Radner’s text propelled him, in a way that few texts other than the Torah had, to fumble about for his headcovering. Caveat Lector: like Radner’s other volumes, A Profound Ignorance needs to be confronted, wrestled with, lingered over, and accompanied by prayer. There are three aspects of the book’s challenge that demand comment. The first is that, as his “subversive pneumatology,” A Profound Ignorance asks readers to step outside of a particular pneumatological orientation that is now taken for granted in the West. In the twentieth-century, this orientation birthed the contemporary theological discipline of Pneumatology. For Radner, this new birth is not the triumphant overcoming of a primitive binitarianism. It is, rather, the decoupling of the theology of the Holy Spirit from its maternal Christological and ecclesial moorings. As Radner puts it, “the problem of modern Pneumatology is that it seeks to escape the world of flesh and blood which is the body and blood of our Lord” (p. 84). Yet Radner spends little time condemning contemporary culprit theologians, much less naming them. For 952309 PRE0010.1177/1063851220952309Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical TheologyBook Review book-review2020","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"108 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127170406","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 : 2020-08-30DOI: 10.1177/1063851220953363
J. Wood
Russell Friedman identifies two “rival accounts” in medieval trinitarian theology. The “emanation account,” which Bonaventure represents, prefers to emphasize the constitutive role of “act” or “operation” among the intra-trinitarian persons. The “relation account,” that of Thomas Aquinas, prefers rather to say that relations alone constitute divine persons. A specific question illustrates their difference: Does the Father generate the Son because the Father is Father, or is He Father because He generates the Son? Aquinas thinks the former, Bonaventure the latter. Bonaventure’s position attracts criticism from contemporary Thomists. And even Franciscan sympathizers have conceded ambiguity around this point of his trinitarian theology. To wit: If the Father’s act of begetting the Son makes him Father, doesn’t this presume a “Proto-Father,” as Friedman has it, who begets? I argue that this criticism ignores the uniquely Christian-Neoplatonic premises Bonaventure’s view presumes. Perceiving them manifests Bonaventure’s deep coherence on this point and beyond.
{"title":"The Father’s Kenosis: A Defense of Bonaventure on Intra-trinitarian Acts","authors":"J. Wood","doi":"10.1177/1063851220953363","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220953363","url":null,"abstract":"Russell Friedman identifies two “rival accounts” in medieval trinitarian theology. The “emanation account,” which Bonaventure represents, prefers to emphasize the constitutive role of “act” or “operation” among the intra-trinitarian persons. The “relation account,” that of Thomas Aquinas, prefers rather to say that relations alone constitute divine persons. A specific question illustrates their difference: Does the Father generate the Son because the Father is Father, or is He Father because He generates the Son? Aquinas thinks the former, Bonaventure the latter. Bonaventure’s position attracts criticism from contemporary Thomists. And even Franciscan sympathizers have conceded ambiguity around this point of his trinitarian theology. To wit: If the Father’s act of begetting the Son makes him Father, doesn’t this presume a “Proto-Father,” as Friedman has it, who begets? I argue that this criticism ignores the uniquely Christian-Neoplatonic premises Bonaventure’s view presumes. Perceiving them manifests Bonaventure’s deep coherence on this point and beyond.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130238773","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 : 2020-08-27DOI: 10.1177/1063851220951906
Paul M. Blowers
This essay examines three major (and to some degree overlapping) trajectories of patristic interpretation of the Adamic Fall in Genesis 3, all of which have considerable representation in early Christian writers. Following on the Pauline treatment of Adam especially in Romans 5, a first interpretive trajectory sketches the Fall principally as a prefigurative event, a lapse that, modeled in the protoplasts Adam and Eve, human beings have continued to imitate and prolong transgenerationally. A second whole interpretive approach interprets it as an “apocalyptic” event within the larger divine economy, taking account of questions of theodicy and divine wisdom, of how allegedly perfect creatures could fall in the first place, and of the ontological and moral repercussions of the Fall for the human race. Still a third trajectory enhances the “dramatic” dimension of the Fall and plays up the features of tragedy which characterize the protoplasts’ fateful miscalculation and the divine intervention to save the day. This essay seeks to demonstrate the interpretive latitude within all three trajectories, which, though not necessarily exhaustive, are certainly representative in late ancient and early medieval Christianity.
{"title":"Prefiguration, Apocalypse, Tragedy: Three Trajectories of Patristic Interpretation of the Adamic Fall","authors":"Paul M. Blowers","doi":"10.1177/1063851220951906","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220951906","url":null,"abstract":"This essay examines three major (and to some degree overlapping) trajectories of patristic interpretation of the Adamic Fall in Genesis 3, all of which have considerable representation in early Christian writers. Following on the Pauline treatment of Adam especially in Romans 5, a first interpretive trajectory sketches the Fall principally as a prefigurative event, a lapse that, modeled in the protoplasts Adam and Eve, human beings have continued to imitate and prolong transgenerationally. A second whole interpretive approach interprets it as an “apocalyptic” event within the larger divine economy, taking account of questions of theodicy and divine wisdom, of how allegedly perfect creatures could fall in the first place, and of the ontological and moral repercussions of the Fall for the human race. Still a third trajectory enhances the “dramatic” dimension of the Fall and plays up the features of tragedy which characterize the protoplasts’ fateful miscalculation and the divine intervention to save the day. This essay seeks to demonstrate the interpretive latitude within all three trajectories, which, though not necessarily exhaustive, are certainly representative in late ancient and early medieval Christianity.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"41 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125707715","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 : 2020-08-26DOI: 10.1177/1063851220951930
W. Bankston
Augustine holds that Scripture finds its telos in enabling us to love rightly. By examining Augustine’s interpretation of the Psalter, this article traces the dynamics of this textual teleology and then elaborates upon it through Oliver O’Donovan’s notion of making common. That is, a community is constituted by communicative actions of sharing that flow from and are ordered to a common love. Within the communication of Scripture, we are brought into a space of shared significances and meanings with God that he has made common with us because we love most what he loves most, namely himself. God’s acts of making common include not only his speaking to us, but also, as a function of Christ’s priesthood, his speaking for us.
{"title":"The Making Common of God: Augustine, Oliver O’Donovan, and Reading Scripture with Love","authors":"W. Bankston","doi":"10.1177/1063851220951930","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220951930","url":null,"abstract":"Augustine holds that Scripture finds its telos in enabling us to love rightly. By examining Augustine’s interpretation of the Psalter, this article traces the dynamics of this textual teleology and then elaborates upon it through Oliver O’Donovan’s notion of making common. That is, a community is constituted by communicative actions of sharing that flow from and are ordered to a common love. Within the communication of Scripture, we are brought into a space of shared significances and meanings with God that he has made common with us because we love most what he loves most, namely himself. God’s acts of making common include not only his speaking to us, but also, as a function of Christ’s priesthood, his speaking for us.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"30 5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125653862","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 : 2020-08-26DOI: 10.1177/1063851220952325
D. Houck
This article argues that the doctrine of the Fall into sin is necessary to avoid compromising Scriptural teaching on the universality of sin or the goodness of creation. A new theory of the Fall, indebted to Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, and the author’s monograph Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution, is proposed, on which the Fall is comparable to the loss of a gifted inheritance.
{"title":"Toward a New Account of the Fall, Informed by Anselm of Canterbury and Thomas Aquinas","authors":"D. Houck","doi":"10.1177/1063851220952325","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220952325","url":null,"abstract":"This article argues that the doctrine of the Fall into sin is necessary to avoid compromising Scriptural teaching on the universality of sin or the goodness of creation. A new theory of the Fall, indebted to Anselm of Canterbury, Thomas Aquinas, and the author’s monograph Aquinas, Original Sin, and the Challenge of Evolution, is proposed, on which the Fall is comparable to the loss of a gifted inheritance.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129219530","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 : 2020-07-01DOI: 10.1177/1063851220924003
J. Mumme
The sermons of the mature Luther offer an illuminating ministeriology, in whose center stands the conviction that Christ is present in the office of the ministry. Various aspects of this central motif of Christ’s presence in the ministry can be observed. Drawing on this motif and its various aspects, weighty conclusions about the place of the office of the ministry in Luther’s ecclesiology and in the larger whole of his theology are drawn. In an English summary of his German dissertation, the author shows that Luther’s homiletically communicated understanding of the ministry offers new perspectives on the disputed topic of Luther’s understanding of the ministry, which hold no small promise for ecumenical theology and dialogue.
{"title":"The Presence of Jesus Christ in the Office of the Ministry: Rethinking Luther from His Pulpit Out","authors":"J. Mumme","doi":"10.1177/1063851220924003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220924003","url":null,"abstract":"The sermons of the mature Luther offer an illuminating ministeriology, in whose center stands the conviction that Christ is present in the office of the ministry. Various aspects of this central motif of Christ’s presence in the ministry can be observed. Drawing on this motif and its various aspects, weighty conclusions about the place of the office of the ministry in Luther’s ecclesiology and in the larger whole of his theology are drawn. In an English summary of his German dissertation, the author shows that Luther’s homiletically communicated understanding of the ministry offers new perspectives on the disputed topic of Luther’s understanding of the ministry, which hold no small promise for ecumenical theology and dialogue.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126767788","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 : 2020-05-19DOI: 10.1177/1063851220921352
J. Behr
{"title":"Reading the Scriptures Anew","authors":"J. Behr","doi":"10.1177/1063851220921352","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220921352","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125189114","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 : 2020-05-19DOI: 10.1177/1063851220924004
C. Seitz
I want to begin by thanking the contributors to this issue for the time they have taken to read my book and engage with its arguments. I realize this is a special kind of investment and I appreciate their thoughtful and trenchant responses. I also want to thank Phillip Cary and Pro Ecclesia for finding an array of reviewers from areas the book tries to bring together, and which are often treated as discrete sub-disciplines (Patristics, Theology, Old Testament). Pro Ecclesia has consistently been at the forefront of encouraging first-rate cross-disciplinary thinking and writing. The reviewers each have their own commitments to trying to assure that Holy Scripture not be meted out to historical specialists of a particular modern variety. So in that sense they are kindred spirits and one can sense that in what they write and how they approach their engagement with this book. Let me begin by addressing each reviewer and giving a response to their remarks. Raymond Van Leeuwen opens on the note I have just mentioned, namely, the book’s concern not to reside in a sub-discipline called “Old Testament,” if by that is meant segregation from theological reflection or a species of modern reading cut off from the long history of biblical interpretation in church and synagogue. He calls my use of the term “Elder” a respectful acknowledgment of the divine authority of the first Testament, and he picks up my concern for
首先，我想感谢这个问题的贡献者，感谢他们花时间阅读我的书并参与其中的论点。我意识到这是一种特殊的投资，我很欣赏他们深思熟虑和敏锐的回应。我还要感谢Phillip Cary和Pro Ecclesia，他们找到了一大批来自本书试图汇集在一起的领域的评论家，这些领域通常被视为独立的子学科(教父、神学、旧约)。Pro Ecclesia一直站在鼓励一流的跨学科思考和写作的最前沿。每个评论家都有自己的承诺，试图确保圣经不被分发给特定的现代历史专家。所以从这个意义上说，他们是志趣相投的人，我们可以从他们写的东西和他们如何参与这本书中感受到这一点。让我先向每位评论者致辞，并对他们的评论作出回应。Raymond Van Leeuwen以我刚刚提到的一点作为开篇，也就是说，这本书关注的是不要停留在一个叫做“旧约”的子学科中，如果这意味着从神学反思中分离出来，或者是一种现代阅读，从教会和犹太教堂的圣经解释的悠久历史中分离出来。他称我使用“长老”一词是对《圣经》第一卷神圣权威的尊重，他也理解了我的担忧
{"title":"Between Athens and Antioch: Literal and Extended-Sense Reading","authors":"C. Seitz","doi":"10.1177/1063851220924004","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220924004","url":null,"abstract":"I want to begin by thanking the contributors to this issue for the time they have taken to read my book and engage with its arguments. I realize this is a special kind of investment and I appreciate their thoughtful and trenchant responses. I also want to thank Phillip Cary and Pro Ecclesia for finding an array of reviewers from areas the book tries to bring together, and which are often treated as discrete sub-disciplines (Patristics, Theology, Old Testament). Pro Ecclesia has consistently been at the forefront of encouraging first-rate cross-disciplinary thinking and writing. The reviewers each have their own commitments to trying to assure that Holy Scripture not be meted out to historical specialists of a particular modern variety. So in that sense they are kindred spirits and one can sense that in what they write and how they approach their engagement with this book. Let me begin by addressing each reviewer and giving a response to their remarks. Raymond Van Leeuwen opens on the note I have just mentioned, namely, the book’s concern not to reside in a sub-discipline called “Old Testament,” if by that is meant segregation from theological reflection or a species of modern reading cut off from the long history of biblical interpretation in church and synagogue. He calls my use of the term “Elder” a respectful acknowledgment of the divine authority of the first Testament, and he picks up my concern for","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"32 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116948297","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 : 2020-05-17DOI: 10.1177/1063851220920857
Raymond C. Van Leeuwen
Seitz’s new book is a “Summa” of his decades-long work of theological exegesis which shows the theological “pressure” that the Old Testament inherently exerts towards the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. His focus is not just the “economic” Trinity—God in God’s historical works—but the “ontological Trinity”: God in God’s very self. His exegesis mines theological insights from the church fathers to the great Reformers, Luther and Calvin. An unfortunate weakness in the book is its copy editing and proofreading.
{"title":"On Seitz’s The Elder Testament: He Pitched a Winning Game but with Unforced Errors","authors":"Raymond C. Van Leeuwen","doi":"10.1177/1063851220920857","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220920857","url":null,"abstract":"Seitz’s new book is a “Summa” of his decades-long work of theological exegesis which shows the theological “pressure” that the Old Testament inherently exerts towards the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. His focus is not just the “economic” Trinity—God in God’s historical works—but the “ontological Trinity”: God in God’s very self. His exegesis mines theological insights from the church fathers to the great Reformers, Luther and Calvin. An unfortunate weakness in the book is its copy editing and proofreading.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"2013 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114197949","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 : 2020-05-06DOI: 10.1177/1063851220920854
Hans Boersma
While Seitz’s The Elder Testament: Canon, Theology, Trinity shows some sympathy for historical-critical readings of the Old Testament, he rightly insists on a theological starting point: he maintains that the Old Testament itself provides providentially inserted clues that demand a Trinitarian reading, and so he maintains that the Old Testament itself “pressures forth” a Christian reading of the text. We should keep in mind, however, that it is only through the acknowledgement of the ontological priority of the Christ event (and of the church’s identity within the Christ event) that the Spirit enables us to recognize the hidden, deeper meanings of the text.
{"title":"Christopher Seitz and the Priority of the Christ Event","authors":"Hans Boersma","doi":"10.1177/1063851220920854","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1063851220920854","url":null,"abstract":"While Seitz’s The Elder Testament: Canon, Theology, Trinity shows some sympathy for historical-critical readings of the Old Testament, he rightly insists on a theological starting point: he maintains that the Old Testament itself provides providentially inserted clues that demand a Trinitarian reading, and so he maintains that the Old Testament itself “pressures forth” a Christian reading of the text. We should keep in mind, however, that it is only through the acknowledgement of the ontological priority of the Christ event (and of the church’s identity within the Christ event) that the Spirit enables us to recognize the hidden, deeper meanings of the text.","PeriodicalId":223812,"journal":{"name":"Pro Ecclesia: A Journal of Catholic and Evangelical Theology","volume":"237 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"123754724","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：