Abstract In this article I explore Christoph Schwöbel (1955–2021)’s distinctive contributions to the ongoing dialogue between religion and science in the following three perspectives. First, he emphasizes the need of a more consistently trinitarian theology of creation in dialogue with sciences which is expected to rectify widespread one-sided approaches. Second, he advocates for the continued importance of having philosophy as theology’s dialogue partner along with natural sciences. Finally, he places significant emphasis on the ethic of createdness in the face of ecological crisis. After critical as well as appreciative analyses of each of Schwöbel’s contributions, I make constructive proposals for the future discussion, in terms of more direct engagement with natural sciences, fuller explication of the ontology of communicative relations, and extended application of his ethic of createdness to the emerging issues concerning recent technological innovations.
{"title":"An Appraisal of Christoph Schwöbel’s Trinitarian Theology of Creation in Dialogue with Natural Sciences","authors":"Junghyung Kim","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0045","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this article I explore Christoph Schwöbel (1955–2021)’s distinctive contributions to the ongoing dialogue between religion and science in the following three perspectives. First, he emphasizes the need of a more consistently trinitarian theology of creation in dialogue with sciences which is expected to rectify widespread one-sided approaches. Second, he advocates for the continued importance of having philosophy as theology’s dialogue partner along with natural sciences. Finally, he places significant emphasis on the ethic of createdness in the face of ecological crisis. After critical as well as appreciative analyses of each of Schwöbel’s contributions, I make constructive proposals for the future discussion, in terms of more direct engagement with natural sciences, fuller explication of the ontology of communicative relations, and extended application of his ethic of createdness to the emerging issues concerning recent technological innovations.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135585058","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This article compares Luther’s understanding of the unity of Christ’s person with that of his theological successors, focusing on Martin Chemnitz and Johann Gerhard. It argues that Luther’s more apophatic approach to the communicatio idiomatum and his heirs’ elaborate doctrine of the three genera of the communication do not stand in a straightforward relationship of continuity. To be sure, both are historically found in the context of Eucharistic polemics. Yet Luther’s perspective on the communicatio is driven by a desire to give expression to Christ-for-me specifically as the subject and agent of his promise; it has its driving force in the ontology of the promise as the essence of the gospel. By contrast, Luther’s successors are preoccupied with the ability of Christ’s assumed human nature to receive divine properties in the hope of shoring up the presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper. In the end, it is Luther who succeeds in presenting a more successful account of a co-extensive and internally congruent understanding of Christ’s divine and human agency, whereas his successors’ account of the unity of Christ remains undermined by intractable and ever-threatening divergence.
{"title":"<i>Communicatio Idiomatum</i> and the Lutheran Quest for Christological Agency","authors":"Piotr J. Małysz","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0050","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article compares Luther’s understanding of the unity of Christ’s person with that of his theological successors, focusing on Martin Chemnitz and Johann Gerhard. It argues that Luther’s more apophatic approach to the communicatio idiomatum and his heirs’ elaborate doctrine of the three genera of the communication do not stand in a straightforward relationship of continuity. To be sure, both are historically found in the context of Eucharistic polemics. Yet Luther’s perspective on the communicatio is driven by a desire to give expression to Christ-for-me specifically as the subject and agent of his promise; it has its driving force in the ontology of the promise as the essence of the gospel. By contrast, Luther’s successors are preoccupied with the ability of Christ’s assumed human nature to receive divine properties in the hope of shoring up the presence of Christ’s body in the Lord’s Supper. In the end, it is Luther who succeeds in presenting a more successful account of a co-extensive and internally congruent understanding of Christ’s divine and human agency, whereas his successors’ account of the unity of Christ remains undermined by intractable and ever-threatening divergence.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"136279271","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Summary The paper discusses the question to what extent one can speak of a genus tapeinoticum in Luther, or of a communication of the properties of nature to nature that is both direct and symmetrical. The thesis is that in the 1540 s Luther significantly modifies his earlier rejection of the idea of a passibility of divine nature as such by means of the distinctions between ‘concretum’ and ‘abstractum’ as well as between ‘relativum’ and ‘absolutum’. The boundary between passibility and impassibility does not run between the Son on the one hand and the Father and the Spirit on the other, but between the deus relativus and what might be called the ‘absolute-relative’ God.
{"title":"“[...] naturam [...] divinam seu verum Deum [...] passum esse et mortuum”","authors":"Linde Gesche","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0051","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0051","url":null,"abstract":"Summary The paper discusses the question to what extent one can speak of a genus tapeinoticum in Luther, or of a communication of the properties of nature to nature that is both direct and symmetrical. The thesis is that in the 1540 s Luther significantly modifies his earlier rejection of the idea of a passibility of divine nature as such by means of the distinctions between ‘concretum’ and ‘abstractum’ as well as between ‘relativum’ and ‘absolutum’. The boundary between passibility and impassibility does not run between the Son on the one hand and the Father and the Spirit on the other, but between the deus relativus and what might be called the ‘absolute-relative’ God.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135131610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Sixteenth-century Christological debates sought to clarify the philosophical implications of the hypostatic union thesis formulated at Chalcedon. The genus maiesticatum , in particular, permitted that Christ’s created human nature could be said to possess divine attributes and powers. Other systematic regions like theological anthropology were implicated in this concept as well; the elevation of Christ’s human nature provided a conceptual framework for understanding the way divine indwelling might elevate human moral capacities in the elect. Medieval Scholastics after Lombard sought to clarify what type of relation indwelling might be. Was it a hypostatic union as in Christology or something else? At the start of the sixteenth-century, Protestant reformers inherited this question. Their engagement with it demonstrates the systematic implications of Christological metaphysics and clarifies conceptual continuities and shifts that occurred across this historical moment of reform.
{"title":"A Majestic Anthropology?","authors":"Candace L. Kohli","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0044","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Sixteenth-century Christological debates sought to clarify the philosophical implications of the hypostatic union thesis formulated at Chalcedon. The genus maiesticatum , in particular, permitted that Christ’s created human nature could be said to possess divine attributes and powers. Other systematic regions like theological anthropology were implicated in this concept as well; the elevation of Christ’s human nature provided a conceptual framework for understanding the way divine indwelling might elevate human moral capacities in the elect. Medieval Scholastics after Lombard sought to clarify what type of relation indwelling might be. Was it a hypostatic union as in Christology or something else? At the start of the sixteenth-century, Protestant reformers inherited this question. Their engagement with it demonstrates the systematic implications of Christological metaphysics and clarifies conceptual continuities and shifts that occurred across this historical moment of reform.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135010791","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract Do “majestic Christologies” violate the principle of non-competitive relationship? Majestic Christologies are diverse according to conceptual delineation, but share the common affirmation that Jesus’ humanity participates in the divine majesty in a transformative manner. This notion seems to transgress the principle of non-competitive relationship by behaving as if the fullness of Christ’s deity requires a displacement or transmogrification of his creatureliness. This paper argues that majestic Christology does not necessarily contradict the non-competitive principle by emphasizing the elasticity of theological anthropology from an eschatological point of view.
{"title":"Majestic Christology and the Human Agency of Jesus","authors":"David Luy","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0041","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Do “majestic Christologies” violate the principle of non-competitive relationship? Majestic Christologies are diverse according to conceptual delineation, but share the common affirmation that Jesus’ humanity participates in the divine majesty in a transformative manner. This notion seems to transgress the principle of non-competitive relationship by behaving as if the fullness of Christ’s deity requires a displacement or transmogrification of his creatureliness. This paper argues that majestic Christology does not necessarily contradict the non-competitive principle by emphasizing the elasticity of theological anthropology from an eschatological point of view.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44721254","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This paper maintains that at the heart of the post-Reformation debates over the extra Calvinisticum lies the question of what it means to name God’s presence in the world – that is, to say where God is. Because the Lutheran position insists that there can be no proper identification of God’s presence in the world that does not take its bearings from talk about Jesus’ presence, it serves as a means of preventing Christian God-talk from becoming detached from the flesh-and-blood realities of human existence. In this way, the denial of the extra Calvinisticum is a corollary of a theology of the cross – that is, the principle that talk about God is normed by the concrete reality of Jesus. At the same time, the Lutheran genus maiestaticum is rejected as making just the sort of move to which Luther himself objected in the doctrine of transubstantiation: a metaphysical explanation of Jesus’ presence in the world rather than a simple appeal to miracle.
{"title":"The Extra Calvinisticum and the Question of Where God Is","authors":"Ian Alexander McFarland","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0040","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0040","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper maintains that at the heart of the post-Reformation debates over the extra Calvinisticum lies the question of what it means to name God’s presence in the world – that is, to say where God is. Because the Lutheran position insists that there can be no proper identification of God’s presence in the world that does not take its bearings from talk about Jesus’ presence, it serves as a means of preventing Christian God-talk from becoming detached from the flesh-and-blood realities of human existence. In this way, the denial of the extra Calvinisticum is a corollary of a theology of the cross – that is, the principle that talk about God is normed by the concrete reality of Jesus. At the same time, the Lutheran genus maiestaticum is rejected as making just the sort of move to which Luther himself objected in the doctrine of transubstantiation: a metaphysical explanation of Jesus’ presence in the world rather than a simple appeal to miracle.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-09-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45385264","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Dieser Artikel argumentiert, dass Kants berühmte Theorie vom "radikalen Bösen", gemäß der es eine natürliche Anlage zum Bösen und zum Guten in allen Menschen gibt, Vorläufer in der mittelalterlichen franziskanischen intellektuellen Tradition hat. Im frühen 13. Jahrhundert entwickelten Mitglieder dieser Tradition, inspiriert von ihrem Gründer Alexander von Hales, eine neue Vorstellung vom freien Willen, gemäß der der Wille in der Lage ist, zwischen gleichermaßen legitimen Optionen des Guten und des Bösen zu wählen. Damit wichen die frühen Franziskaner von der langjährigen Tradition des Augustinus ab, für den der freie Wille nur das Gute wählen kann, da das Böse lediglich eine Mangelerscheinung des Guten ist, die die menschliche Freiheit einschränkt. Gleichzeitig antizipierten sie die kantische Behauptung, dass Freiheit die Fähigkeit beinhaltet, zwischen guten und bösen Maximen zu wählen.
这篇文章论证了康德著名的“极端邪恶”理论，认为人人都有邪恶和善良的自然来源，它在中世纪方济各的知识传统上是起了作用的。13岁时这种传统受到其创立者Alexander von Hales的启发在这个世纪里发展了一种新的自由意志理念早期的方济各会因此脱离了奥古斯丁长期的传统，对于这一传统，自由意志只能选择好的，因为邪恶是人的约束他们还预言说自由具有辨别善恶准则的能力。
{"title":"Kant’s Theory of Radical Evil and its Franciscan Forebears.","authors":"Lydia Schumacher","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0022","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Dieser Artikel argumentiert, dass Kants berühmte Theorie vom \"radikalen Bösen\", gemäß der es eine natürliche Anlage zum Bösen und zum Guten in allen Menschen gibt, Vorläufer in der mittelalterlichen franziskanischen intellektuellen Tradition hat. Im frühen 13. Jahrhundert entwickelten Mitglieder dieser Tradition, inspiriert von ihrem Gründer Alexander von Hales, eine neue Vorstellung vom freien Willen, gemäß der der Wille in der Lage ist, zwischen gleichermaßen legitimen Optionen des Guten und des Bösen zu wählen. Damit wichen die frühen Franziskaner von der langjährigen Tradition des Augustinus ab, für den der freie Wille nur das Gute wählen kann, da das Böse lediglich eine Mangelerscheinung des Guten ist, die die menschliche Freiheit einschränkt. Gleichzeitig antizipierten sie die kantische Behauptung, dass Freiheit die Fähigkeit beinhaltet, zwischen guten und bösen Maximen zu wählen.</p>","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10390042/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9921029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract By contextualising the striking similarities in Feuerbach and Kierkegaard’s conceptions of sin as infinite qualitative difference, and the related question of the individual and the species as a shared response to the Hegelian Entzweiung, this article seeks to offer a new framework for understanding Feuerbach’s critique of Christian theology and of Kierkegaard’s famous articulation of the infinite qualitative difference as simultaneously ontological, hamartiological, and soteriological. It argues that Kierkegaard offers a modification of the Feuerbachian account to argue against Feuerbach’s conclusion that the Christian doctrine of sin negates qualitative differences between individual humans, and to conversely affirm that sin differentiates not just God and humans, but each single individual too. Kierkegaard might be said to at once uphold Feuerbach’s critique of Hegelian theology, while inverting Feuerbach’s anti-theological programme by harnessing the ambiguities that appear in Feuerbach’s account of sin. It is thereby shown how both Feuerbach and Kierkegaard make use of Hegelian logic, both through their formal application of the concepts of quality and quantity, as well as their creative appropriation of the notion of Entzweiung.
{"title":"Feuerbach and Kierkegaard on Sin as Infinite Qualitative Difference","authors":"Dritëro Demjaha, E. X. Li","doi":"10.1515/nzsth-2023-0027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/nzsth-2023-0027","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract By contextualising the striking similarities in Feuerbach and Kierkegaard’s conceptions of sin as infinite qualitative difference, and the related question of the individual and the species as a shared response to the Hegelian Entzweiung, this article seeks to offer a new framework for understanding Feuerbach’s critique of Christian theology and of Kierkegaard’s famous articulation of the infinite qualitative difference as simultaneously ontological, hamartiological, and soteriological. It argues that Kierkegaard offers a modification of the Feuerbachian account to argue against Feuerbach’s conclusion that the Christian doctrine of sin negates qualitative differences between individual humans, and to conversely affirm that sin differentiates not just God and humans, but each single individual too. Kierkegaard might be said to at once uphold Feuerbach’s critique of Hegelian theology, while inverting Feuerbach’s anti-theological programme by harnessing the ambiguities that appear in Feuerbach’s account of sin. It is thereby shown how both Feuerbach and Kierkegaard make use of Hegelian logic, both through their formal application of the concepts of quality and quantity, as well as their creative appropriation of the notion of Entzweiung.","PeriodicalId":51975,"journal":{"name":"NEUE ZEITSCHRIFT FUR SYSTEMATISCHE THEOLOGIE UND RELIGIONSPHILOSOPHIE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.2,"publicationDate":"2023-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46393667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","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：