Congratulations!

[Valid Atom 1.0] This is a valid Atom 1.0 feed.

Recommendations

This feed is valid, but interoperability with the widest range of feed readers could be improved by implementing the following recommendations.

Source: http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

  1. <?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?><?xml-stylesheet href="http://www.blogger.com/styles/atom.css" type="text/css"?><feed xmlns='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom' xmlns:openSearch='http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearchrss/1.0/' xmlns:blogger='http://schemas.google.com/blogger/2008' xmlns:georss='http://www.georss.org/georss' xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr='http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0'><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212</id><updated>2024-09-01T09:27:44.384-07:00</updated><category term="christology"/><category term="Bonhoeffer"/><category term="atonement"/><category term="Norman Pittenger"/><category term="History of Christology"/><category term="Pierre Teilhard de Chardin"/><category term="Calvin"/><category term="Chalcedon"/><category term="Chalcedonian Definition"/><category term="Christologicalmethodology"/><category term="Feminist Christology"/><category term="Kahlil Gibran"/><category term="Knitter"/><category term="Limited Atonement"/><category term="Nominalism"/><category term="Paulose Mar Paulose"/><category term="RHFuller"/><category term="Reformed Faith"/><category term="William of Ockham"/><category term="allegoricalInterpretation"/><category term="atonement critique"/><category term="chiliasm"/><category term="theories"/><title type='text'>Christology Readings</title><subtitle type='html'></subtitle><link rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/'/><link rel='hub' href='http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/'/><link rel='next' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default?start-index=26&amp;max-results=25'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><generator version='7.00' uri='http://www.blogger.com'>Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>41</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-4905326852231484248</id><published>2008-10-14T07:52:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-14T07:54:38.072-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="History of Christology"/><title type='text'>Process Christology</title><content type='html'>&lt;span class=&quot;Apple-style-span&quot; style=&quot;border-collapse: collapse; font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;;&quot;&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Process Christology&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  2. The third and final form of Christology that challenges the Church’s teaching is more difficult to classify. When I call it “Process Christology,” I am borrowing a term that has broader meaning, namely, Process Theology, and classifying Christologists among those who—in some measure or other—place God in the evolutionary process of the world.&lt;br /&gt;
  3. The prevalence that popularity of process Christology among Protestants is a fact of contemporary scholarship. Men like Ponnenberg and Voltmann have become almost classic in their field. One of my students at the University of Ottawa, whose thesis on Ponnenberg I directed, spent several years just reading and trying to decipher Ponnenberg, before he could decisively start analyzing Ponnenberg’s Christology. It is subtle and complex in the extreme.&lt;br /&gt;
  4. Among professed Catholics, the most important in point of time, is Teilhard de Chardin. In Teilhard’s thought, all history is a movement toward Christ, whom he calls the&amp;nbsp;&lt;i&gt;Omega Point&lt;/i&gt;. In this perspective, Christ, like God Himself, is in a constant evolutionary process—the world is becoming perfected in and through Christ even as Christ is becoming perfected in and through the world.&lt;br /&gt;
  5. The critical issue for Chardin is his position on the nature of God. The problem, he says, with people who consider Marxism atheistic is that they define God too narrowly. Certainly if you conceive God as totally transcending the world, then Marxism is godless. But once you realize that God is autologically part of the universe, you see that Marxism is quite theistic and compatible with Christianity.&lt;br /&gt;
  6. On these premises, Christ and Christology and the hypostatic union take on a very different meaning than the one taught by the Nicene Creed.&lt;br /&gt;
  7. Karl Rahner is not commonly placed among Process Christologists, but I believe he can be best understood in this way.&lt;br /&gt;
  8. Rahner’s notion of evolution rises through much of his writing. It is deeply influenced by Hegel. Matter and spirit, Rahner believes, are essentially related to each other. They derive from the same creative act of God, and they have a single goal or purpose in the fullness of the Kingdom preached by Christ. The world and its history are moving ever forward. They are in constant process of development, toward a unity of spirit and matter. Rahner, like Hegel, sees this as a becoming higher. He calls this capacity for becoming something higher as the power of “self-transcendence.”&lt;br /&gt;
  9. How does Christ fit into this predetermined process of evolution. Says Rahner, “The permanent beginning and the absolute guarantee that this ultimate self-transcendence, which is fundamentally unsurpassable, will succeed and has already begun, is what we call the “hypostatic union,” (&lt;i&gt;Foundations of Christian Faith&lt;/i&gt;, p. 181).&lt;br /&gt;
  10. In other words, the Incarnation was not so much God becoming Man, as the universe, including man, becoming slowly but inevitably divinized. Jesus Christ, Rahner insists, cannot be properly understood except from this evolutionary process.&lt;a href=&quot;http://draft.blogger.com/goog_1223995982392&quot;&gt; more &amp;nbsp;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;span class=&quot;Apple-style-span&quot; style=&quot;font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Christology/Christology_002.htm&quot;&gt;from below, liberation&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/4905326852231484248/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=4905326852231484248&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4905326852231484248'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4905326852231484248'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/process-christology.html' title='Process Christology'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-1945642589692734787</id><published>2008-10-14T07:31:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-14T07:52:47.949-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="History of Christology"/><title type='text'>HISTORY OF CHRISTOLOGY</title><content type='html'>&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;;&quot;&gt;&lt;center&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color: #003366; font-family: &#39;MS Reference Sans Serif&#39;; font-size: 29px;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562497/christology.html&quot;&gt;Christology Encarta&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  11. &lt;br /&gt;
  12. &lt;br /&gt;
  13. &lt;br /&gt;
  14. &lt;br /&gt;
  15. &lt;h1&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color: blue;&quot;&gt;Christology:&lt;br /&gt;
  16. From Chalcedon to Anselm&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/h1&gt;&lt;h4&gt;Robert D. Crouse, 1997&lt;/h4&gt;&lt;/center&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  17. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  18. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  19. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  20. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  21. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;;&quot;&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;&lt;i&gt;NOTE: This article is part of a conference report of the&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stpeter.org/1998conf.htm&quot;&gt;Atlantic Theological Conference&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;(&lt;b&gt;Christology: The Mission and Person of Jesus Christ&lt;/b&gt;, ed. Greg Shepherd), and available from&amp;nbsp;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.stpeter.org/&quot;&gt;St. Peter Publications&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  22. &lt;br /&gt;
  23. &lt;br /&gt;
  24. &lt;br /&gt;
  25. &lt;br /&gt;
  26. &lt;hr /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;;&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  27. &lt;br /&gt;
  28. &lt;b&gt;I. CHALCEDON&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  29. The definition of Chalcedon, in 451, and the arguments of the associated&amp;nbsp;&lt;i&gt;Tome of Leo&lt;/i&gt;, constituted a turning-point in the history of Christian thought about the person and work of Christ; on the one hand giving an authoritative resolution of debates which had engaged fathers and heretics since apostolic times, on the other hand involving problems of interpretation and implications which would occupy the attention of theologians all through the subsequent centuries.&lt;sup&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prayerbook.ca/crouse/writings/christology.htm&quot;&gt;&amp;nbsp;more&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  30. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  31. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  32. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;...........................................&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  33. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  34. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  35. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;; font-size: 16px;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  36. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;; font-size: 16px;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  37. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;; font-size: 16px;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  38. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;; font-size: 16px;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  39. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;; font-size: 16px;&quot;&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  40. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  41. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  42. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  43. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;div align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;u&gt;&lt;b&gt;CHRISTOLOGICAL ERRORS&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; IN THE EARLY CHURCH&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/u&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;; font-size: 16px;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  44. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: small;&quot;&gt;The church is no stranger to false and distorted representations of the Christian faith. It started from the time of the apostles and has not let up to the present. History has a funny way of repeating itself. The old saying what crawls in one generation walks in the next, is a accurate description of error birthed and growing mature. Its also been said, error dies a slow death and must be killed. As we take a peek at just a small section of the timeline in the growth of the church, we find there is nothing new under the sun. What we have today is no different than before. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat its mistakes. &amp;nbsp;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.letusreason.org/Onenes3.htm&quot;&gt;MORE&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  45. &lt;br /&gt;
  46. .............................&lt;br /&gt;
  47. &lt;br /&gt;
  48. &lt;span style=&quot;font-family: &#39;times new roman&#39;;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ritchies.net/p2wk4.htm&quot;&gt;Christological controversies in a nutshell&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  49. &lt;br /&gt;
  50. &lt;span class=&quot;Apple-style-span&quot; style=&quot;-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; color: #333333; font-family: Arial; font-size: 12px;&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  51. &lt;div style=&quot;display: block; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Modern Criticism of Chalcedon.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style=&quot;display: block; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 5px; margin-top: 5px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;&quot;&gt;Orthodox Chalcedonian Christology has been assailed on various grounds. Modern theologians have noted its dependence on a precritical understanding of the Gospels. The christological pluralism of the New Testament is not recognized by the Chalcedonian formula, which is supported solely by the Gospel of John and the conception of the virgin birth expressed in Matthew and Luke. Another criticism, articulated by the German New Testament scholar and theologian Rudolf Bultmann, hinges on the fact that the Chalcedonian conception of Christ is based on antiquated mythologies (Jewish messianism and apocalypticism and perhaps Gnosticism) and on an obsolete metaphysics, in which the terms&amp;nbsp;&lt;i&gt;person, nature,&lt;/i&gt;&amp;nbsp;and&amp;nbsp;&lt;i&gt;substance&lt;/i&gt;&amp;nbsp;are understood in ways that are fundamentally different from the way these terms are understood today. The use of Chalcedonian christological definitions in interpreting the Gospel portraits of Jesus has tended to restrict the access of modern Christians to the man Jesus in his historical actuality. Thus, Bultmann has advocated “demythologizing” the New Testament and reinterpreting the mythological elements that lie behind early christological formulations, in order to make the proclamation (kerygma) and Christ’s saving work meaningful to modern persons. Some theologians advocate using alternative christological models to explain the doctrines of preexistence and incarnation, preferring the New Testament metaphor of God’s “sending” his Son to the later, entirely intellectualized Christology of the Council of Chalcedon. A few contemporary Roman Catholic theologians, such as Edward Schillebeeckx (1914–&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;) and Walter Kasper (1933–&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;) have chosen to begin their christological inquiry “from below” rather than “from above”; they start with the fully human Jesus and then go on to discover and confess the saving presence of God in him. &amp;nbsp; &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.history.com/encyclopedia.do?vendorId=FWNE.fw..ch135200.a#FWNE.fw..ch135200.a&quot;&gt;more&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  52. .................................&lt;br /&gt;
  53. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/christ.php&quot;&gt;Christology Bibliography&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  54. &lt;br /&gt;
  55. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: 13px;&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  56. &lt;/span&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/1945642589692734787/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=1945642589692734787&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/1945642589692734787'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/1945642589692734787'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/christologyfrom-chalcedon-to-anselm-by.html' title='HISTORY OF CHRISTOLOGY'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-8766673177823931305</id><published>2008-10-13T23:03:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-13T23:04:06.064-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Pierre Teilhard de Chardin"/><title type='text'>Teilhard de Chardin and His Relevance for Today</title><content type='html'>[Woodstock Report, June 2005, No. 82]&lt;br /&gt;
  57. &lt;br /&gt;
  58.            On Easter Day in 1955, a French Jesuit priest and paleontologist died suddenly of a heart attack in New York City, an obscure death following a fairly obscure life - as far as the general public was concerned. Within just a few years, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin was celebrated within the church he served and the world he loved. And, 50 years after his final diminishment (a word that he used creatively in connection with ultimate communion with Christ), Teilhard remains an undiminished figure of intellectual and spiritual life within Catholicism and beyond.  &lt;i&gt;more&lt;a href=&quot;http://woodstock.georgetown.edu/publications/report/r-fea82a.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/8766673177823931305/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=8766673177823931305&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/8766673177823931305'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/8766673177823931305'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/teilhard-de-chardin-and-his-relevance.html' title='Teilhard de Chardin and His Relevance for Today'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-8349552044887857985</id><published>2008-10-13T22:31:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2010-08-13T08:18:34.488-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Pierre Teilhard de Chardin"/><title type='text'>Pierre Teilhard de Chardin</title><content type='html'>1. &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Teilhard_de_Chardin&quot;&gt;Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Wikepedia&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  59. &lt;br /&gt;
  60. 2. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godweb.org/godand.htm&quot;&gt;God and science&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
  61. &lt;br /&gt;
  62. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.godweb.org/chardin.htm&quot;&gt;Charles P. Henderson chapter Five&lt;/a&gt; &lt;br /&gt;
  63. &lt;br /&gt;
  64. 3.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.huumanists.org/rh/birx.html&quot;&gt;The Phenomenon of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin&lt;/a&gt; by James H. Birx&lt;br /&gt;
  65. &lt;br /&gt;
  66. 4.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.apocryphile.org/jrm/articles/process.html&quot;&gt;Hegel, Whitehead, &amp; Chardin: Trailblazers of a New Cosmology&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/8349552044887857985/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=8349552044887857985&amp;isPopup=true' title='2 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/8349552044887857985'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/8349552044887857985'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/pierre-teilhard-de-chardin.html' title='Pierre Teilhard de Chardin'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>2</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-550084179431188839</id><published>2008-10-13T22:26:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-13T22:28:38.534-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Norman Pittenger"/><title type='text'>God and the Problem of Evil in the Process Theology of W. NormanPittenger and...</title><content type='html'>Paper Title:the Pastoral Theology of Rabbi Harold S. KushnerAuthor: &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;&quot;&gt;McCartney, James J.&lt;/span&gt;Institutional Affiliation: Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, VillanovaUniversityThis paper was prepared for “Science and Religion: Global Perspectives,” June 4-8,2005, in Philadelphia, PA, USA, a program of the Metanexus Institute(www.metanexus.net).Abstract:W. Norman Pittenger and Rabbi Harold Kushner are strange bedfellows. The former isone of the greatest Christian process theologians of the twentieth century, and the latter isa Jewish Rabbi with a congregation in Natick, Massachusetts. What they both have incommon is a profound insight into the problem of evil, derived by Pittenger through hisprocessive understanding of the Divine, and reflected on by Kushner after the untimelydeath of his son Aaron from ‘progeria’ (rapid aging). In this study, I would like tocompare and contrast the insights of these two authors as they try to deal with the issue of‘God and the problem of evil,’ a problem that has vexed some of the greatest minds ofhistory. Both Pittenger and Kushner have the advantage of having a contemporaryunderstanding of science which greatly assists them in developing their thought, and,although Pittenger’s approach is sort of from the top down, and Kushner’s from thebottom up, they arrive at very similar understandings and conclusions.W. Norman Pittenger’s processive understanding of the Divine is primarily indebted tothe philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. For Pittenger, God is ‘pure unbounded love,’‘Love-in-act,’ which is disclosed in a threefold quality of the experience of the Divineactivity in the world, a triunity. But if God is the ‘lure of Love,’ how can we account fortsunamis, hurricanes, tornadoes, children dying of cancer or other anomalies, or otherplanetary ills? If God is Love-in-act, why are there madness, disease, natural violence,and destructive natural force? It will be the task of the paper to provide Pittenger’sanswer to these questions.Rabbi Kushner states at the outset of his book that this is not an abstract book about Godand theology. He says that it is a very personal book, written by someone who believesin God and in the goodness of the world, someone who has spent most of his life trying tohelp other people believe, and was compelled by a personal tragedy to rethink everythinghe had been taught about God and God’s ways. He then recounts the short life and deathof his son Aaron, and says that he wanted to write a book that could be given to theperson who has been hurt by life, and who knows in his heart that if there is any justice inthe world, he deserved better. Thus Rabbi Kushner’s book is aptly titled, When BadThings Happen to Good People and it is here that he develops his insights into theproblem of evil that are remarkably similar to those of Norman Pittenger and which I willunfold in this study.&lt;br /&gt;Page 2&lt;br /&gt;Biography:The Rev. Dr. James J. McCartney is Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophyof Villanova University near Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. He teaches courses in ethics,health care ethics, bioethics and the law, the philosophy of medicine, and the philosophyof law. He received a Ph.D. in philosophy from Georgetown University in 1981 and alsohas graduate degrees in cell and molecular biology (M.S., The Catholic University ofAmerica) and theology (M.A., Washington Theological Union). He has co-edited twobooks, Health, Disease and Illness: Concepts of Medicine, Georgetown University Press,2004, and Concepts of Health and Disease, Interdisciplinary Perspectives, Addison-Wesley, 1981. He has authored numerous articles and a book, Unborn Persons: PopeJohn Paul II and the Abortion Debate, Peter Lang, 1987. Two of his most recent articlesdeal with stem cell research: &quot;Recent Ethical Controversies About Stem Cell Research&quot;in Stem Cell Research, pp. 87-119, edited by James M. Humber and Robert F. Almeder,Humana Press, 2004 and &quot;Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Respect for Human Life:Philosophical and Legal Reflections,&quot; Albany Law Review 65:3 (2002):597-624.Paper:Dr. W. Norman Pittenger and Rabbi Harold Kushner are strange bedfellows. Theformer was one of the greatest Christian process theologians of the twentieth century, andthe latter is a contemporary Jewish Rabbi with a congregation in Natick, Massachusetts.What they both have in common is a profound insight into the problem of evil, derivedby Pittenger through his processive understanding of the Divine, and reflected on byKushner after the untimely death of his son Aaron from ‘progeria’ (rapid aging).Dr. Pittenger is known by many for his profoundly Christian and deeply sensitivereflections on human sexuality, but in this paper I wish to focus on Pittenger&#39;sprocessiveunderstanding of the Divine, and God&#39;s relationship to the reality of natural evil. I willattempt to show through the theology of Pittenger that a processive understanding ofreality, including the Divine reality we call God, deals with the problem of evil in a verycoherent way, and provides hints for a pastoral practice that is much more compassionateand Christian than those approaches which see natural evil in some way as &quot;the will ofGod.&quot;Rabbi Harold S. Kushner states at the outset of his book, When Bad Things Happento Good People 1 , that this is not an abstract book about God and theology. He says that itis a very personal book, written by someone who believes in God and in the goodness ofthe world, someone who has spent most of his life trying to help other people believe, andwas compelled by a personal tragedy to rethink everything he had been taught about Godand God’s ways. He then recounts the short life and death of his son Aaron, and says thathe wanted to write a book that could be given to the person who has been hurt by life, andwho knows in his heart that if there is any justice in the world, he deserved better. Thus 1 Harold S. Kushner, When Bad Things Happen to Good People. New York: SchockenBooks, 1981.&lt;br /&gt;Page 3&lt;br /&gt;Rabbi Kushner develops his insights into the problem of evil that are remarkably similar tothose of Norman Pittenger.W. Norman Pittenger has written or edited more than seventy books in an academiccareer in Christian theology which has spanned most of the twentieth century, from 1939 tohis death in 1997. His ‘slant’ on the Christian faith is that of a process theologian, 2 anapproach to theology which he used for more than forty years of academic life. 3 Pittenger&#39;s processive understanding of the Divine is primarily indebted to thephilosophy of Alfred North Whitehead. Pittenger is especially touched by an observationof Whitehead in Process and Reality that the Galilean origin of Christianity does notemphasize the “ruling Caesar, or the ruthless moralist, or the unmoved mover” as images ofGod. Rather, God&#39;sself-disclosure in Jesus of Nazareth “dwells upon the tender elementsof the world, which slowly and in quietness operate by love; and it finds purpose in theimmediacy of a kingdom not of this world. Love neither rules, nor is it unmoved; also it isa little oblivious as to morals.” 4 For Pittenger, God is ‘pure unbounded Love’, ‘Love -in-act,’ which is disclosed ina threefold quality of the experience of the divine activity in the world, a triunity:For the triunitarian doctrine of God... is based primarily on theliving experience of men and women who believed that they wereresponding to God&#39;s activity in the world. They were familiar with theJewish faith that through nature and history the one God of the universe isactively at work. They knew also that in Jesus Christ they had been intouch with a particular and decisive activity of God. And then in theirresponse to that activity, first in Jesus Christ and then more generally to thatwhich “God is up to” in the whole world, they knew a reality greater thanthemselves which impelled them to such a new life of loving concern that itmust (they were convinced) be more than their own human doing. 5 Pittenger claims that “the divine Lover whom we call God” is revealed by the factthat “in and behind this mysterious cosmic process of which we are a part there is anabiding reality, supremely worshipful, entirely unsurpassable by anything else, and utterlydependable in action --- a reality who for Christian faith has declared himself in one of ourown kind.” 6 Pittenger borrows from Whitehead the insight that, “as primordial, God is 2 W. Norman Pittenger. God in Process. London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1967, p. 7. 3 W. Norman Pittenger. Becoming and Belonging: The Meaning of Human Existenceand Community. Wilton, CT: Morehouse Publishing, 1989, p. 1. 4 Alfred North Whitehead. Process and Reality. New York: The Free Press, 1969, p. 404. 5 W. Norman Pittenger. The Divine Triunity. Philadelphia: United Church Press, 1977, p.17. 6 W. Norman Pittenger. Making Sexuality Human. New York: The Pilgrim Press, 1979,&lt;br /&gt;Page 4&lt;br /&gt;the continuum of all possibilities, the treasure-house of potentiality to be applied to thecreation; that, as consequent (or affected by that creation), God is the recipient of all valueof good achieved in the creative advance; and that, as superjective, God ‘pours back intothe world’ that which has thus been received from it but is now harmonized within thedivine life that is ‘the Harmony of harmonies.’” 7 Pittenger holds that God is committed to the creation with all its openness,indeterminacy, and freedom, is active in it as the ‘Lure of love’, and works “from the past,in the present, toward the future.... God is both active and passive; he or she initiatespossibility, lures toward realization and is therefore ‘modified’... by that movement and itsresults.” Thus, “we can speak meaningfully of a divine enrichment by accomplished goodin creation, and we can also allow for what might be called a divine sadness because ofwrong creaturely decisions and what they bring about. God shares in the anguish of theworld; God suffers with the world without being overcome by the wrong in it.” 8 Perhaps a meditative reflection on the first chapter of Genesis can illustrate theseideas of Whitehead and Pittenger in a more poetic, less technical way. In that chapter, thepriestly authors first assert that God is the primal source of all reality. But God first createsa vast waste with darkness covering the deep (chaos, possibility, potentiality). And thenthe Spirit of God (ruah) hovered over the surface of the water, light was created, and Godsaw that the light was good. (Good for God as well as good for creation!) Thus God is therecipient of the value of the creative advance (darkness to light) and pours back into theworld what has been received from it (the light of Love --- God&#39;s hovering Spirit) in afurther creative advance with the creation of sun, moon, and stars. “And God saw all thatGod had made, and it was very Good,” (i.e., harmonized with the divine life.) 9 We must also remember that for Pittenger as well as for Whitehead, creativeadvance occurs within a quantum mechanical understanding of the physical world, inwhich a succession of indeterminate but statistically predictable matter-energy eventsconnect and relate all future happenings with the present and the past in a way that isimpossible to measure or accurately predict by the laws of Newtonian physics, and isimpossible to conceptualize in any essentialist metaphysics. In this twentieth centurymodel of how the universe unfolds, discontinuity, interrelatedness, attractive (andrepulsive) forces, and decision (both conscious and preconscious) all play a very importantrole. Pittenger is one of only a few twentieth century theologians who have taken thesepp. 4-5. 7 Becoming and Belonging, p. 5. 8 Ibid., p. 6 9 All Biblical paraphrases and quotations in this section are taken from The RevisedEnglish Bible, Genesis: Chapter 1.&lt;br /&gt;Page 5&lt;br /&gt;aspects of quantum physics and applied them to an understanding of God and reflections onChristian faith. 10 As mentioned earlier, Rabbi Kushner’s starting point is a much more concrete eventthan Pittenger’s theological musings. His son Aaron had stopped gaining weight at aboutthe age of eight months and his hair started falling out after he turned one year old.Eventually. Aaron’s condition was diagnosed as ‘progeria’ – rapid aging. The Rabbi wastold that his son “would never grow much beyond three feet in height, would have no hairon his head or body, would look like a little old man while he was still a child, and woulddie in his early teens.” 11 What Rabbi Kushner felt that day was “a deep, aching sense ofunfairness. It didn’t make sense. I had been a good person. I had tried to do what wasright in the sight of God. More than that, I was living a more religiously committed lifethan most people I knew, people who had large, healthy families. I believed that I wasfollowing God’s ways and doing His work. How could this be happening to my family? IfGod existed, if He was minimally fair, let alone loving and forgiving, how could He do thisto me?” 12 Kushner points out that while he and his wife were wrestling with their faith as wellas their grief, friends tried to help but really couldn’t, and the books he turned to were“more concerned about defending God’s honor, with logical proof that bad is really goodand that evil is necessary to make this a good world, than they were with curing thebewilderment and anguish of the parent of a dying child.” 13 Unlike Pittenger, Kushner isnot a formally trained philosopher but rather a religious man who has been hurt by life andwanted to share with others how one could still find God in the face of seeming injusticeand blind fate.I now return to Pittenger. How does his triune experience of divine activity andbecoming deal with the problem of physical evil? If God is the ‘lure of Love’, how can weaccount for tsunamis which kill hundreds of thousands of people, earthquakes, hurricanes,mudslides, children dying of cancer, or other assorted planetary ills? If God is Love-in-act, why is there madness, disease, natural violence, and destructive natural force? CanPittenger&#39;sChristian theology of process provide an explanatory model for natural evil?Although Pittenger touches on the problem of evil in several of his books, it is inone of his most recent books, Becoming and Belonging, that he deals with evil in the mostsustained way. In fact, Chapter Two of this book is entitled “The Loving God and the Fact 10 For a further discussion of these issues, see Christopher F. Mooney, S.J., &quot;Theologyand the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,&quot; Unpublished Manuscript. 11 When Bad Things…, p.4 12 Ibid., pp. 4-5 13 Ibid., p. 8.&lt;br /&gt;Page 6&lt;br /&gt;of Evil,” much of which I will summarize here. First of all, Pittenger asserts that evil “isnot willed by God, either directly or permissively, as if things might have been otherwise,but God allows evil to happen.” We might recall that in Genesis, Chapter 1, when the‘ruah’ of God creates light, there is still plenty of chaos left, which God in a sense allowsby allowing creation, but the spirit of God only wills that which can be called ‘good’.“Only insofar as there a world at all, with its necessary freedom, can God be said thus to beresponsible.” 14 God&#39;s limitation is sheer goodness. In that goodness God grantsfreedom to the creation with the result that decisions, conscious orunconscious, may and in fact do produce evil that God neither wills norwants.... We should be realistic, facing the fact of evil in all its forms butready also to see that the infinite resourcefulness of the divine Love-in-actcan find ways of handling such evil, so that a positive good may result inthe end. 15 We can see examples of this in the outpouring of assistance, compassion, and generositythat generally follows in the wake of natural or humanly caused disasters such as the recenttsunami in Southeast Asia or the compassionate response, still being expressed, in theaftermath of the destruction of buildings and lives on September 11, 2001. Pittenger pointsout that most people generally lead reasonable happy lives and avoid dwelling on what iswrong with creation. “But there are also the moments of tragedy --- someone we love diesof cancer, there is an appalling airplane crash, we hear about a devastating earthquake or atidal wave, famine strikes some part of the world --- when any man or woman who is at allsensitive will admit that this is not ‘a nice world’ but rather is filled with tragedy, sadness,and pain.” 16 And sometimes we observe the violence in the struggle for survival in variouslife species and wonder what ‘God is up to.’Rabbi Kushner spends a great deal of time discussing what people think ‘God is upto.’ Some think of evil as necessary in the short run so that God’s justice will prevail at theend. Kushner rejects this explanation. Some think that God has God’s reasons for makingbad things happen to them, reasons that they are in no position to judge (the image of theDivine tapestry is brought to mind, where we only see the underside of the tapestry, not thebeautiful pattern on top). Kushner rejects this explanation. The possibility of suffering aseducation, to repair that which is faulty in a person’s personality, is also considered.Kushner rejects this explanation as well. Many consider physical evil as Divinepunishment but, in the Rabbinic tradition, Kushner presents stories to show how thisunderstanding in incompatible with a loving and reconciling Divinity in whom we believe.Finally, Kushner discusses the possibility that physical evil is a ‘test’ and claims that thiswould make God the inventor of sadistic ‘games’ with his most faithful followers, trying bytorture to see how much they really love Him. All these explanations and more assume 14 Becoming and Belonging, p. 7. 15 Ibid., pp 7-8. 16 Ibid., p. 17.&lt;br /&gt;Page 7&lt;br /&gt;that God is the cause of our suffering, and they try to understand why God would want usto suffer.There may be another approach. Maybe God does not cause our suffering.Maybe it happens for some other reason than the will of God…. Could it bethat God does not cause the bad things that happen to us? Could it be thathe doesn’t decide which families will give birth to a handicapped child, thathe did not single out Ron to be crippled by a bullet or Helen by adegenerative disease, but rather that He stands ready to help them and uscope with our tragedies if we could only get beyond the feelings of guilt andanger that separate us from Him? Could it be that “How could God do thisto me?” is really the wrong question for us to ask? 17 Pittenger believes that we must “reconcile these appalling facts (of natural evil)with the belief that God is good and caring. Only so can we make sense of the world andourselves in that world.” Christians especially must deal with the issue of evil, but theyhave done so over the centuries with indifferent success. This is because Christians haveoften used an inadequate or mistaken ‘model’ or concept of God --- a “model of deity as‘despotic ruler’ who is in complete control of everything that happens in the creation, andhence, must be responsible for all that takes place within it.” We get a sense of this falseimage of deity at work when natural disasters are referred to as &#39;acts of God&#39;in insurancepolicies and the law. But, “if the great central Christian affirmation is indeed that the clueto God&#39;s‘nature and activity’ is the event of Jesus Christ, then it is imperative to see andsay that ‘God is love’ and that God never acts in such a fashion that deity may correctly beregarded as responsible directly or even permissively... for anything and everything thattakes place in creation. God&#39;s nature and God&#39;s activity are always caring and loving,persuading and luring, never sheerly coercive and never imposed arbitrarily on thatcreation.” 18 The corollary of this conviction that God is ‘sheer Love’ is “that creation has itsfreedom, its causative capacity, and its necessary accountability for what occurs in thatfreedom.” 19 In Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II is close to this approach when heasserts that “some threats (to life) come from nature itself,” but does not attribute this forceto divine activity and in fact states that “they are made worse by the culpable indifferenceand negligence of those who could in some cases remedy them.” 20 Pittenger argues that“the world is not some sort of object that God shoves around, intrudes into, andmanipulates. To the contrary, it is there as a given fact with its specific characteristics thatGod respects and with which God deals.” 2117 When Bad Things…, p. 46. 18 Becoming and Belonging, pp. 17-18. 19 Ibid., pp. 18-19. 20 Pope John Paul II. Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 10. 21 Becoming and Belonging, p. 19.&lt;br /&gt;Page 8&lt;br /&gt;If the model of the deity as ‘despotic ruler’ is abandoned in favor of the belief thatthe ‘brief Galilean vision’ is our best intimation of God, then omnipotence, omniscience,and omnipresence must be redefined:Omnipotence is the strength of the divine Love-in-act in a world that...possesses its own independence and freedom. Omniscience means thatLove, God as Love, is all-knowing about what in fact happens and of thevarious possibilities that the creation may actualize --- but without dictatingthem. Omnipresence tells us that the divine love is everywhere and alwayspresent and at work to augment the good, often in very surprising places --aChristian would point especially to a humble human life, to a man born in amanger, and to that same man rejected and put to death, as the place wheresuch active presentness is most clearly seen. 22 Thus Divinity offers the unlimited and constant possibility of love, creativity, andgoodness to a creation which often, but not always, accepts this lure of Love in creativeadvance. But even at the electronic level, ‘decisions’ sometimes bring significant anduntoward results as the relatively new field of chaos theory is now bringing to light. Theprocess of creation has been taking place for billions of years, with evolutionary groping,mistakes, and dead-ends. “Ours is an ‘unfinished world’.... We cannot expect, if that istrue, to find everything perfectly accomplished. On the contrary, what we are bound to findis a continuing work in which the aim is to create something splendid and beautiful -- butthat final end is not achieved.... Christian faith would insist that God is actively engagedand working toward that end, not remote from and unconcerned with what takes place, butgenuinely and vigorously acting toward it and in it with respect for and use of creaturelyfreedom and accountability.” 23 Rabbi Kushner expresses the same ideas in similar words (without the references toChristianity):It may be that Einstein and the book of Genesis are right. A system left toitself may evolve in the direction of randomness. On the other hand, ourworld may not be a system left to itself. There may in fact be a creativeimpulse acting on it, the Spirit of God hovering over the dark waters,operating over the course of the millennia to bring order out of the chaos. Itmay yet come to pass that, as “Friday afternoon” of the world’s evolutionticks toward the Great Sabbath which is the End of Days, the impact orrandom evil will be diminished.Or it may be that God finished His work of creating eons ago, andleft the rest to us. Residual chaos, chance and mischance, things happeningfor no reason, will continue to be with us, the kind of evil that MiltonSteinberg has called “the still unremoved scaffolding of the edifice ofGod’s creativity.” In that case, we will simply have to learn how to live 22 Ibid., p. 20. 23 Ibid., p. 22.&lt;br /&gt;Page 9&lt;br /&gt;with it, sustained and comforted by the knowledge that the earthquake andthe accident, like the murder and the robbery, are not the will of God, butrepresent that aspect of reality which stands independent of His will, andwhich angers and saddens God even as it angers and saddens us. 24 One final reflection of Pittenger on natural evil is important; namely, “that aconsiderable part of ‘natural evil’ is called that only when and as human life is involved.” 25 Thus, the formation of continents, continental drift, volcanic and tectonic activity,glaciation, even the extinction of the dinosaurs are all considered important geologicalevents but not natural evils, unless one of the tectonic events happens to be a contemporaryearthquake which kills thousands of people. In this regard I am reminded of theobservation that we call Dutch elm disease ‘disease’ precisely because we value Dutchelms more than the parasites which feed on them. Otherwise we would say that Dutchelms were ‘fodder’ for these important bacteria. Assessment of ‘physical evil’ is related tothe capacity of human being to create values, even the value of biological life, and then toapply these values to experiences and events. When we experience joy and endure painand suffering, when we dwell in the hope of divine love and creative advance rather than inthe shadow of death, we are celebrating the revelation of the Divine through the humanmanifested in the Incarnation.In that event, with a distinctive clarity, God is seen to be actively present...and thus genuinely a sharer in creaturely existence at our human level. Thisconviction may then be taken as a clue for the reading of all that God does.This God will be seen as a suffering God who shares in the anguish of thecreation yet is not overcome or destroyed by that sharing.... The variousstories that tell of Jesus’ ‘resurrection’... tell us that Love expressed in theworld, sharing the world&#39;s pain, and knowing from ‘inside’ its anguish,cannot be holden of death. 26 Thus, for Pittenger, Christian faith in the face of evil is “a call to action, and part ofthe action is for us to serve as God&#39;sagents in overcoming evil wherever we see it and towork with God and with our fellow humans so that the divine purpose of God for creationmay be more effectively realized.” 27 Rabbi Kushner shares a similar point of view. Although he acknowledges that a‘suffering God’ is central to the Christian belief system, he also holds that the notion of a‘suffering God’, “a God who weeps” 28 is not that foreign to postbiblical Judaism.“I 24 When Bad Things…, pp. 74-75 25 Becoming and Belonging, p. 22. 26 Ibid., p. 26. 27 Ibid., p. 28. 28 When Bad Things…, p. 115.&lt;br /&gt;Page 10&lt;br /&gt;would like to think that the anguish I feel when I read of the sufferings of innocent peoplereflects God’s anguish and God’s compassion, even if His way of feeling pain is differentfrom ours.” 29 In a Chapter entitled “God Can’t Do Everything, But He Can Do Some ImportantThings,” Rabbi Kushner considers the efficacy of prayer in relation to physical evil. Heholds that we cannot pray for the impossible, or the unnatural – he would considerunnatural the attempt to ward off physical evils by means of prayer. “We cannot pray outof a sense of revenge or irresponsibility, asking God to do our work for us.” 30 But prayerdoes put us in touch with others, people who share the same concerns, values, dreams andpains that we do. Ritual brings people together – it is one of the things that religion doesbest! Letting people into our grief when we are afflicted by physical evil is exactly whatwe need. Sharing our concern with others who have suffered is a way of sharing their painand helping them to heal. We go to a religious service not to find God (we can do that inthe privacy of our rooms) but to find a congregation. Kushner quotes a famous storytellerwho once asked his father, “If you don’t believe in God, why do you go to synagogue soregularly?” His father answered, “ Jews go to synagogue for all sorts of reasons. Myfriend Garfinkle, who is Orthodox, goes to talk with God. I go to talk to Garfinkle.” 31 But Rabbi Kushner argues that prayer also puts us in touch with God. When weask God to make us less afraid, by letting us know that He is at our side, whatever the nextday might bring we will be able to handle it because we won’t have to face it alone. “Thatis the kind of prayer that God answers.” “People who pray for courage, for strength to bearthe unbearable, for the grace to remember what they have left instead of what they havelost, very often have their prayers answered.” 32 Kushner holds that the God he believes indoes not send us the problem; he gives us the strength to cope with the problem. Hebelieves that God gives us strength and patience and hope, renewing our spiritual resourceswhen they run dry. “We need only turn to Him, admit that we can’t do this on our own,and understand that bravely bearing up under long-term illness is one of the most human,and one of the most godly, things we can ever do.” 33 Rabbi Kushner summarizes hisreflections thus:How does God make a difference in our lives if he neither kills nor cures?God inspires people to help other people who have been hurt by life, and byhelping them, they protect them from the danger of feeling alone,abandoned, or judged. God makes some people want to become doctorsand nurses, to spend days and nights of self-sacrificing concern with an 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid., pp. 159-160. 31 Ibid., p. 164. 32 Ibid., p. 168 33 Ibid., p. 172.&lt;br /&gt;Page 11&lt;br /&gt;intensity for which no money can compensate, in an effort to sustain lifeand alleviate pain…. Human intelligence has come to understand moreabout the natural laws concerning sanitation, germs, immunization,antibiotics, and has succeeded in eliminating many… scourges. God, whoneither causes nor prevents tragedies, helps by inspiring people to help. 34 In both these men of God, one Jewish and the other Christian, we see a remarkableconvergence of ideas and insights in dealing with the problem of physical evil. Both mendeny that God is the source of evil and use materials from their respective traditions todemonstrate this truth. Both see creation as ongoing, and see Divine activity as bringingorder from chaos, love from strife, life from death. Both see humans as the partners of theDivine in ameliorating the human estate and in comforting those who have been hurt bylife. Both challenge us, each in his own way, ‘to light a candle rather than curse thedarkness.’ 34 Ibid., pp. 187-188.  &lt;span style=&quot;font-style:italic;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://209.85.175.104/search?q=cache:9ageoL2R-dQJ:www.metanexus.net/conference2005/pdf/mccartney.pdf+Norman+Pittenger+articles&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;cd=8&amp;gl=uk&quot;&gt;read &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/span&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/550084179431188839/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=550084179431188839&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/550084179431188839'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/550084179431188839'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/god-and-problem-of-evil-in-process.html' title='God and the Problem of Evil in the Process Theology of W. NormanPittenger and...'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-4616816868335539965</id><published>2008-10-13T22:18:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-13T22:21:06.127-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Norman Pittenger"/><title type='text'>William Norman Pittenger (1905-1997): A Memorial</title><content type='html'>&lt;a href=&quot;http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_199710/ai_n8782625&quot;&gt;Anglican Theological Review&lt;/a&gt;,  Fall 1997  by Belshaw, G P Mellick&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;G.P MELLICK BELSHAW*&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;William Norman Pittenger died in England at the age of ninetytwo on June 19, 1997. Although he had lived most of his life in the United States, since 1966 Cambridge was his home, where he was an Honorary Senior Member of King&#39;s College. A year earlier, while reflecting on his life in his last book, he make the startling announcement that it was his ninetieth published book!&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;No wonder that his obituary in the Independent cited the fact that he was a prolific writer. It is astonishing how many books, articles, and pamphlets he wrote. In 1966, upon his leaving The General Theological Seminary, where he taught for 30 years, his bibliography, in a book of essays in his honor titled Lux in Lumine, lists thirty-six books, and one hundred and forty-six articles, many printed in the ATR, by that date alone.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Norman Pittenger grew up in Princeton, New Jersey, where he was remembered by a former high school teacher as the brightest student she had ever taught. He entered Princeton University but did not graduate, because he was lured to New York to try a career as a newspaper reporter, covering among other things the Lindbergh kidnapping.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;However, newspaper reporting did not satisfy him, and soon he entered The General Theological Seminary, started writing articles for Holy Cross Press, and &quot;never leaving General&quot;-as he used to put it-spent years there as a student, tutor, instructor, and finally professor of Christian Apologetics. But he did leave, and his years in Cambridge turned out to bit a bit longer than in New York.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Obituaries in English newspapers stressed the fact that Norman Pittenger promoted process theology, and remembered him as &quot;the first respectable campaigner for the open acceptance of homosexual relations among Christians&quot;-in the words of the Independent. In his Time for Consent (1969), which sold 10,000 copies in paperback in England, he made his reputation as one of the first Christian thinkers to be widely read and seriously listened to on the subject.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;All who knew him remember his enthusiasm for the ideas of the philosopher A. N. Whitehead, as they were developed by Charles Hartshorne, which emphasized the evolutionary nature of creation. That is obvious to any reader of his major theological work, The Word Incarnate (1959), which revealed his indebtedness to process theology, as he focused on Christology from his liberal Catholic viewpointor, as he would sometimes prefer to say, from his critical Catholic viewpoint.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Of the many things that can be said about Norman Pittenger, for those of us who were his students, what stands out is that he was a great teacher. Possessing a storehouse of information and wisdom about Christian theology, and specifically Anglicanism, he was a demanding but caring teacher. (I remember the first time I opened Lux Mundi in his presence and inquired about the book and its essayists. He proceeded, from memory, to list the contributors in order, pausing in each case to tell me something of their careers!)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;As a Christian apologist, Norman Pittenger never failed to engage the culture in his lectures and writings. Theology was not taught in isolation from the contemporary world or from the history of the times. And to his belief in the sources of authority for Anglicans-scripture, tradition, and reason-he added an emphasis on the witness and proof he found in authentic Christian experience.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;In his lectures, seminars, books, articles, and discussions, he had an extraordinary ability to combine vast knowledge with a personal, oftenn humouous, manner of presenting the subject under consideration. He could stimulate students to think for themselves in ways they never thought possible, as he recognized their potential and celebrated the fact they were created in the image of God. brated the fact they were created in the image of God.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;At his funeral, a few lines from John Donne were read, appropriately:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Bring us, O Lord God, at our last awakening into the house and gate of heaven, to enter into that gate and dwell in that house, where there shall be no darkness nor dazzling but one equal light, no noise nor silence but one equal music, no fears nor hopes but one equal possession, no ends nor beginnings but one equal eternity, in the habitations of thy majesty and thy glory, world without end-Amen.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;For his life and work all who know him and loved him as a teacher and friend can give thanks.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;* G. P. M. Belshaw was Bishop of New Jersey until his retirement. He was a student of W. N. Pittenger at The General Theological Seminary.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Copyright Anglican Theological Review, Inc. Fall 1997&lt;br /&gt;Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved&lt;br /&gt;Belshaw, G P Mellick &quot;William Norman Pittenger (1905-1997): A Memorial&quot;. Anglican Theological Review. . FindArticles.com. 13 Oct. 2008. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3818/is_199710/ai_n8782625</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/4616816868335539965/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=4616816868335539965&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4616816868335539965'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4616816868335539965'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/william-norman-pittenger-1905-1997.html' title='William Norman Pittenger (1905-1997): A Memorial'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-4682188236508774481</id><published>2008-10-13T22:16:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-13T22:30:43.319-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Norman Pittenger"/><title type='text'>Norman Pittenger</title><content type='html'>1. Wikipedia article &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Pittenger&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;&quot;&gt;Norman Pittenger&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;2.&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mail-archive.com/mythfolk@yahoogroups.com/msg00139.html&quot;&gt;THE &quot;COSMIC CHRISTIANITY&quot; OF W. NORMAN PITTENGER &lt;/a&gt; by T. Peter Park&lt;br /&gt;3. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2212&quot;&gt;Pittenger on Whitehead full book in religion on line&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/4682188236508774481/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=4682188236508774481&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4682188236508774481'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4682188236508774481'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/norman-pittenger.html' title='Norman Pittenger'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-3528776382540373927</id><published>2008-10-13T20:39:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-13T20:41:02.035-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Bonhoeffer"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Paulose Mar Paulose"/><title type='text'>Encounter in Humanization</title><content type='html'>: Insights for Christian-Marxist Dialogue and Cooperation by Paulose Mar Paulose  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=1572&amp;C=1514&quot;&gt;religion online&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/3528776382540373927/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=3528776382540373927&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/3528776382540373927'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/3528776382540373927'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/encounter-in-humanization.html' title='Encounter in Humanization'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-3991199902161223511</id><published>2008-10-13T20:35:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-13T20:36:55.240-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Bonhoeffer"/><title type='text'>a feminist reading of Bonhoeffer&#39;s Christology  by Lisa E. Dahill</title><content type='html'>Jesus for you: a feminist reading of Bonhoeffer&#39;s Christology&lt;br /&gt;Currents in Theology and Mission,  August, 2007  by Lisa E. Dahill&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;...........&lt;br /&gt;Self and other&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Various scholars have commented on the striking other-orientation in Bonhoeffer, finding it a salutary Christian alternative to the self-indulgent pieties of American consumerism and privilege, and locating him within a developing tradition of philosophical alterity manifest also in such thinkers as Adorno and Levinas (3) as well as in subsequent liberation theology. (4) From the beginning of his writings Bonhoeffer identifies the &quot;other&quot; (whether divine or human) as the experienced locus of transcendence, drawing a person&#39;s attention away from one&#39;s own self as &quot;totally claimless,&quot; sterile, and isolated to find authentic life and reality in surrender to the &quot;absolute demands&quot; of the other. (5) From the philosophical categories of Sanctorum Communio, through the powerfully enacted surrender to Christ in Discipleship and to the human other in confession and service in community (Life Together), he continued to develop this motif of the priority of the other over the self for Christian maturity. And at the end of his life, even as he was beginning to notice problems with this &quot;unconditional surrender&quot; of self to other, nevertheless the dominant tone of his writings in this regard is still that of the sheer joy and freedom he experiences in radical self-surrender, a process simultaneously sacrificial and redemptive. That is, in one&#39;s own becoming a &quot;person for others&quot; one participates in the very being and mystery of Jesus Christ himself, the consummate person for others. Thus for him&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;a transformation of all human life is given in the fact that &quot;Jesus is&lt;br /&gt;there only for others.&quot; His &quot;being there for others&quot; is the experience&lt;br /&gt;of transcendence. It is only this &quot;being there for others,&quot; maintained&lt;br /&gt;until death, that is the ground of his omnipotence, omniscience, and&lt;br /&gt;omnipresence. Faith is participation in this being of Jesus&lt;br /&gt;(incarnation, cross, and resurrection). Our relation to God is not a&lt;br /&gt;&quot;religious&quot; relationship to the highest, most powerful, and best Being&lt;br /&gt;imaginable--that is not authentic transcendence--but our relation to God&lt;br /&gt;is a new life in &quot;existence for others,&quot; through participation in the&lt;br /&gt;being of Jesus. (6) &lt;a href=&quot;http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0MDO/is_/ai_n21026729&quot;&gt; read it all&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/3991199902161223511/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=3991199902161223511&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/3991199902161223511'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/3991199902161223511'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/feminist-reading-of-bonhoeffers.html' title='a feminist reading of Bonhoeffer&#39;s Christology  by Lisa E. Dahill'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-6283589969695057275</id><published>2008-10-13T20:28:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-10-13T20:35:20.860-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Bonhoeffer"/><title type='text'>Theology Reader: Bonhoeffer&#39;s Christology</title><content type='html'>&lt;a href=&quot;http://jtlth.blogspot.com/2008/10/bonhoeffers-christology.html#links&quot;&gt;Theology Reader: Bonhoeffer&amp;#39;s Christology&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2737&quot;&gt;Dietrich Bonhoeffer by Dallas M. Roark&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/6283589969695057275/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=6283589969695057275&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/6283589969695057275'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/6283589969695057275'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/10/theology-reader-bonhoeffers-christology.html' title='Theology Reader: Bonhoeffer&#39;s Christology'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-4110011774119546159</id><published>2008-09-23T08:53:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-09-23T08:56:01.115-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Nominalism"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="William of Ockham"/><title type='text'>William of Ockham - Nominalism</title><content type='html'>&lt;span class=&quot;Apple-style-span&quot; style=&quot;-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family: Arial; font-size: 13px; white-space: pre;&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.medievalchurch.org.uk/p_williamockham.php&quot;&gt;William of Ockham - Nominalism&amp;nbsp;&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/4110011774119546159/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=4110011774119546159&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4110011774119546159'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4110011774119546159'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/09/william-of-ockham-nominalism.html' title='William of Ockham - Nominalism'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-4191249015097196950</id><published>2008-08-25T17:29:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-25T17:31:32.533-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Kahlil Gibran"/><title type='text'>Kahlil Gibran on Jesu sthe Son of Man</title><content type='html'>&lt;div align=&quot;center&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thenazareneway.com/Kahlil%20Gibran/index_jesus_the_son_of_man.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color: maroon; font-size: x-large;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;Jesus the Son of Man&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  67. &lt;i&gt;His Words and His Deeds As Told and Recorded by Those Who Knew Him&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  68. &lt;span style=&quot;font-size: medium;&quot;&gt;by Kahlil Gibran &lt;br /&gt;
  69. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/4191249015097196950/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=4191249015097196950&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4191249015097196950'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4191249015097196950'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/kahlil-gibran-on-jesu-sthe-son-of-man.html' title='Kahlil Gibran on Jesu sthe Son of Man'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-3549395372117728678</id><published>2008-08-25T01:15:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-25T01:15:14.975-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Theology Reader: Medieval Theology Resources</title><content type='html'>&lt;a href=&quot;http://jacobalthanni.blogspot.com/2008/08/medieval-theology-resources.html#links&quot;&gt;Theology Reader: Medieval Theology Resources&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/3549395372117728678/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=3549395372117728678&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/3549395372117728678'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/3549395372117728678'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/theology-reader-medieval-theology_25.html' title='Theology Reader: Medieval Theology Resources'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-8533012932820924987</id><published>2008-08-24T23:58:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-24T23:58:39.442-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Theology Reader: Medieval Theology Resources</title><content type='html'>&lt;a href=&quot;http://jacobalthanni.blogspot.com/2008/08/medieval-theology-resources.html#links&quot;&gt;Theology Reader: Medieval Theology Resources&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/8533012932820924987/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=8533012932820924987&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/8533012932820924987'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/8533012932820924987'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/theology-reader-medieval-theology.html' title='Theology Reader: Medieval Theology Resources'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-7288305255934487670</id><published>2008-08-20T19:02:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-20T19:04:22.538-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="atonement critique"/><title type='text'>Atonement theories  A Critique</title><content type='html'>There is no truth of the holy Scriptures that has not been perverted by man, and this is especially true of the doctrine now before us, and these perversions of it are accepted as true in many religious denominations of this day. Modernism, as might be expected, is especially prominent in the advocacy of the perverted forms of the atonement. We believe that the chief cause of most of the erroneous theories of the atonement is man’s unwillingness to recognize and admit what God declares of his sinfulness.&lt;br /&gt;
  70. &lt;br /&gt;
  71.    The meaning of the atonement is that God could not give himself to man in such a way as to disregard moral conditions and obligations. The integrity of God’s character and of his moral government of the world must be sustained even at infinite cost to himself. He could not give himself to man, nor could he receive man into his favor without regard to moral conditions. Hence before man can be received and forgiven, he must confess and repudiate his sins. —W. T. Connor, Christian Doctrines, p. 99. Broadman Press, Nashville, Tennessee, 1949.&lt;br /&gt;
  72. &lt;br /&gt;
  73. This last sentence in this quotation lies, we believe, at the root of every false theory of the atonement, for man, being unwilling to confess and repudiate his sinfulness, is constrained to formulate a theory of the atonement which will allow him to maintain his pride and self-sufficiency, while giving the appearance of being biblical in his beliefs on this great doctrine.&lt;br /&gt;
  74. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.pbministries.org/Theology/Davis%20Huckabee/To%20Studies%20In%20Strong%20Doctrine/strong_doctrine_06_section_5.htm&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  75. Read more &lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/7288305255934487670/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=7288305255934487670&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/7288305255934487670'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/7288305255934487670'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/atonement-theories-critique.html' title='Atonement theories  A Critique'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-4538757204001362516</id><published>2008-08-19T01:47:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-19T01:47:25.118-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Theology Reader: Greek patristic foundations for a theological anthropology of women in their distinctiveness as human beings</title><content type='html'>&lt;a href=&quot;http://jacobalthanni.blogspot.com/2008/06/greek-patristic-foundations-for.html&quot;&gt;Theology Reader: Greek patristic foundations for a theological anthropology of women in their distinctiveness as human beings&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/4538757204001362516/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=4538757204001362516&amp;isPopup=true' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4538757204001362516'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/4538757204001362516'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/theology-reader-greek-patristic.html' title='Theology Reader: Greek patristic foundations for a theological anthropology of women in their distinctiveness as human beings'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-6353363650219758693</id><published>2008-08-19T01:46:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-19T01:46:31.817-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Theology Reader: . THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA</title><content type='html'>&lt;a href=&quot;http://jacobalthanni.blogspot.com/2008/06/school-of-alexandria.html#links&quot;&gt;Theology Reader: . THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/6353363650219758693/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=6353363650219758693&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/6353363650219758693'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/6353363650219758693'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/theology-reader-school-of-alexandria.html' title='Theology Reader: . THE SCHOOL OF ALEXANDRIA'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-5556437135206373684</id><published>2008-08-19T01:43:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-19T01:43:41.464-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Theology Reader: J. I. PACKER:The Logic of Penal Substitution</title><content type='html'>&lt;a href=&quot;http://jacobalthanni.blogspot.com/2008/07/j-i-packerthe-logic-of-penal.html#links&quot;&gt;Theology Reader: J. I. PACKER:The Logic of Penal Substitution&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/5556437135206373684/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=5556437135206373684&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/5556437135206373684'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/5556437135206373684'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/theology-reader-j-i-packerthe-logic-of.html' title='Theology Reader: J. I. PACKER:The Logic of Penal Substitution'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-5259112148786904610</id><published>2008-08-18T19:13:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-18T19:19:29.552-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Limited Atonement"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Reformed Faith"/><title type='text'>The Reformed faith and Limited Atonement</title><content type='html'>The Reformed faith maintains, on the basis of Scripture, that the death of Christ was limited vicarious atonement. That is, Christ atoned as a substitute not for all and every man, but for His elect people alone.&lt;br /&gt;
  76. &lt;br /&gt;
  77. The term atonement occurs sometimes in our King James Version where it could better be translated either by &quot;reconciliation&quot; or by &quot;propitiation, covering.&quot; The terms limited and atonement are simply dogmatic terms which have grown up in the church&#39;s vocabulary and which are used to describe briefly a thoroughly Scriptural and confessional concept. The term atonement covers such confessional terms as redemption, redeem, purchase, satisfy, propitiatory sacrifice, etc. And it covers such Scriptural terms as reconciliation, propitiation, ransom, purchase, etc. It simply looks at all these various Scriptural and confessional terms from a very basic point of view, a point of view which as far as the term is concerned is closely related to the idea of reconciliation. Atonement is really in its root idea at-one-ment. It refers to the fact that through the death of Christ God wrought reconciliation.&lt;br /&gt;
  78. &lt;br /&gt;
  79. The doctrine of limited atonement is the Reformed doctrine concerning the death of Christ and the redemption of men thereby (as Canons II puts it in its title) as it was officially set forth over against the Arminian heresy of general, or universal, atonement. &lt;br /&gt;
  80. &lt;br /&gt;
  81. I want to point out by way of introduction, first of all, that it is in this truth of limited atonement that the doctrine of sovereign election (and, in fact, sovereign predestination with its two aspects of election and reprobation) comes into focus. The cross is the objective realization and revelation of God&#39;s predestinating purpose. That revelation of God&#39;s sovereign predestination in the cross is painted upon the background of the reality of man&#39;s total depravity, of man&#39;s totally, hopelessly lost estate by nature. On the other hand, there is in the cross the focal point of the whole of the truth of salvation by grace as far as the irresistible calling and the preservation and the glorification of the saints are concerned, - from this point of view, that it is in the cross and the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ, that centrally and objectively all of the salvation of God&#39;s people, as it is actually realized in their hearts and lives, is concentrated. It is in the atonement that we have the guarantee, the absolutely certain guarantee, of the calling and of the preservation and of the final glorification of God&#39;s people. Salvation by sovereign grace is a closed system, - closed to any work and any boasting of man. It is from beginning to end the work of God alone. It is the realization of that which is set forth in Romans 8:29, 30 in the well-known words: &quot;For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.&quot; What according to God&#39;s counsel was fixed and finished from all eternity, from before the foundation of the world, is realized and revealed in time.&lt;br /&gt;
  82. &lt;br /&gt;
  83. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.prca.org/fivepoints/chapter3.html&quot;&gt;Read it in full&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/5259112148786904610/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=5259112148786904610&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/5259112148786904610'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/5259112148786904610'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/reformed-faith-and-limited-atonement.html' title='The Reformed faith and Limited Atonement'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-2302094126187244729</id><published>2008-08-18T17:31:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-18T17:55:50.690-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="atonement"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="Calvin"/><title type='text'>Meaning of the death of Christ : Research resources</title><content type='html'>Here is what Calvin says about Christ&#39;s death.&lt;br /&gt;
  84. &lt;br /&gt;
  85. John Calvin:&lt;br /&gt;
  86. &lt;br /&gt;
  87. With my whole soul I embrace the mercy which he has exercised towards me through Jesus Christ, atoning for my sins with the merits of his death and passion, that in this way he might satisfy for all my crimes and faults, and blot them from his remembrance. I testify also and declare, that I suppliantly beg of Him that he may be pleased so to wash and purify me in the blood which my Sovereign Redeemer has shed for the sins of the human race, that under his shadow I may be able to stand at the judgment-seat. I likewise declare that, according to the measure of grace and goodness which the Lord hath employed towards me I have endeavored, both in my sermons and also in my writings and commentaries, to preach His Word purely and chastely, and faithfully to interpret His sacred Scriptures. I also testify and declare, that, in all the contentions and disputations in which I have been engaged with the enemies of the Gospel, I have used no impostures, no wicked and sophistical devices, but have acted candidly and sincerely in defending the truth. &quot;Last Will and Testament.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;
  88. &lt;br /&gt;
  89. &lt;a href=&quot;http://calvinandcalvinism.com/?page_id=214&quot;&gt;Here is rich resource for research on the meaning of the death of Christ &lt;br /&gt;
  90. &lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
  91. &lt;br /&gt;
  92. &lt;a href=&quot;http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Calvin_and_Calvinism/&quot;&gt;Also see yahoo groups on Calvin and Calvinism&lt;/a&gt;</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/2302094126187244729/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=2302094126187244729&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/2302094126187244729'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/2302094126187244729'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/meaning-of-death-of-christ-research.html' title='Meaning of the death of Christ : Research resources'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-9145865407039659379</id><published>2008-08-11T18:35:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-13T16:51:00.722-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="atonement"/><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="theories"/><title type='text'>Atonement Theories</title><content type='html'>The Ransom Theory -- God deceitfully bribes and tricks Satan:&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This was the dominant belief in the early Christian church. It has also been called the &quot;Classic&quot; theory of the atonement. It was accepted by church leaders for about a millennium, from the second to the twelfth century CE. There are very few theologians outside of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Protestant Word-faith Movement who believe in it today. 1 However, one might argue that this concept may be the most accurate theory of all, because it was accepted by Christian leaders within two centuries after Yeshua&#39;s (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) and Paul&#39;s death. This happened when memories of their teachings were still relatively fresh.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone7.htm&quot;&gt;Read it all here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone8.htm&quot;&gt;Satisfaction theory: Jesus appeases God via a ritual human sacrifice:&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Roman Catholic Church teaches this theory of the atonement (or a variation on it), as do most Protestant denominations. However the Catholic Church does not raise the theory to the level of dogma.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This theory is grounded in the concept of personal honor found in the European feudal culture. During the Middle Ages, a serf had to honor both God and the feudal lord who controlled his/her life and land. Human sin dishonors God. A price must be paid to satisfy God and restore his divine honor. The only penalty suitable to God was Christ&#39;s obedience when he willingly suffered torture and death at his crucifixion. 8&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The satisfaction theory is related to the ancient Hebrew ritual sacrifice of animals at the altar of the Jerusalem Temple. Such sacrifices were made in the centuries before Yeshua&#39;s (a.k.a. Jesus Christ&#39;s) birth, during his lifetime, and only ended with the destruction of the temple and much of the rest of Jerusalem by the Roman Army in 70 CE. By allowing himself to be ritually sacrificed, Yeshua&#39;s death replicated in many ways the ritual sacrifice of animals were slaughtered in the Temple.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone8.htm&quot;&gt;Read it all here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;--------------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Moral Theory&lt;br /&gt;(a.k.a. Moral Influence Theory)&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Moral Theory was first fully developed in the writings of Peter Abelard (1079 - 1142) in the 12th century CE. 2 Abelard was an French abbot, theologian and philosopher. His birth surname was du Pallet; he took the nickname Abelard while in college. He had a rather interesting private life. Abelard fell in love with a woman whose uncle-guardian owned the house where he was boarding. After she became pregnant, they were secretly married. But in order to keep his job and professorship at Notre Dame Cathedral, he was forced to pretend that he was still single and celibate. The uncle became convinced that they were not married, that he had ruined her reputation, and that he was preparing to abandon her. The uncle hired some thugs to seize Abelard and castrate him. He recovered, but his wife, Heloise, went into a convent and became a nun. Later she became an abbess. After an unsuccessful experience as a monk, he returned to teaching.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read it all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone11.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;---------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Penal Theory&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Penal Theory is a modification of Anselem&#39;s Satisfaction Theory. He had based the latter from the feudal culture in which he lived. In his era, human sin was seen as an insult to God&#39;s honor that he cannot simply overlook. Just as an insult by a serf against the honor of his lord demanded satisfaction, God also required compensation for the dishonor created by human sin. The only suitable action to offset the dishonor was the death of a perfectly sinless god-man who represented all of humanity.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Criticisms&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;table border=&quot;0&quot; cellpadding=&quot;0&quot; cellspacing=&quot;0&quot; width=&quot;100%&quot;&gt;&lt;tbody&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;baseline&quot; width=&quot;42&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif&quot; alt=&quot;bullet&quot; height=&quot;15&quot; hspace=&quot;13&quot; width=&quot;15&quot; /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; width=&quot;100%&quot;&gt;&lt;!--mstheme--&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:Trebuchet MS;&quot;&gt;One of Jesus&#39; main messages was that we must   love our enemies, forgive those who injure us, and overcome evil with good.   These teachings appear to be totally opposite to God&#39;s demand for blood and   a torture death of an innocent man. &lt;/span&gt;Fr. John Mabry views the Penal Theory as &quot;&lt;i&gt;..an oppressive theology,  and inauthentic in light of Jesus&#39; teaching.&lt;/i&gt;&quot; He asks: &quot;&lt;i&gt;how can a God  who in Jesus told us that we were never to exact vengeance, that we were to  forgive each other perpetually without retribution, demand of us behavior  that God &#39;himself&#39; is unwilling or unable to perform?...why can God not  simply forgive as we are instructed to do, rather than mandating that some  &#39;innocent and spotless victim&#39; bear the brunt of &#39;his&#39; reservoir of wrath?  The ability of humans to do this when God will not or cannot logically casts  humanity as God&#39;s moral superior. This is of course absurd!&lt;/i&gt;&quot; &lt;sub&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;!--mstheme--&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!--msthemelist--&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;  &lt;!--msthemelist--&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;baseline&quot; width=&quot;42&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif&quot; alt=&quot;bullet&quot; height=&quot;15&quot; hspace=&quot;13&quot; width=&quot;15&quot; /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; width=&quot;100%&quot;&gt;&lt;!--mstheme--&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica;&quot;&gt;Presumably, the &lt;i&gt;Penal Theory&lt;/i&gt; would require that any new human sins committed after Yeshua&#39;s execution would  also have to be punished. They would necessitate the ritual sacrifice of a second God-Man.  Thus, multiple incarnations and executions would be required over the  millennia of human history since the first century &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/ce.htm&quot;&gt;CE&lt;/a&gt;. An  indefinite number of human sacrifices might eventually be required.&lt;!--mstheme--&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;!--msthemelist--&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;  &lt;!--msthemelist--&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;baseline&quot; width=&quot;42&quot;&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/_themes/topo/topbul1d.gif&quot; alt=&quot;bullet&quot; height=&quot;15&quot; hspace=&quot;13&quot; width=&quot;15&quot; /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td valign=&quot;top&quot; width=&quot;100%&quot;&gt;&lt;!--mstheme--&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:trebuchet ms,arial,helvetica;&quot;&gt;It seems logical that if the death of Yeshua satisfied God&#39;s need for  justice, and if humans made no contribution to the process, then salvation and  atonement should be granted to everyone -- to Christian believers and  unbelievers alike. It is unclear why  only those individuals who trust  Yeshua as Lord and Savior will attains &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/salvatio.htm&quot;&gt;salvation&lt;/a&gt;, atonement,  and &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/heav_hel.htm&quot;&gt;Heaven&lt;/a&gt;. To send those who have not trusted  Yeshua to Hell for eternal punishment is to penalize a person for committing  a thought crime -- a despicable act in today&#39;s world.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read it all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone10.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-----------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Paul Enns&lt;/span&gt;: Various theories of atonement&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Throughout church history several different views or theories of the atonement, some true and some false, have been put forth at different times by different individuals or denominations. One of the reasons for this is that both the Old and New Testaments reveal many truths about Christ’s atonement, so it is hard, if not impossible, to find any single “theory” that fully encapsulates or explains the richness of this doctrine.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read it all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/atonement-theories.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;------------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;John Piper&lt;/span&gt; :substitutionary atonement&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Answer: The “substitutionary atonement” refers to the fact that Jesus Christ died on behalf of all sinners. The Scriptures teach that all men are sinners (read Romans 3:9-18 and Romans 3:23). The penalty for our sinfulness is death. Romans 6:23 reads, “For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read it all&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gotquestions.org/substitutionary-atonement.html&quot;&gt;&lt;br /&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Mark M. Mattison&lt;/span&gt;: Meaning of atonement&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Yet another is the Arminian &quot;Rectoral&quot; or &quot;Governmental&quot; theory, most prominent within Wesleyan churches (particularly the Church of the Nazarene). This theory is an attempt to take the Socinian critique seriously while not fully discarding Penal Substitution. It rejects full substitution, characterizing Christ&#39;s death as a &quot;partial payment&quot; instead. This theory also emphasizes sacrifice and Atonement as a precondition to forgiveness, not the direct cause of forgiveness. Some Arminians combined this with the Socinian approach by emphasizing Atonement as sacrifice without trying to explain the mechanics of sacrifice.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read it all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.auburn.edu/%7Eallenkc/openhse/atonement.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;----------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Anselm&lt;/span&gt; :Satisfaction Theory&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The eleventh-century scholar Saint Anselm didn&#39;t like the Ransom Theory. He believed that an outlaw like the Devil had no right to exert power over humankind, and therefore God didn&#39;t need to pay him anything for our release.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;To replace the Ransom Theory, Anselm put forward another explanation known as the Satisfaction Theory (or Debt Theory). According to this theory, humankind owes a debt to God because we dishonored him through our disobedience and sin. But his pride, as well as universal justice, prevents him from simply forgiving us. To resolve the matter, Jesus volunteered to pay our debt for us by suffering and dying on the cross. God accepted this act of love as a full atonement, and thus satisfied, he then forgave us and offered us salvation.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read it all &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/atonement.html&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;---------------------------------------&lt;br /&gt;The Anthropology of René Girard and Traditional Doctrines of Atonement&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Girard&#39;s  entire work is dedicated to helping theologians with a theology of the cross by offering an &lt;a href=&quot;http://girardianlectionary.net/girard-a_bib.htm#obl&quot;&gt;anthropology of the cross&lt;/a&gt;. For him  anthropology aids the work of theologians.  He makes use of  &lt;a href=&quot;http://humanities.uchicago.edu/faculty/mitchell/glossary2004/mimesis.htm&quot;&gt;mimetic&lt;/a&gt; theory&#39;s fundamental distinction between myth and Gospel. Both involve stories foundational to culture, but myth is from the perspective of the perpetrators of founding violence and Gospel is from the perspective of the victims. &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;The Resurrection of Christ represents the permanent establishment of the victim&#39;s perspective in history.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;Girard: &quot;It is easier than in the past to observe collective transferences upon a scapegoat because they are no longer sanctioned and concealed by religion. And yet it is still difficult because the individuals addicted to them do everything they can to conceal their scapegoating from themselves, and as a general rule they succeed. Today as in the past, to have a scapegoat is to believe one doesn&#39;t have any.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;b&gt;James Alison&lt;/b&gt;, &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://girardianlectionary.net/girard-a_bib.htm#obl&quot;&gt;On Being Liked&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/i&gt;,&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;It seems to me that one of the things that we are still flailing about looking for in the aftermath of the Second Vatican Council &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;is an account of our salvation which makes sense to us&lt;/span&gt;. The old default account, common to both Catholic and Protestant &quot;orthodoxy&quot; was some variation on the &quot;substitionary theory of the atonement.&quot; That is, some version of a tale in which Jesus died for us, instead of us who really deserved it, so as to pay a bill for sin that we could not pay, but for whose settlement God himself immutably demanded payment. Not only does this not make sense, but it is scandalous in a variety of ways. &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;It has been one of the principal merits of the thought of René Girard that at last it is enabling us to scrabble towards a new account of how we are being saved which is free from the long shadow of pagan sacrificial attitudes and practice&lt;/span&gt;. ... The real question is: how can we understand anew that Jesus is the Incarnate Word of God, come among us, undergoing murder and rising again so that we can be unbound from our sin and enabled to live for ever. This is what I begin to re-imagine in chapter 3 by trying &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;to find a non-resentful understanding of forgiveness&lt;/span&gt;, and it leads to what has been for me a hugely difficult&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt; imaginative shift: that of seeing &quot;God wanting us to share in the act of creation from the inside&quot; rather than &quot;God dealing with sin&quot; as being the central axis of the Christian story.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;b&gt;Mark Heim&lt;/b&gt;, &lt;i&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0802832156/girardianreflect&quot;&gt;Saved from Sacrifice&lt;/a&gt;: A Theology of the Cross&lt;/i&gt; [Eerdmans, forthcoming Summer 2006]. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.eerdmans.com/shop/product.asp?p_key=0802832156&quot;&gt;Eerdmans webpage&lt;/a&gt; on this book says, &quot;In order to highlight the dimensions of his argument, Heim carefully and critically draws on the groundbreaking work of French theorist and biblical scholar René Girard. Yet Heim goes beyond Girard to develop a comprehensive theology of the atonement and the cross through his fresh readings of well-known biblical passages and his exploration of the place of the victim.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Read it all &lt;a href=&quot;http://girardianlectionary.net/res/atonement_webpage.htm&quot;&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-----------------------------&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;-------------------------------------------------</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/9145865407039659379/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=9145865407039659379&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/9145865407039659379'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/9145865407039659379'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/arious-atonement-theories.html' title='Atonement Theories'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-6375630921904554392</id><published>2008-08-11T18:20:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-11T18:24:18.543-07:00</updated><title type='text'>Various Atonement Theories</title><content type='html'>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm&quot;&gt;Various Christian theories of the Atonement&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br /&gt;http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_atone5.htm</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/6375630921904554392/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=6375630921904554392&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/6375630921904554392'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/6375630921904554392'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/08/various-atonement-theories.html' title='Various Atonement Theories'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-86717957357886306</id><published>2008-06-22T23:46:00.001-07:00</published><updated>2008-06-30T07:52:47.581-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="atonement"/><title type='text'>Atonement, Christology and the Trinity: Making Sense of Christian Doctrine, By Vincent Brummer</title><content type='html'>Atonement, Christology and the Trinity: Making Sense of Christian Doctrine, By Vincent Brummer. Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing Company 2005. Pages, 125. Paper, $29.95. ISBN 0-7546-5230-0.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Review of: Brümmer, Vincent. Atonement, Christology and the Trinity. 134 p. Aldershot : Ashgate, 2005&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Book Reviews 283&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt; In Atonement, Christology and the Trinity, Vincent Brummer, professor for philosophy of religion at the University of Utrecht, proposes an interpersonal&lt;br /&gt;view of God and Jesus Christ. He contends (chapter one) that the church&#39;s ancient doctrines are no longer readily intelligible because of their &quot;Platonic categories,&quot; and that they should be re-formulated in existential or personalist categories. His starting point (chapter two) is a theological anthropology that highlights the human aspirations to fulfill one&#39;s self, to enter into communion with others, and to become united with God. But (chapter three) these primary desires are frustrated by factors that are inherent in human beings, their societies, and their physical circumstances. This struggle between humanity&#39;s deepest longings and its frustrations is the result of our estrangement from God. In order to move toward wholeness, people must open themselves to God&#39;s grace. When they do, they find that God is intent on healing the alienation in human life, and, in response to God, men and women can undergo a change of heart and mind that re-orients them toward God, self, and neighbor. This dynamism of divine forgiveness and human repentance constitutes &quot;the matrix of faith&quot; (p. 60) which exists at the heart of Christianity. According to Brummer (chapter seven), because this matrix or movement also operates in Judaism and Islam, it can serve as the common ground for interreligious dialogue among the Abrahamic religions. In Brümmer&#39;s judgment (chapter four), the Christian conviction that God extends forgiveness to all people should anchor Christian reflection on God&#39;s saving work in Jesus Christ. Indeed, this conviction calls into question theologies that speak of Jesus Christ paying humanity&#39;s debt to God, or propitiating God&#39;s anger, or becoming the sacrifice that satisfies God. Christians must remember that God &quot;would rather suffer at our hands than to turn his back on us&quot; (p. 78). This soteriological idea leads to a christological one (chapter 5): Jesus Christ is the revealer of God&#39;s love for us and also of our most appropriate response to God. Hence, &quot;we are called upon to identify in love with the will of God in the way [Jesus] did and thus to emulate his moral and spiritual perfection within the limits of our own finitude and historical situation&quot; (p. 92). This view of Christ shows (chapter six) that salvation in Jesus Christ is trinitarian;&quot;the creating&lt;br /&gt;and sustaining Father, the revealing Son and the inspiring Spirit are . . . &#39;three basic types of action&#39; in which [God] manifests his true self in relation to us&quot; (p. 109). Atonement, Christology and the Trinity is a succinct, overarching account of the central doctrines of Christian faith. It is shaped by the claim that &quot;religious beliefs are always existential in the sense that they are directly connected with the ways in which we relate to God, in the actions and attitudes in which we respond to God and to the ways in which God relates to us&quot; (p. 65). This book combines the wisdom of Augustine of Hippo, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Denis (the Areopagite), the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre, the philosophical ideas of John Macmurray and P. F. Strawson, and the theologies of John Calvin, Karl Barth, Austen Fairer, Sally McFague, Cornelius Plantinga, and Maurice Wiles. However, it does Book Reviews 284&lt;br /&gt;not delve into the Patristic motifs of Christ&#39;s &quot;ransoming&quot; us from Satan and being &quot;victorious over&quot; Satan. Unfortunately, it conflates Anselm&#39;s &quot;satisfaction theory&quot; of atonement with Calvin&#39;s &quot;theory of penal substitution.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;Although the book lacks a discussion of Abelard&#39;s sacramental view of salvation, it proposes a soteriology similar to Abelard&#39;s: that Jesus&#39; life, death, and resurrection reveal and impart God&#39;s grace to the human family. This constructive work shows the resources, challenges, and insights available to theology in heritage of John Calvin. University of Notre Dame &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Robert A. Krieg Notre Dame, Indiana Directory on Popular Piety and the Liturgy: Principles and Guidelines: A Commentary.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/86717957357886306/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=86717957357886306&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/86717957357886306'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/86717957357886306'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/06/atonement-christology-and-trinity.html' title='Atonement, Christology and the Trinity: Making Sense of Christian Doctrine, By Vincent Brummer'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-6537095865531431593</id><published>2008-06-22T23:40:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-13T17:49:47.582-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="christology"/><title type='text'>Vítor Westhelle&#39;s The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross Reviewed by Mark W. Thomsen</title><content type='html'>A Book Worth Discussing: Vítor Westhelle&#39;s The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross Mark W. Thomsen Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross. By Vítor Westhelle. Minneapolis: Fortress. 2006. xii and 180 pages. Paper. S22.00.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Currents in Theology and Mission 34 no 4 Ag 2007, p 282-286.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Vítor Westhelle&#39;s The Scandalous God might be entitled &quot;Reflections from the Abyss.&quot; His text is a series of profound reflections upon life marked by absurdity, pain, suffering, horror, meaninglessness. the experience of chaos, and the abyss. For Westhelle the Cross is the lived reality of hell and darkness. Furthermore, he incisively describes how Christians continually&lt;br /&gt;hide. deny, and decorate the reality of the Cross, the abyss. Westhelle will not allow his readers to escape the Cross. But, he argues, life is not only the abyss. There are also unexpected signs of light and life within the darkness. These surprising events of hope are only to be found in the midst of the abyss when people live out expressions of love in the shadow of the Cross. For Westhelle the theology of the Cross is not a theological articulation of some objective truth. Rather &quot;it is a practice [a journey] of solidarity with the pain of the world, which follows the encounter with Christ Crucified&quot; (p. 112). One does not read Westhelle&#39;s text; one meditates, is challenged and blessed.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Westhelle&#39;s primary perspective &lt;/span&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Theologies of the Cross begin from a variety of experiential and theological perspectives. The most dominant perspective within our Christian communities is rooted in a medieval world in which royalty was to be given due respect. If the laws of the realm were violated—if, for example, a king&#39;s deer was illegally killed and eaten by a poverty-ridden family—royalty was offended and the realm dishonored. The &quot;world&quot; had been thrown out of joint by the offense. The balance of justice had to be restored and the king&#39;s wrath assuaged. The violator in some way had to pay the price so that royalty&#39;s honor might be restored.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;This is often called the Anselmian perspective. Mel Gibson&#39;s Passion film portrayed in bloody horror the price that had to be paid for human violation of God&quot; s cosmic law. We have sinned; a price had to be paid: we are incapable of paying such a price. However, through the suffering of God&#39;s Son God pays the ultimate sacrifice, and by his stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53). Martin Luther, although accepting a portion of this medieval tradition, dramatically changed the perspective from which one could see the death of Jesus. Luther found this new radical perspective in the apostle Paul. Faith did not only contemplate the Cross of Jesus as an objective reality, but the believer in faith personally entered the reality of death and resurrection (Rom 6:1-6). One dies to sin and rises to life in the Spirit. We are all sinners. Sin is that which throws the world out of joint.&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt; For Luther sin is being centered in self rather than in God&lt;/span&gt;. When the axis of life moves from God to our own desires, the world begins to shake. Salvation for Luther takes place when the obsessive self is put to death and God performs a contemporary resurrection.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Through the power of the Spirit we are raised as new creations—people who in trust live with God as the center of life. Luther emphasizes that this work is God&#39;s work and is a free gift received in faith. We are right with God—justified—by God&#39;s grace through faith. Being a theologian of the Cross, for Luther, is not a quiet, academic study of Jesus crucified. Rather it is experiencing the wrath of God burning through our guilt against our sin. In angst one&#39;s pride-filled ego is annihilated in preparation for life centered in God. Westhelle lives, breathes, and thinks in this theological world of Luther. However, he radically transforms the perspective and vocabulary. For Westhelle, as for Luther, the Cross is a contemporary experience.&lt;br /&gt;But for Westhelle it is not limited to an individual experience of death and resurrection. It involves the very death and resurrection of God. Westhelle&#39;s primary motif is not found in medieval Europe with Anselm or in the Epistle of Romans with Paul and Luther but in the post-New Testament world of &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Melito of Sardis (150 A.D). He quotes Melito: &quot;He that hung up the earth in space was Himself hanged up: He that fixed the heavens was fixed with nails . . . God put to death!&quot; (p. 2)&lt;/span&gt; The death of God, the resurrection of God. This is the perspective of Westhelle. This perspective has its beginning in the Hellenistic Christian Church where assertions&lt;br /&gt;of the deity of Christ were presupposed. This theme—God died and dies and God lives—is central to Westhelle&#39;s reflections. Having written his Ph.D. dissertation on G. W. F. Hegel, Westhelle finds Hegel&#39;s thoughts helpful. He quotes from Hegel&#39;s Christian Religion: Lectures on the Philosophy&lt;br /&gt;of Religion: &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;God has died, God is dead: this is the most frightful of all thoughts, that eventhing eternal and true does not exist, that negation itself is found in God. &lt;/span&gt;. .. How ever, the process does not halt at this point, rather, a reversal takes place .. . God arises again to life, and thus things are reversed, (p. 70) For Hegel, religious language is true but takes the form of immature pictures rather than the form of mature abstract philosophical categories. Theology said God died and God lives. As a philosopher Hegel changed from this theological imagery to abstract language and described all reality as a cosmic rational system. Der Geist (The Absolute Mind or Spirit). For Hegel this cosmic system was not static but was a vital living organism that progressively moved toward a goal. First there was the Absolute Mind/Spirit, and then this Absolute (God) annihilated itself and died into a world of matter. The Absolute God dies. Transcendent&lt;br /&gt;Spirit becomes immanent in a material process. Nevertheless, the Absolute Spirit lives again and begins to think and become self-conscious of itself through the human process and mind. In human thought the Absolute Spirit that died is lifted and lives again in the human spirit. Westhelle finds the religious thought of Hegel, although not the rationalistic system,&lt;br /&gt;helpful in articulating his own vision of the Cross. For him the phrase &quot;God died&quot; points not just to the Son of God&#39;s death on the Cross but also to a cosmic experience and expression of reality, similar to that found in Hegel. Death, suffering, alienation, conflict, and oppression are present realities. They are the manifestation of God&#39;s death, the death of everything that is life, love, and truth. Westhelle&#39;s reflections are steeped in the pain and suffering of the world. In pain, death, poverty, marginalization. oppression—&lt;br /&gt;and this is what is meant by the Death of God—we experience living in the abyss, in darkness and despair. That is the truth of human existence. Truth-telling points to the abyss and agents of death. Westhelle continually quotes Luther saying a theologian of the Cross calls a thing what it is ! A theology of the Cross calls us to recognize the suffering of the world and the pain of God. We are called to name suffering, death, chaos, and oppression what it is. and we are called to live in solidarity with the pain of God and the world. Luther&#39;s understanding of dying and rising, death and resurrection was focused on an individual experience of dying to self and being raised in faith to justification and the life of the Spirit. Westhelle&#39;s perspective and vision focus upon a Cosmic Divine Death and Life of which one is a small but significant participant. A theology of the Cross rips away the façade that attempts to hide pain and death and invites one into the abyss where in the darkness there is the possibility of life and light. But there is no possibility of life unless we are first willing to participate in the death of God, the pain of the world. Westhelle uses a Gospel image to express our journey in the aftermath of the darkness and death of the Friday crucifixion, the Abyss. He relates the story of the women walking to the tomb of Jesus on that Sunday morning. They walk in an atmosphere of deep sorrow, expressing their love for Jesus as they go to anoint his body for the last time. It was in performing this act of love to their dead master that they experienced the resurrection, or life and hope. Westhelle sees this as what gives meaning to life — performing acts of love in the shadow of the abyss — and makes light shining in the darkness possible. God died, and God lives. The abyss is reality, but love in the shadow of the abyss makes the return of God possible. This is Westhelle&#39;s primary perspective for a theology of the Cross. A cosmic death of divinity and a cosmic resurrection are a reality portrayed in the Cross and resurrection, but, much more, they are a cosmic reality in which we participate. Westhelle on Luther Westhelle writes out of a Lutheran perspective and finds many of his themes and insights in Lutheran texts from the Reformation. He references Luther&#39;s profound words &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;&quot;The Cross is our theology.&quot;&lt;/span&gt; Although using the language and texts of Luther. Westhelle discovers new possibilities for meaning in Luther&#39;s texts. He uses these new insights for the purpose of developing his own theology of the Cross. This particularly reflects Westhelle&#39;s dialogue with postmodernism, which emphasizes that all language is molded by its cultural-historical context and that in one sense its truth, its relevance, is limited to its own cultural-historical context. However, texts are also remembered and transcribed and therefore become detached from their original intent and context. They float beyond their time and place and are always open to new insights and meanings. This, it appears, is how Westhelle reads the texts of Luther. We have already seen how Luther&#39;s death and resurrection themes have been transformed from personal dying and rising with Christ to a Cosmic death and resurrection within the totality of reality, the death and resurrection of God or in Hegelian terms, the death and life of Der Geist. In a similar way Westhelle reinterprets Luther&#39;s understanding of the wrath of God in the form of pain and suffering. Luther sees suffering, particularly&lt;br /&gt;spiritual/psychological suffering (inner despair or angst), as the abyss exploding from an encounter with a terrifying God. In the midst of this terrifying encounter one may experience the abandonment of God. God &#39;s wrath experienced in a terrified conscience is God* s annihilating power crushing the personal ego. making possible life in the Spirit. This vision is rooted in Luther&#39;s vision of the bondage of the will and irresistible grace. For Luther, human beings are bound in sin eternally, bound in pride-filled self-centeredness, and are incapable of escaping from this ego-centered prison. God alone with irresistible power (grace) can break this bondage—and does so through God&#39;s wrath, which through suffering, pain, and a terrifying spiritual abyss destroys one * s egocentricity. It is put to death, annihilated, in order that a resurrection might occur, a faith-life of the Spirit realized. Westhelle recognizes this original spiritual struggle of Luther and is aware of how Luther found answers to his quest for a gracious God in a radically new understanding of righteousness/justice. We receive what is not due to us (p. 40). Steeped in Luther&#39;s world and writings Westhelle deals with a floating text that is not necessarily bound to Luther&#39;s original form of angst but is still angst, despair, the abyss. He explains Luther&#39;s statement of God&#39;s &quot;breaking down in order to restore&quot; as the consequence of &quot;speculative strategy about God&#39;s way of dispensing salvation&quot; and indicates that Luther at this point was molded by (not free from) his medieval monastic tradition. Luther, or rather the contemporary Lutheran text, does not really intend to say that God annihilates the ego as a means of salvation: what is intended by the text is the prevention of any claims on our part to merit our salvation (p. 54). By avoiding a direct conflict with Luther&#39;s&lt;br /&gt;intent Westhelle is able to continue his dialogue with Luther in the context of twenty-first-century reality. For Westhelle that is expressed in the theme God died and God lives. Suffering, pain, and the abyss are realities, and Life (the Resurrection of God) is experienced as love is shared in the shadow of the abyss. Within the new paradigm Luther&#39;s experience of angst is today shared in another form by those who experience the death of God. the abandonment&lt;br /&gt;of God, in oppression, marginaliza-tion, hunger, pain, and death. Furthermore, those who recognize the death of God or the reality of the abyss experience the transformation of life, for they are no longer resisting God&#39;s grace. In recognizing themselves as abandoned by God and dwelling in the bondage of death they &lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;are ready to count on God&#39;s grace to lift them up (p. 55). This is the twenty-first-century expression of justification by grace&lt;/span&gt;. Westhelle reads another set of Luther texts that deal with the hiddenness of God in a similar way. He recognizes that Luther speaks of a hiddenness of God in the passion of Christ: God is met in the opposite, death or the Cross. However, in The Bondage of the Will Luther speaks of a second hiddenness that is behind the Cross. For Luther this second hiddenness of God arises for faith when confronted by the fact that some persons come to faith by the irresistible power of God and others do not. Why so? It is hidden in the terrifying otherness of God. I have argued in my book &lt;span style=&quot;font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;Christ Crucified: A 21st Century Missiology of the Cross&lt;/span&gt; (Minneapolis: Lutheran University Press, 2004. 51-53) that Luther at this point sacrifices radical crucified truth for continuity with Hellenistic rationalism, which Luther claims to fully reject. Westhelle, however, argues that the double sense of hiddenness found in Luther does not represent &quot;alternative options for interpretation&quot; (p. 56) because both are valid. Nevertheless, in claiming their validity he changes the perspective of Luther. Luther&#39;s convictions arise out of the experience of being saved by irresistible grace: Westhelle argues that it arises out of our experiences of being abandoned. Within the context of Westhelle&#39;s primary paradigm—&lt;br /&gt;God died, God lives—the second hiddenness of God arises out of the abyss when life and meaning are gone. He quotes David Tracy, who sees Luther&#39;s affirmation of a second hiddenness as rooted in our experience of God as &quot;frightening, not tender, sometimes even as an impersonal reality—it—of sheer power .. . signified by metaphors ... as abyss, chasm, chaos, horror&quot; (p. 57). Westhelle at this point plays the role of the confessional theologian claiming that floating textual interpretations are not only legitimate but enriching of the tradition. In this case he argues that Luther&#39;s own interpretation was based not on a rational argument involving irresistible grace but upon the authority of Scripture. He continues: But it is better to admit there is an inscrutable shadow-side to God than the other options available to us. It would be simply a descriptive statement of our finite experience, and of the very finitude of our reason. But if it is blasphemy,&lt;br /&gt;it is the one of Job. This is the one God is great enough to take.(p. 57). Amazingly, one has to add to Westhelle&#39;sthought that God takes more than the blasphemy of Job. A theology of the Cross affirms that God takes the blasphemy of the death of Christ into God &quot;sown being agonizes over the victimizers and blasphemers as well as the abandoned and even embraces them with love. Only such love has the audacity to say Love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you. Westhelle has much wisdom to share about the Cross shattering all rationality. Loving one&#39;s enemies is the heart of irrationality and the heart of the Cross. Westhelle does not reflect upon this absurdity. Interestingly, instead of love of enemy as the epitome of love he reflects on the love of the dead friend as the epitome of love since the friend can no longer return an exchange of the gift (referencing Kierkegaard). Westhelle as theologian is free to express his theological witness and as most theologians free to deal with confessional texts floating apart from their original context and intent. But it is also legitimate to point out that this does not express what Luther writes in &lt;span style=&quot;font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;&quot;&gt;The Bondage of the Will.&lt;/span&gt; I prefer to deal with theological texts insofar as possible in their context and intent and state that I believe or think this to be true and this to be not true. In Westhelle&#39;s words, simply state what it is. Having read the original text in its own context one is free to say that the tradition must be stretched and reinterpreted for the contemporary context.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;Westhelle&#39;s text is fascinating to read and contemplate. He writes out of his own experience of the abyss and the experiences of the millions who share participation in the contemporary death of God. His interpretations of Luther&#39;s texts that make possible a focus upon the reality of pain, suffering, the abyss, injustice, oppression and tyranny are a gift for which we owe him gratitude. His use of Luther texts to call for truth telling—to call a thing what it is—is profound. His imagery of sharing the fragrance of love with the smells of death is. truly, hope.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/6537095865531431593/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=6537095865531431593&amp;isPopup=true' title='0 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/6537095865531431593'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/6537095865531431593'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/06/vtor-westhelles-scandalous-god-use-and.html' title='Vítor Westhelle&#39;s The Scandalous God: The Use and Abuse of the Cross Reviewed by Mark W. Thomsen'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>0</thr:total></entry><entry><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6660656038797748212.post-1820836481979893576</id><published>2008-06-22T23:33:00.000-07:00</published><updated>2008-08-11T18:18:30.456-07:00</updated><category scheme="http://www.blogger.com/atom/ns#" term="christology"/><title type='text'>Karl Barth&#39;s Retrieval of Luther&#39;s Substantive Christology by  Amy Ellen Marga</title><content type='html'>Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner: Karl Barth&#39;s Retrieval of Luther&#39;s Substantive Christology Amy Ellen Marga Luther Seminary &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight:bold;&quot;&gt;Currents in Theology and Mission&lt;/span&gt;  34 no 4 Ag 2007, p 260-270&lt;br /&gt; Despite Karl Barth*s lasting commitment to the Reformed tradition of John Calvin, it is the thought of Martin Luther that casts a long shadow over Barm&#39;s theology. As George Hunsinger points out. At certain vital points Barth follows Luther not only,  broadly speaking, against Calvin and the Reformed tradition, but also against the main lines of the Lutheran tradition. There are points, in other words, where Barth actually retrieved Luther in order to stand with him not only against modernity, but also against the rest of the Reformation. (George Hunsinger. Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (Grand Rapids. MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans. 2000). 282.) If we refocus the historical lens upon Barth and Luther, they can be seen to stand like bookends on the shelf of the modern age. with Luther standing at the beginning of what historians now call &quot;early moder-nity,&quot; and Barth standing at its end.(W. Stacy Johnson, among others, has even suggested that Barth&quot;s theology contains the seeds for postmodern theology. See his The Mystery of God: Karl Barth and the Postmodern Foundations of Theology (Louisville. KY: Westminster John Knox. 1997). Barth looked back for the sake of looking forward and in so doing engaged in intense study of Luther. Barth absorbed aspects of Luther&#39;s theology that allowed him to articulate Christian theology in deeper and more sophisticated ways over against modernity, which had through the course of the Enlightenment set the criteria for how we know what we know and thus how we articulate the sinner&#39;s relationship to Jesus Christ. As Hunsinger has noted. Barth &quot;almost alone among modern theologians&quot; granted &quot;uncompromising precedence to the Reformation over modernity itself.&quot; He did not reject modernity, but he &quot;refused to allow secular epistemologie s to set the terms for the validity of the gospel.&quot; (Hunsinger. Disruptive Grace. 293.) Barth&quot;s mature Christology. seen in his Church Dogmatics, vol. IV. published in the early 1950s, has been a central channel into comparisons of his theology with that of Luther. Both Karin Bornkamm and Gerhard Ebeling have demonstrated that Luther and Barth share a Christocentrism in the best sense: clearly this was one thing Barth learned from Luther. Bornkamm has shown how Barth transformed Luther&#39;s conception of the offices of Christ as priest and king for the sake of forging a relationship&lt;br /&gt;between Christology and soteriology. (Karin Bornkamm. &quot;Die reformatorische&lt;br /&gt;Lehre vom Amt Christi und ihre Umformung durch Karl Barths.&quot; in Luther und Barth. Veröffentlichung der Luther-Akademie Ratzeburg. Vol. 13. ed. Joachim Heubach (Erlangen: Martin-Luther-Verlag. 1989). 144. &lt;span style=&quot;font-style:italic;&quot;&gt;Currents in Theology and Mission &lt;/span&gt;34 4 (August 200 )&lt;br /&gt;Marga, Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner 261). Ebeling traces the christological impulses that Barth took from Luther, even while Barth formed his own criticisms of the Reformer in the Church Dogmatics.( Gerhard Ebeling. Lutherstudien, vol. 3 (Tubingen: Mohr. 1985). 495-506.) But Barth had already begun retrieving aspects of Luther&#39;s Christology almost thirty years earlier. One example of this is a lecture that Barth gave in 1929 in Münster on theology and ethics titled &quot;The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life.&quot; After a decade that included two lecture cycles in dogmatic theology and intense engagement with Roman Catholic theology. Barth dove into the works of Augustine, Calvin, and Luther. The result was a lecture on theology and ethics titled &quot;The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life&quot; that displays Barth&#39;s deepening understanding of Luther&#39;s Christology. In this essay I briefly present Luther&#39;s Christology from his 1535 Galatians commentary (Luther wrote this commentary in 1531. but it was not published until 1535.) and show how Barth reached back to retrieve this for his own theology despite the drastically different epistemological landscape of the two thinkers brought about by the Enlightenment. Barth reached over Enlightenment notions of rationality and morality to retrieve Luther&#39;s substantive Christology, and in so doing he left behind the psychological and historical interpretations of the person and work of Christ by thinkers such as Werner Elert and Karl Holl. Luther&#39;s theology provided Barth with the resources to pull Christology out of the grip of Enlightenment understandings of the individual as an autonomous agent and show that reconciliation of the human to God by God and through God alone need not be beholden to modern theories of rationality or morality. Martin Luther&#39;s Christology in the Galatians commentary The richness of Martin Luther&#39;s Christology&lt;br /&gt;has provided scholars with a wide variety of angles from which to analyze it. Ebeling has tried to capture its expanse under the terminology of a &quot;forensic-antithetical*&#39;&lt;br /&gt;Christology.&quot; Finnish scholars such as Tuomo Mannermaa have focused their attention on the aspect of deification in Luther&#39;s early work. (See. for example. Der im Glauben gegenwärtige Christus. Rechtfertigung und Vergottung (Hannover: Lutheran-Verlag-Haus. 1989). Bernhard Lohse. and in more detail Ian Siggins. have approached&lt;br /&gt;Luther &#39; s Christology from a more inductive angle, ( See Bernhard Lohse, Martin Luther&#39;s Theology: Its Historical and Systematic Development (Minneapolis: Fortress. 1999). and Ian D. Kingston Siggins. Martin Luther&#39;s Doctrine of Christ (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970). 10. See Lohse. Martin Luther&#39;s Theology, 220. notes 8. 9. 11. Luther&#39;s Small Catechism, in The Book of Concord, ed. Robert Kolb and Timothy Wengert (Minneapolis: Fortress. 2000), 355.Marga, Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner 262)laying out the wide span of images that Luther employed, from his appropriation of motifs of Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux to his borrowings from medieval piety and the New Testament.10 This variety, however, does not weaken two fundamental commitments visible in all aspects of Luther&#39;s Christology: his commitment to the Chalcedonian formula and his commitment to human salvation as the central function and purpose of Christ&#39;s person and work. These two commitments are summed up in the Small Catechism: &quot;I believe that Jesus Christ, true God. begotten&lt;br /&gt;of the Father in eternity, and also a true human being, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord. He has redeemed me, a lost and condemned human being.*&#39;11 The first commitment, seen in the words &quot;true God and true human being.&quot; points to the ancient christological dogma from the Council of Chalcedon in 451. which established that the one person of Christ is constituted by two natures, divine and human, unconfusedly. unchangeably, indivisibly. and inseparably. The second commitment is to soteriology. seen in the words &quot;He has redeemed me, a lost and condemned human being.&quot; Luther rarely speaks of the person of Christ without referring&lt;br /&gt;to his saving work on our behalf. The name Christ means reconciliation of the sinner to God; Christ is reconciliation. Luther&#39;s double commitment to the Chalcedonian formula and to the explicit salvific function of Christ has been called by Hunsinger a &quot;substantive&quot; Christology.12 Christ as very God and very human is the sole agent who initiates and fully completes&lt;br /&gt;the reconciling action that takes place between God and the human. No other component or action is necessary in a substantive&lt;br /&gt;Christology for reconciliation to be &quot;real&quot; for the human individual. An account of the substantive nature of Luther&#39;s Christology can be seen in his Galatians commentary, where he writes. For you do not yet have Christ even though you know that He is God and man. You truly have Him only when you believe that this altogether pure and innocent Person has been granted to you b\ the Father as your High Priest and Redeemer,&lt;br /&gt;yes. as your slave. Putting offHis innocence&lt;br /&gt;and holiness and putting on your sinful person. He bore your sin. death, and curse: He became a sacrifice and a curse for you. in order thus to set you free from the curse of the Law. (Luther&#39;s Works [hereafter LUT 26:288) When Christ steps before God in our place as the sinner to be punished, he not only initiates but also completes our being made righteous in God&#39;s eyes. There is no other process outside of Christ alone that initiates&lt;br /&gt;and completes the justification of sinners. Neither the sanctification of the sinner nor the workings of the Holy Spirit in the Christian life functions the way that Christ&#39;s saving work does—a saving work that is embodied in Christ&#39;s very person. Christ&#39;s person embodies the precedence of God&#39;s grace over any &quot;good works&quot; of our own. Luther states. &quot;Christ took the initiative. . . . He did not find a good will or a correct intellect in me. but He Himself took pity on me. ... By a mercy that preceded&lt;br /&gt;my reason, will and intellect. He loved me ... so much that He gave Himself for me&quot; (LU7 26:175). Reconciliation begins with Christ alone. And it is completed in Christ alone: &quot;. . . victory over sin and death, salvation and eternal life . . . come ... by Jesus Christ alone&quot;(p. 138). There is no gradual getting better or gradual transformation in the sinner.&lt;br /&gt;Justification is not completed by a process of sanctification. It is this once-and-for-all sense of Christ&#39;s person and actions on our behalf that makes Luther&#39;s Christology a substantive Christology. His actions need no enhancement or outside aid and do not continue upon some gradual scale within the human being. What Christ began. Christ fully completes for us. The righteousness that comes to us through Christ&#39;s reconciling act is a righteousness&lt;br /&gt;that brings with it its own new life. We are given a life that is not our own. for Christ&#39;s own righteousness acts upon us. takes us over. It decenters and destabilizes&lt;br /&gt;the center of our own egos, for it is the righteousness of Christ&#39;s person and not of our own person. Luther claims. &quot;I do indeed&lt;br /&gt;live in the flesh, but I do not live on the basis of my own self (LW 26:170-71). When we live in Christ, we are no longer the one who controls this reality in our lives. The presence of the person of Christ 12. Hunsinger. Disruptive Grace. 284.&lt;br /&gt;Marga Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner 263 displaces ourselves as the center of our lives. We cannot scale this reality in our lives down to a size that we can grasp and thus control, for the righteousness of Christ does not become a quality that inheres within the human being (cf. LW 26:127). nor is it somehow infused into the human to give him or her a new identity as non-sinner. It is a reality that remains distinct from us and greater than ourselves. Indeed, the new life in Christ thrusts individuals into an existence of contradictions:&lt;br /&gt;We are now saints while still being sinners. As Luther states, when we believe the good news that Christ died for us, we &quot;are reckoned as righteous, even though sins, and great ones at that, still remain in us&quot; (LW 26:234). Thus, although Christ starts and finishes our reconciliation with God, we, living in the here and now, do not shed our old sinful ways. We are not rid of our sin. Luther writes, These tu o things are diametrically opposed: that a Christian is righteous and beloved by God, and yet that he is a sinner at the same time. For God cannot deny His own nature. That is. He cannot avoid hating sin and sinners: and He does so by necessity, for otherwise He w ould be unjust and would love sin. (p. 235) This is the heart of Luther&#39;s classical doctrine&lt;br /&gt;of the simul iustus et peccato?&#39;. In this life, we live a life of opposites. of being a saint and sinner at the same time. God does not abandon us to the tension of saint and sinner, however. Christ&#39;s own presence to the reconciled sinner never ceases. It is an ongoing event. He is our 44&#39;pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night&#39; [Ex. 13:21 ] to keep God from seeing our sin&quot; (p. 232). In that Luther emphasized Christ as the mediator, he was able to express the work of Christ in both the past, what he did as mediator for us on the cross, as well as in the present, what Christ does for us today: The new life in Christ thrusts individuals into an existence of contradictions:&lt;br /&gt;We are now saints while still being sinners. &#39;&#39;Christ Himself is the life that I now live&quot; (p. 167). The mediator comes to us continually.&lt;br /&gt;&quot;Today Christ is still present to some,&quot; Luther states, &quot;but to others He is still to come. To believers He is present and has come: to unbelievers He has not yet come&quot; (p. 240). Thus, there is a clearly actualistic element in Luther&#39;s Christology that modern theology can draw upon. Christ does not remain in static. Aristotelian categories&lt;br /&gt;but spans the divide between God and human, between past, present, and future,&lt;br /&gt;between action and substance, between&lt;br /&gt;saint and sinner. Luther&#39;s Christ is the One who comes, who is coming. The mechanism that binds the reconciled&lt;br /&gt;sinner to Christ is faith. This is a core aspect of Luther&#39;s Christology in the Galatians&lt;br /&gt;commentary. &quot;Through faith, the human participates in this saving reality of Christ who is present in the Word. This faith is a union with Christ.&quot;13 Luther writes, ... these three things are joined together: faith. Christ and acceptance or imputation. Faith takes hold of Christ and has Him present, enclosing 13. Marc Lienhard. Martin Luthers christologisches Zeugnis (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht. 1973^ 217.&lt;br /&gt;Marga Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner 264 Him as the ring encloses the gem. And w hoever is found having this faith in the Christ who is grasped in the heart, him God accounts as righteous.&lt;br /&gt;(LW 26:132) This faith is inseparably connected to Christ&#39;s personal presence to us and to the destabilized lives that we live as the simul iustus et peccator. Faith is the epistemologica!&lt;br /&gt;underpinning of Luther&#39;s understanding&lt;br /&gt;of the &quot;I yet not I&quot; in Christ. &quot;The life I live. I live on the basis of faith,&quot; Luther states. &quot;For the time of life that I am living I do indeed live in the flesh, but not on the basis of the flesh and according to the flesh, but in faith, on the basis of faith, and according to faith&quot; (LW 26:170). But this inseparable connection to Christ&#39;s personal presence is not depicted as some kind of mystical union with Christ or &quot;spiritual&quot; faculty that then allows the believing human to make inspired statements&lt;br /&gt;about God (LW 26:28-29:287). Although&lt;br /&gt;Christ is present to us through faith, he still remains beyond the reach of natural human reason, in the &quot;cloud of faith&quot; (p. 287). Luther states, &quot;how [Christ] is present —this is beyond our thought: for there is darkness&quot; (p. 130). Thus, it is precisely the concept of faith that maintains the distinction&lt;br /&gt;between Christ and the reconciled sinner.&lt;br /&gt;It maintains the distance between Christ&#39;s mediating activities and the natural&lt;br /&gt;activity of our human intellect, which, finally, are still under the control of sin. death, and the devil. As Marc Lienhard puts it. &quot;Christ is a reality &quot;pro nobis&#39; and *in nobis&#39; but he is and remains * extra nos.&quot;*14 Christ is in us and for us but remains&lt;br /&gt;as a reality outside of us. And. because Christ remains outside of us. he is beyond our rational and moral control. Thus, faith cannot be understood to be identical with human reason. For Luther, faith is a &quot;mode of cognition&quot; that is not identical to human reason.15 Faith is not the natural human capacity to understand or to comprehend in the way it understands objects&lt;br /&gt;around itself. Luther disputes the &quot;Sophists&quot; on this point, arguing that even though the &quot;natural endowments&quot; of human&lt;br /&gt;reason are capable of mastering physical,&lt;br /&gt;civic, and political matters, the intellect is in fact corrupt and inept in matters of the knowledge of God. A completely other form of &quot;comprehending&quot; is necessary in order for knowledge of God to arise in the human being. When we discuss faith. Luther states, &quot;we are in an altogether different&lt;br /&gt;world—a world that is outside reason&quot;&lt;br /&gt;(LW 26:234). Nonetheless, faith neither destroys reason&lt;br /&gt;nor renders it impotent in its own sphere. Faith is essentially a different kind of rationality,&lt;br /&gt;an &quot;understanding&quot; that moves beyond&lt;br /&gt;reason: it has its source and function in a manner different from natural human reason. Karl Barth and the modern challenges to Christology The Enlightenment s turn to the subject. The period of the Enlightenment brought with it a sustained focus upon the human individual as an independent, rational, and moral agent. The intense scrutiny upon the workings of the human mind and the rise of science in the Enlightenment made it almost&lt;br /&gt;impossible for twentieth-century theologians&lt;br /&gt;to bring together in theological anthropology the incompatible opposites of the &quot;I yet not I.&quot; the saint-sinner of Luther &#39; s theology, or even the Chalcedonian formula of Christ as very God and very man. and still be taken seriously. Further, theologians no longer could claim that hu-14. Lienhard. Martin Luthers chnsto-logisches Zeugnis. 290. 15. See Brian Gerrish. Grace and Reason (Oxford: Clarendon. 1962). 82.&lt;br /&gt;Marga Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner 265 man knowledge of God was a distinct but still true and valid &quot;knowledge.&quot; for it does not arise from logical thinking, scientific experiment, and mathematical reasoning. &quot;Faith&quot; as a form of knowledge proved no match for the Enlightenment concept of human rationality. Indeed, the distinction that Luther made between faith and reason was possible because the concept of natural human rationality had not yet been elevated to the normative status that it was in the Enlightenment. Before the Enlightenment insistence that morality and rationality obey certain rules of logic and science, there was still room for Christ to be an &#39;&#39;effective Subject&quot;&#39; in the rational, moral agent.16 As the effective Subject in humans, Christ imputed his righteousness to us through faith. He was the reference point for rational&lt;br /&gt;thinking and moral decision making in faith. In Luther&#39;s theology, Christ was the reference point for every &quot;good work&quot; that came from the human individual, and good w orks were understood as a consequence of the immediacy and activity of Christ within the believing sinner. This immediacy&lt;br /&gt;and activity kept the human rational ego decentered. allowing it to be a moral subject only by virtue of the &quot;I yet not I.&quot;&#39; It did not stand on its own two feet. The Enlightenment transformation of the understanding of human rationality hustled Christ the effective Subject out of theories of knowledge. This can be seen clearly in the thought of Descartes. Although&lt;br /&gt;the Christian tradition was no stranger to a sense of inwardness (Augustine&lt;br /&gt;had already found a way to God through a flight inward), it was anchored in the human subject&#39;s connection to God—in Luther&#39;s case, to the effective and personal presence of Christ in faith. Descartes loosed the inwardness of the human subject from its divine mooring, making it no longer necessary for human reason to operate solely by virtue of reference to the divine presence.&lt;br /&gt;He assigned a power—the power of &quot;self-mastery&#39;&quot;—to human reason that excluded&lt;br /&gt;any possibility of conceiving the human ego as decentered.1&quot; Human reason was unified, and effective in and of itself: no other effective Subject operated within it. The &quot;I yet not I&quot; central to Luther&#39;s Christology was lost. Immanuel Kant took Descartes&#39; understanding&lt;br /&gt;of the autonomy of reason one step further, proposing that the very nature of &quot;reason&quot; meant that one behaves in an ethical manner as well.18 He pulled morality&lt;br /&gt;into the orbit of the Enlightenment notion&lt;br /&gt;of reason, endowing the human with an unprecedented sense of moral freedom. This autonomous morality was &quot;accessible and accepted by every moral agent:&quot;19 the human individual him- or herself, without any mediating presence from a divine subject,&lt;br /&gt;had the capacity to act according to one&#39;s &quot;good will.&quot; The moral nature of humans became rooted in autonomous reasoning,&lt;br /&gt;thus excluding any need or possibility&lt;br /&gt;that an external force or being could work upon the human to make one into a moral being. Charles Taylor has judged Kant &quot; s moral theory to be &quot;a powerful... .revolutionary force in modern civilization. [His idea] seems to offer a prospect of pure self-16. Bengt Hagglund. &quot;Luthers Anthropologie.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;in Leben und Werk Martin Luthers von 1526 to 1546. Festgabe zu seinem 500. Geburstag. Vol. 1 (Góttingen: Vandenhoeck &amp; Ruprecht. 1983). 74. 17. Charles Taylor. Sources of the Self (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1989). 147. 18. See Kant&#39;s Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (New York: Harper Torchbooks. Harper and Row. [1785] 1964). 19. Manfred Kuhn. Kant: A Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2001). 285.&lt;br /&gt;Marga Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner 266 activity, where my action is determined . . . ultimately by my own agency as a formula-tor of rational law.&quot;20 Natural reason itself is an instrument that formulates and sets moral principles: it alone obligates humans to do good works. It alone produces righteousness.&lt;br /&gt;The philosophical consensus about human rationality and morality ushered in by Enlightenment thinkers such as Kant and Descartes was worlds apart from the early modern understanding of the human of Luther&#39;s era, where rationality reached its limit in relationship to the divine being and where morality was made possible b\ nothing other than the divine action. Lutheran theology and the &quot;face&quot; of Jesus Christ. While the Enlightenment granted a new autonomy to human reason, it could do so only by limiting reason to the sphere proper to it. namely, the sphere of history. &quot;Reason&quot; could no longer draw credible conclusions about anything that lay outside history and the logical sequence of events that make history. Speaking of Jesus as true God and true man became impossible. Credible speaking of Jesus Christ was restricted&lt;br /&gt;to speaking of Jesus the man. Jesus the historical figure, the divinity of whom could be established only from what we know about his humanity &quot;from below.&quot;21 Throughout the nineteenth century into the early twentieth, leading thinkers such as Elert promoted Christologies based solely on Christ&#39;s historical appearance, on the &quot;face&quot; of Christ. His physical presence— his &#39;face&#39;—was the only reality of God that humans needed to see. In the life of Jesus as a purely historical figure, humans have the full, visible, complete face of God directly&lt;br /&gt;and immediately before them. Jesus Christ did not reveal a God behind and beyond himself. His person and work were not considered revelation.22 Because modern Protestantism did not think in terms of the God outside history, the Christology of a Lutheran like Elert did not seek a Christ who mediated between humans and a God who was perceived as an ultimately unknowable metaphysical &quot;Father.&quot;&lt;br /&gt;The face and life of the historical Jesus was enough for natural human reason to discover and know God in God&#39;s fullness.&lt;br /&gt;This kind of intense focus upon history, and the rather uncritical and naive trust in history and human reason that accompanied&lt;br /&gt;it. was prevalent among Protestant&lt;br /&gt;thinkers of Barth&#39;s da\. The substantive Christology of Luther lay buried deep in the layers of history, which makes the fact that Barth retrieved this aspect from Luther all the more remarkable. Barth&#39; s retrieval of a substantive Christology.&lt;br /&gt;Already in Barth&#39;s early theology from the decade of the 1920s, before he even considered writing the massive Church Dogmatics (first begun in 1932). he displayed&lt;br /&gt;a keen interest in the theology of the Reformation, but he harbored doubts about the accuracy of his Lutheran contemporaries&#39;&lt;br /&gt;representation of Luther&#39;s theology.2&quot;1 The Protestantism of the era. with its strong historicizing and psychologizing tenden-20. Taylor. Sources of the Self. 364. 21. Claude Welch, Protestant Thought in the nineteenth Centwy 1870-1914. vol. 2 (New Haven: Yale Universitt Press. 1985). 157. 22. Werner Elert. Die Lehre des Luthertums im Abriß (Munich: Beck. 1924). 29. For a similar Lutheran perspecm e. see Paul Althaus. &quot;Theologie und Geschichte. Zur Auseinandersetzung mit der dialektischen Theologie.&quot; in Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie 1 (1923/24): 771. See also Barth&#39;s Unterricht in der christliche Religion, vol. 2 (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich. 1990). par. 15:22. for his references to Elert and Althaus. (Hereafter Unterricht) 23. Unterricht 15:23: 28:29-30.&lt;br /&gt;Marga Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner 26&quot; cies evident in thinkers like Elert, was completely inadequate for truthful talk of the God of Jesus Christ. After the outbreak of World War I and the profoundly disturbing&lt;br /&gt;involvement of leading Protestant theologians&lt;br /&gt;in justifying the aggression of the German nation, Barth could no longer accept&lt;br /&gt;a doctrine of revelation that read God&#39;s actions and intentions directly from the events of history. The Lutheran view that only the humanity of Jesus Christ was a positive and direct revelation of God on the surface of history became unacceptable to him.24 If Jesus Christ was the true Savior, God had to be at work in him. The historical&lt;br /&gt;figure of Jesus of Nazareth needed to be part of something greater than himself. In his preparations for his seminal cycle on dogmatic theology, begun at the University&lt;br /&gt;of Göttingen in 1924, Barth discovered&lt;br /&gt;for himself the ancient Chalcedonian Christology by which Christ was truly God. truly human, unmixed, undivided, uncon-fused, and unseparated.25 What this discovery&lt;br /&gt;did was allow Barth to move his theology beyond the historical, psychological ghetto of modern Christology and closer to that of Luther,26 closer to a substantive Christology&lt;br /&gt;in which Christ&#39;s own person and work starts and completes our reconciliation with God.27 Precisely because humans come to know Jesus Christ as both God and man, his saving actions on our behalf are a real and effective reconciliation: That Jesus Christ is this one, the incarnated Logos God. is the absolute decisive presupposition&lt;br /&gt;for his work... . One can not interpret the officium mediatorium, the completion of reconciliation&lt;br /&gt;between God and the human, one will alw ays misinterpret it if one does not previously know who the mediator, who the completer is in this act, who the representative of this officium is. The work of Christ has its very particular character, its very particular qualification, its very particular gradient determined through that which is effective here, through the very union with God which Christ finds himself in.28 Contrary to his Lutheran contemporaries.&lt;br /&gt;Barth established that Christ&#39;s work cannot be understood on the basis of the historical figure of Jesus alone. Knowing who Christ is and what Christ does comes only from knowing that he is united to the Father as very God and very human. &quot;The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life.&quot; In 1929, five years after his first lectures in Göttingen, Barth pushed even more against psychologized, historicized Christology in a lecture he gave at a theological conference&lt;br /&gt;in Elberfeld. Germany, titled &quot;The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life.&quot; Using Luther. Barth demonstrated here how a substantive Christology of Jesus Christ the mediator functions as a critique of the Enlightenment&lt;br /&gt;understanding of the human as a rational, moral agent. Barth&#39;s targets were soteriologies like that of Holl, whose emphasis on Christianity as a religion of &#39;&#39;conscience&#39;&#39; essentially canceled out any need for a substantive Christology. In an essay on Luther&#39;s doctrine of justification, Holl argued against the traditional&lt;br /&gt;substantive Christology of Luther. To Holl. the contradiction between the holy God and the sinful human could not be solved by simply pointing to Christ&#39;s person&lt;br /&gt;and work as the mediator between them.29 God meets the sinner with the in-24. Unterricht 15:22. 25. Unterricht 6:169. 193: 28:46. 26. Unterricht 6:169, 193: 28:46. 27. Unterricht 29:75. 28. Unterricht 29:75. See also Bruce McCormack&#39;s work on this aspect of Barth&#39;s dogmatics in his Karl Barth&#39;s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1995). 327ff. 29. Karl Holl. Die Rechtfertigungslehre in Luthers Vorlesung über den Römerbrief mit besonderer Rückblick auf die Frage der H eil s gewissheit in Kirchengeschichte. vol. 1: Luther (Tubingen: Mohr. 1921). 91-130.&lt;br /&gt;Marga Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner 268 tenti on to forgive and transform &quot;the human&lt;br /&gt;into his own image.&quot;3U Christ does not represent this intention and therefore does not function as a mediating &quot;third thing&quot; in the meeting of God and the sinner. God&#39;s intention can turn into actual forgiveness only when the human&#39;s own intentions and actions turn toward the good. Thus. God actually meets not the sinner but rather the human as moral agent who strives to fulfill the Law—as a doer of good works. Reconciliation&lt;br /&gt;of God and the human is therefore not an event where the enmity between God and the sinner is resolved: it is merely a &quot;meeting of good wills.&quot; God justifies the one who is already justified.31 The completion&lt;br /&gt;of reconciliation depends, finally, upon the moral fiber of the autonomous individual.&lt;br /&gt;The transformation of the individual&lt;br /&gt;into the imago Dei may or may not take place: justification is the &quot;foundation for a new life.&quot; but it is up to the individual to gradually get better.32 Such a moralistic soteriology rejects the central role of Christ as mediator between&lt;br /&gt;God and the sinner. It has no need for a substantive Christology because &quot;sin&quot; is no longer perceived as a devastating ontological force. Sin is a misguided good will, but a good will nevertheless. The human rational agent remains rational and able to make moral decisions, even as a sinner, for rationality contains morality within itself. Sin is merely a discrepancy between rationality and morality whereby sinful actions occur when human moral intentions do not follow reason. To Barth, however, the rational and moral constitution of the autonomous individual&lt;br /&gt;does not help us get better and better. Sin brings the rational, moral agent to his or her knees. Sin is about the rational, moral agent&#39;s own struggle against God: it is human resistance to grace, not a description&lt;br /&gt;of intentions. The struggle against this enmity toward God is undertaken by Christ and Christ alone, the Reconciler Spirit. Using Luther&#39;s simul iustus et pec cat or. Barth expresses the externality of Christ&#39;s work upon us. The human will never cease to acknowledge and confess, in all seriousness, that one&#39;s having been justified is utterly not in oneself, and consequently not m one&#39;s human unbelief. Indeed, the Christian is simul peccator et Justus and the surmounting of this irreconcilable contradiction does not lie in the Christian .. . but is the action of the Word of God. the action of Christ, w ho is always the One who makes one out to be a sinner, in order to make one (though a sinner) into a righteous [hu]man.&quot; Not we but Christ conquers our &quot;radical evil and hate&quot; toward the living God.34 This retrieval of a substantive Christology&lt;br /&gt;had implications for both human reason and human morality. Barth countered&lt;br /&gt;the rationalism in contemporary theories&lt;br /&gt;of justification using the terminology of reason itself. He argued that the only activity that humans can ever really know is our own. Human rationality, therefore, only perpetuates our enmity toward God. Our insistence upon our own limited, self-enclosed rationality, and on controlling everything through our reason, does not bring us knowledge of God&#39;s work in Christ. In &quot;The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life&quot; he writes that reason, &quot;in its unbelief, in its stubbornness, in its meek self-righ-30. Holl. Die Rechtfertigungslehre. 99. 31. Holl. 97-98. 32. Holl. 98. 33. Holl. 31: Barth. -Der Heilige Geist und das christliche Leben.&quot;&quot; in Karl-Barth-Gesamtausgabe.&lt;br /&gt;Vorträge und kleinere Arbeiten 1925-1930. Ill (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag Zurich. 1994). 495. 34. Barth. &quot;The Holy Spirit and the Christian Life.&quot;&quot; trans. R. Birch Hoyle (Louisville. KY: Westminster/John Knox. 1993). 19.20.&lt;br /&gt;Marga Jesus Christ and the Modern Sinner 269 teousness. in which it wishes to remain by itself . . . does not wish to hear of something&lt;br /&gt;radically different from its own workings&quot;&lt;br /&gt;(pp. 19, 20). The exercise of reason does not bring us insight into God&#39;s activities:&lt;br /&gt;&quot;What we can make evident to ourselves&lt;br /&gt;is always our own activity. Even when we set this under the prefix of grace, it still remains our own working*&#39; (pp. 24-25). With these claims, Barth locates a &#39;&quot;blind spot&quot; in human rationality that can be filled only by Christ, for it is Christ alone who mediates himself to us through a &quot;continual&lt;br /&gt;giving&quot; of himself into faith, whose righteousness is &quot;established as true in our flesh&quot; (p. 29). In so doing. Barth reintroduces&lt;br /&gt;Christ as the effective Subject, so significant to Luther&#39;s theology, into an understanding of the modern sinner in relation&lt;br /&gt;to God. The rational agent is indeed subject, but a subject whose agency has limits in relation to God&#39;s reconciling activity.&lt;br /&gt;It is &quot;I yet not Γ* who comes to know God. Barth further buttresses his argument against the abilities of human reason before God by qualifying the ability oí faith as a mode of cognition, lest it too be swallowed up by the all-encompassing Enlightenment conceptions of reason. Even faith is &quot;hidden&lt;br /&gt;from itself (p. 30: emphasis added). Rational thought cannot not make &quot;faith&quot; into a living knowledge of God. This is the task of the Holy Spirit: &quot;but the two things, the acknowledgement of this contradiction [sin] and the knowledge of its being surmounted,&lt;br /&gt;are not our own business, but are the Holy Spirit&#39;s&quot;(p. 31). Here. too. Barth does not allow the human &quot;I&quot; to take control&lt;br /&gt;of one * s own faith. Faith is mediated to the human by God and cannot be swallowed&lt;br /&gt;up by one&#39;s sense of self as agent. The destabilizing &quot;I yet not I&quot; remains central to the identity of the believing Christian.&lt;br /&gt;Β arth reintroduces&lt;br /&gt;Christ as the effective Subject, so significant to Luther&#39;s theology, into an understanding of the modern sinner. In his retrieval of a substantive Christology&lt;br /&gt;Barth also challenged the Enlightenment&lt;br /&gt;conception of a reasonable, autonomous morality, and destabilized the human as a moral agent. When Christ is understood as the sole effector of our reconciliation&lt;br /&gt;to God, the individual &quot;person must be left out of consideration&quot; (p. 26: emphasis added). Although human individuals&lt;br /&gt;are indeed agents of actions, any and every good work that we see as being &quot;ours&quot; is canceled out, and the &quot;I yet not I&quot; comes into effect. As Barth states, the work of Christ the Reconciler Spirit must be seen in its fundamental and immutable [unaußiebbar] restriction of ever} thing that is our o\\ η w ork. Wherever the action of humans in themselves, m w hate\ er pretense or form, is made into a condition&lt;br /&gt;of the human&#39;s fellowship with God. there the Holy Spirit is forgotten, and there sin is committed in order to overcome sin. (p. 20) Where human morality, the human will or conscience, is seen as the way to mediate the relationship between the sinner and God. the two aspects of reconciliation that need to be held together—justification and sanctification—fall away from each other. Justification turns into a slow, gradual&lt;br /&gt;Marga Jesus Christ and the Modern burner 2&quot;0 process by which the sinner thinks he or she could become a nonsinner through the good works that he or she performs (p. 21). Reconciliation then becomes a matter of the &quot;&#39;divine gift and man&#39;s creative action combined in one*&quot; (p. 22. quoting Augustine).&lt;br /&gt;The &quot;I yet not I&quot; collapses into the willful human ego, and a substantive Christology&lt;br /&gt;is dissolved. Barth was well aware of the implications&lt;br /&gt;of his modern epistemologica! interpretation&lt;br /&gt;of Luther&#39;s substantive Christology. When it is properly understood,&lt;br /&gt;first, as being fully undertaken, begun,&lt;br /&gt;and completed in Christ&#39;s person and work as the God-man, and further, as an event that is outside the control of our reasoning skills and moral abilities, the term &quot;Christian&quot; must take on a very particular&lt;br /&gt;meaning. Supposing w e decide to side . .. w ith Luther . .. to proceed with caution when w e use the adjective&lt;br /&gt;&quot;Christian&quot; and to use the word in a way quite other than is the vogue in our victorious modern Christendom. What. then, is meant by such phrases as &quot;Christian&quot; view of the universe. &quot;Christian&quot; morality. &quot;Christian&quot; art? What are &quot;Christian&quot; personalities. &quot;Christian&quot; families. &quot;Christian&quot; groups. &quot;Christian&quot; newspapers. &quot;Christian&quot; societies ... ? Who gives us permission&lt;br /&gt;to us the adjective so profuselv? (pp. 37-38) Concluding remarks What Barth gained from Luther&#39;s substantive&lt;br /&gt;Christology was a way to express the work of Christ upon the sinner that overcomes&lt;br /&gt;the human drive to relate to God as beings who are autonomous, reasonable, and good-willed. Luther &quot; s tight unification of Christ&#39;s person and work highlights that Christ&#39;s action as the God-man and mediator&lt;br /&gt;is something that is started and finished in our lives by Christ alone. In that Luther closely connected the person and work of Christ with the creation of faith as a mode of cognition that is distinct from natural human reason, his Christology limits the capabilities of natural human reason to comprehend and therefore control what God&#39;s actions are toward us. To Barth, this meant that when it comes to the God-human relationship, human reason has a distinct blind spot. Taking this blind spot seriously means that Christians, especially Lutherans, maintain a healthy critical distance&lt;br /&gt;to the process by which we weigh matters of moral weight using our everyday&lt;br /&gt;reason and common sense. The &quot;I yet not I&quot; as the foundation for rational thinking&lt;br /&gt;provides us with a critical check upon the way we go about trying to lead lives we would like to call Christian. Sustaining the faith that is beyond the reach of our control requires that Christ continually mediate himself to us as a Subject working within us. Finally, taking Barth&#39;s retrieval of Luther&#39; s Christology seriously means bringing&lt;br /&gt;to light the falsity that lies in the concept&lt;br /&gt;of an autonomous &quot;good will&quot; that accompanies modem individuals* sense of self. Morality never arises out of ourselves,&lt;br /&gt;and moral actions always have enfolded&lt;br /&gt;within them some other hidden motive and external influence, whether it be economic, personal, idealistic, or practical.&lt;br /&gt;It is clear in the theologies of both Barth and Luther that the only external factor that can actually make our good actions good is the divine influence, which comes from beyond our ability to rationalize&lt;br /&gt;and control, which is mediated to us in the person of the crucified Christ who continually&lt;br /&gt;works upon us as God&#39;s Reconciling&lt;br /&gt;Spirit.&lt;br /&gt;^s Copyright and Use: As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the copyright holder(s)&#39; express written permission. Any use, decompiling, reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a violation of copyright law. This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However, for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article. Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available, or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s). About ATLAS: The ATLA Serials (ATLAS®) collection contains electronic versions of previously published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association (ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American Theological Library Association.</content><link rel='replies' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/1820836481979893576/comments/default' title='Post Comments'/><link rel='replies' type='text/html' href='http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=6660656038797748212&amp;postID=1820836481979893576&amp;isPopup=true' title='1 Comments'/><link rel='edit' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/1820836481979893576'/><link rel='self' type='application/atom+xml' href='http://www.blogger.com/feeds/6660656038797748212/posts/default/1820836481979893576'/><link rel='alternate' type='text/html' href='http://jacchristo.blogspot.com/2008/06/karl-earths-retrieval-of-luthers.html' title='Karl Barth&#39;s Retrieval of Luther&#39;s Substantive Christology by  Amy Ellen Marga'/><author><name>Unknown</name><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel='http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail' width='16' height='16' src='https://img1.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif'/></author><thr:total>1</thr:total></entry></feed>

If you would like to create a banner that links to this page (i.e. this validation result), do the following:

  1. Download the "valid Atom 1.0" banner.

  2. Upload the image to your own server. (This step is important. Please do not link directly to the image on this server.)

  3. Add this HTML to your page (change the image src attribute if necessary):

If you would like to create a text link instead, here is the URL you can use:

http://www.feedvalidator.org/check.cgi?url=http%3A//jacchristo.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default

Home · About · News · Docs · Terms

 
Copyright © 2002-9 Sam Ruby, Mark Pilgrim, Joseph Walton, and Phil Ringnalda