Journal articles on the topic 'Prolegomena (theologie)'

We are in a better position to write a theology of Paul than the theology of anyone else for the first hundred years of Christianity. In contrast, though a theology of Jesus would be the more fascinating, we have nothing first-hand from Jesus which can provide such a secure starting point. The theologies of the Evangelists are almost equally problematic, since their focus on the ministry and teaching of Jesus makes their own theology that much more allusive. Moreover, in two at least of the four cases we have only one document to use; we can speak with some confidence of the theology of that document, but the theology of its anonymous author remains tantalisingly intangible. So too with the other NT letters: either we have only one letter from a particular pen, or the author is unknown, or the letter is too short for us to get much of a handle on its theology, or all three; a theology of 1 Peter is never going to have the depth and breadth of a theology of Paul. Within the first century of Christianity the closest parallel is Ignatius, where, arguably, there are as many genuine letters; but even so we are talking about seven letters written over a very short period, all but one to a relatively small area, in similar circumstances and on a limited range of themes.

Theology is intrinsic to the Bahá’í revelation. While community attitudes have tended to view the discipline of theology somewhat suspiciously, the term and field of “Bahá’í theology” remain valid and are indispensable. One can distinguish source theology or revelation theology, contained in holy writ, from derivative theology (commentary), which is more relative and subjective. The relativity of religious truth, while it plays a useful role in deabsolutizing dogmatism and in promoting interreligious dialogue, is itself relative and currently runs the risk of becoming another absolute. Bahá’í theology is both apophatic (negative) and cataphatic (affirmative). An abstruse, apophatic negative theology of a hidden God is explicit as background to Bahá’í theology. Apophasis rejects defining God and honors God by remaining silent about the divine essence. If apophasis does speak of God, it does so by via negativa, by describing God through a process of elimination of what God is not, rather than making affirmations about what God is. The main substance of Bahá’í theology, however, is manifestation theology or theophanology, that is, a theology calculated upon an understanding of the metaphysical reality and teachings of the divine Manifestation. This manifestation theology is cataphatic. Cataphasis dares to speak about God but recognizes that God transcends the human analogies used to describe divinity. Bahá’í theology is, moreover, based in faith rooted in the person of Bahá’u’lláh and his divine revelation, has a strong metaphysical bias, eschews dogmatism, and welcomes diversity.

In this contribution, the authors reflect on historical theology as theological discipline. The authors propose that historical theology be applied to different areas of research, namely prolegomena, history of the church, history of missions, history of theology, history of ecumenical theology or public theology and church polity. The point is made that historical theology, when properly structured and presented, could play a major role in enriching the theological and ecclesial conversation and in assisting the church in the process of reformation and transformation.

Johan Heyns and the class of '51 - prolegomena to a story of people who got hurt This article consists of three parts. In the first part a story is told of Johan Heyns and some of the men who shared with him the final year of theologi-cal training at the University of Pretoria in 1951. In the second part prolegomena to the telling of a new story of Johan Heyns are explained. Finally this new story is told by using the voices of six people - students, colleagues andfamily - who interrupt each other's voice on Johan Heyns, thereby undermining the popular ideal amongst local church historians that religion biography can and should recreate a complete and consistent image of a person's (moral) reality.

Abstract The present paper examines the rudimentary concept of the Protestant theology as an academic discipline which was enunciated by Melanchthon in his prolegomena to all Latin and German versions of Loci which were the instrument indispensable for educating a next generation of the Protestant divines and for disseminating the ideas of the Reformation worldwide.

Di dalam usaha mendalami teologi, maka kita tidak dapat mengabaikan topik prolegomena yang mana di dalamnya kita menemukan sebuah pendekatan berteologi. Benarlah apa yang dikatakan oleh Millard J. Erickson, bahwa: “Understanding a theology begins with understanding its conception of its task and how it goes about accomplishing that task—in other words, theological prolegomena and methodology.” Singkatnya, prolegomena adalah fondasi yang mempengaruhi kelanjutan bangunan teologi. Kesadaran akan pentingnya untuk memikirkan fondasi berteologi ini makin jelas ketika metode berteologi menjadi sebuah topik yang integral dalam perhelatan diskusi teologi dalam dekade terakhir ini. Hal ini diperlihatkan dengan adanya para teolog yang hendak menawarkan rumusan metode berteologinya. Misalnya saja, Bernard Ramm, Clark Pinnock, James McClendon, dan masih banyak teolog yang lainnya. Namun pada kesempatan ini, penulis hendak memaparkan dan memberikan evaluasi atas rumusan metode berteologi dari seorang teolog injili yang juga masih relevan dengan masa sekarang, yakni Stanley Grenz—seorang profesor teologi di Carey Theological College, Vancouver, British Columbia. Diharapkan melalui artikel sederhana ini, kita mampu melihat sebuah wacana unik dari pemikiran Stanley Grenz—dengan segala kelebihan dan keterbatasannya—sebagai pertimbangan merumuskan metode berteologi kita. Untuk mencapai apa yang sedang diharapkan, maka penulis akan terlebih dahulu memaparkan pokok-pokok pikiran metode berteologi Grenz lalu memberikan beberapa evaluasi yang positif dan negatif dari metode semacam ini.

In this article, the author provides a prolegomena to further research attempting to answer a most undamental and basic question – much more so than what has thus far been the case in the disciplines of Old Testament theology and history of Israelite religion. It concerns the implicit assumptions in the Hebrew Bible’s discourse about the fundamental nature of deity. In other words, the question is not, “What is YHWH like?” but rather , “what, according to the Old Testament texts, is a god?”

AbstractThis article focuses on the possibilities of maintaining divine impassibility for the viability of Pentecostal theology. The author integrates both his own experience as a believer and his sensibilities as an academic to provide an alternative narration of divine affectivity from the popular one advocated by other Pentecostal thinkers. Given the particularities of Pentecostal worship and the implications of a current theological movement to retrieve this feature of the ancient church's testimony, the author suggests that divine impassibility can be a mechanism by which to cultivate both critical and wonder-filled sensibilities among Pentecostal scholars.

This rejoinder responds to the recent exchange begun by Andrew Gabriel concerning the viability of divine impassibility within Pentecostal circles. The article hopes to make clearer the guiding assumptions and ends that drove the original article in question, particularly in terms of how the witness and reception of Christian tradition and the explicit and ongoing recognition of the analogical constitution of God-talk can further serve the efforts of constructive Pentecostal theology, particularly as they relate to the doctrine of God and divine attribution.

Can and may the notion of theology be implemented in the interreligious context, even where the very term theology is unavailable, and if so, to which extent? Given that we lack anything comparable to the concepts of θεολογία or kalām in India, the author of the article demonstrates that the very “theological practice” did take place in India, though not in the same format as, for example, in Neo-Platonism, i.e. as metaphysics. The author demonstrates how Šaňkara (7th–8th A.D.) presents the correlation between the sacred authority (the Vedas) and a rational discourse (logical inference) and concludes that while the founder of Advaita-Vedānta considers the Upanişads as the primary and most reliable source of knowledge of the Divinity, world and man, the rationality that does not contradict them should accomplish two services, elucidating and defending of what is transmitted by them (a translation from Sanskrit of Šaňkara’s comments on the three prolegomenic sūtras of Vedānta are attached to the article). The parallels with the theistic theologies culminate in Šaňkara’s statements that the acquisition of the highest good necessitates repudiation of false philosophical doctrines (those of the materialists, Buddhists, Sāňkhyas, etc.) and in his understanding of the Vedas as the words of the Divine Author (in the obvious contradiction to the view of the Mīmāňsākas for whom their authority is ‘underwritten’ by the absence of their author). The parallels with Christianity come to the end in the difference of understanding of the very “matter” of what is being revealed: while the basic Christian doctrines (beginning with the doctrine of Holy Trinity) can be characterized as surpassing the reason, what is revealed by the Upanişads are quite understandable verities of panentheistic worldview. The investigation undertaken in the article may very well set a prospect for dealing with theology as an intercultural reality.

In a series of papers, Thomas P. Flint has posited that God the Son could become incarnate in any human person as long as certain conditions are met (Flint 2001a, 2001b). In a recent paper, he has argued that all saved human persons will one day become incarnated by the Son (Flint 2011). Flint claims that this is motivated by a combination of Molinism and orthodox Christology. I shall argue that this is unmotivated because it is condemned by orthodox Christology. Flint has unknowingly articulated a version of the heresy called Origenism that is condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council. After arguing that Flint’s account is unmotivated because it is condemned, I shall offer some reflections and prolegomena on the relationship between contemporary analytic theology and the ecumenical creeds.

In this paper, I offer something of a prolegomenon, outlining some areas in which certain strands of biblical theology and analytic theological reflection can be mutually informative. To do so, my paper unfolds in three ways. In the first section, I provide some reasons to think that biblical theologians are onto a reading of Scripture that merits the attention of analytic theologians. In section II, I outline some areas in the biblical theological data that would benefit from analytic exploration and reflection. Finally, in sections III and IV, I present a test case: the imago Dei and the importance of the future bodily resurrection. This should help show how this strand of biblical theology and analytic theological reflection can be mutually informative.

Abstract: Die Analyse ausgewählter Beispiele aus der Kontroversliteratur der Reformationszeit soll rhetorik- und politikgesehichtliche Prolegomena zu einer Theorie und Praxis der Rhetorik des Streitens liefem. Es wird vorgeführt, wie sich Philipp Melanchthons Ziel, die altgläubigen Gegner von der Wahrheit der evangelischen Lehre zu überzeugen, und entsprechende Gesprächsstrategien in seiner Rhetorik und Dialektik niederschlugen und worin die von den konfessionellen Widersaehern diagnostizierten Mängel seiner Überzeugungsstrategie bestanden. Mit Hilfe der modernen Kommunikationstheorie wird der aktuelle Verlauf der Religionsverhandlungen von 1521 bis 1541 ais Dreischrittfolge vom machtbestimmten, ungleichgewichtigen Diskurs über die Vision eines herrsehaftsfreien Diskurses bis zum Scheitern einer Verständigung zugunsten der Spraehe der Macht nachgezeichnet. Drei Kommunikationsversuehe zwischen Protestanten und Katholiken, die hier hauptsäehlieh aus der Perspektive Melanchthons rekonstruiert werden, dienen zur lllustration: A: Die Condamnatio lutheriseher Thesen von Pariser Theologen 1521; B: Die Confessio Augustana, ihre katholische Confutatio, der Recessus des Kaisers im Reichstagsabschied, Melanchthons Apologia confessionis 1530/31 und Johann Coehlaeus' Philippiken gegen die Apologia; C: Die Stellungrwhmen Melanchthons und seiner katholischen Opponenten zum Regensburger Buch 1541

Summary The classical view of the Creator-creature relation conveys ontological asymmetry by affirming a real creature-Creator relation and a rational Creator-creature relation. But the hermeneutical implications of this view obscure the Creator-creature symmetry of biblical religion. In this article I propose a real covenant relation as a divine initiative establishing a relation within which Creator-creature intercourse is possible, actual, and real. I defend the notion of real covenant relation through a study of John 5, and I develop it theologically with reference to Reformed biblical and covenant theology. A real covenant relation preserves ontological asymmetry, vindicates religious symmetry, and affirms rather than obscures the anthropomorphic tenor of biblical revelation.

This article examines John Haught's proposal for a “metaphysics of the future” within his program for an evolutionary theology. After offering an overview of Haught's metaphysics and its roots in process thought, it argues that Haught's account undermines his larger goal of dialogue between science and religion by making all knowledge of reality dependent on a prior and explicitly religious experience. This critique is brought into greater relief through a comparison with the thought of Bernard Lonergan, whose epistemology and metaphysics Haught has engaged numerous times throughout his career. The final section suggests one way of reframing Haught's project that avoids these serious issues without jettisoning his important core insights.

Abstract"We believe in God..., Maker of heaven and earth," is a confession of the Christian church. As such, and since its cardinal terms are taken directly from the Old Testament, it invites an immediate investigation of those texts themselves. Such an investigation would seem to be my responsibility in this consultation, and it would certainly be what I am best equipped to do. However, this paper is also to reflect on the relation of biblical and theological studies. Since that relation is so crucial, and in the current situation so unclear, I have found it necessary to devote all my attention to what should be merely prolegomena. Thus, I must begin, in violation of good rhetorical form, with an apology for what I will and will not do: I will not deal with those texts that are, in great measure, the reason for our gathering; and I will engage in what may seem to be nothing more than "the endless methodological foreplay" that Jeffrey Stout sees as the bane of academic theology.1 Even so, I will have nothing to say about method. My aim is simply stated: it is to locate the interpretation of scripture in relation to theology. I will pursue that aim by reflecting on what is entailed in the confession that forms the rubric of this consultation and the title of this paper. The first two sections of the paper represent parallel probes, the first more abstract and the second more concrete, into the same topic.

AbstractThis article seeks to distill key moments in the early work of the philosopher John D. Caputo. In considering his early investigations of Martin Heidegger, it argues that an adequate account of the trajectory of his later theological project requires a refraction through a crucial double gesture in these earlier writings. To this end, the article follows Caputo’s relationship with Heidegger where the optics of ‘overcoming metaphysics’ are laid bare (the first gesture). In these deliberations, alongside Neo-Scholastic Thomism, it is clear that what constitutes (theological) metaphysics for Caputo is any thinking which fails to think that which ‘gives’ the distinction between Being and beings. The second gesture, then, reveals ‘a certain way’ (d’une certaine maniére) of reading that allows him not only the unique possibility to re-read Scholastic Thomism by way of Meister Eckhart, but also the delimitation of the mythological construal of Being in the later Heidegger himself. The article’s methodological argument is that this transgressionary impulse gleaned from Heidegger, constitutes the ‘origins’ of Caputo’s move into the ethical-religious paradigm of deconstruction and, therefore, is also axiomatic for his later radical theology of ‘religion without religion.’

THE TERRITORIES OF HUMAN REASON: Science and Theology in an Age of Multiple Rationalities by Alister E. McGrath. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2019. ix + 288 pages. Hardcover; $35.95. ISBN: 9780198813101. *In The Territories of Human Reason, Alister McGrath argues against the dated "conflict" and "independence" models of science and religion by carefully cultivating a sophisticated integrative model which affirms an ontological unity of existence, complemented with an epistemological plurality of knowledge discourses that inquire into the nature of that existence. The book comes in two parts: Part 1 (chapters 1-3) provides an overview of the concept of rationality, carefully delineating how rationality is expressed in "distinct, yet occasionally overlapping and competing, epistemic territories and communities" (p. 3). This fact secures the distinct autonomy of science and theology. Part 2 (chapters 4-8) moves on to the process of critical engagement between science and religion. *Since both natural science and religion are vast topics, McGrath narrows his focus to the relationship between the physical and biological sciences on the one hand, and specifically Christian theology on the other (with a particular focus on theology since the late-nineteenth century). He seeks to adopt an empirical approach to the subject which eschews reductionism while grappling with the complexity and integrity of each field in its respective domain. In this way, he seeks to pursue what he calls a colligation, that is, "an ‘act of thought' that brings together a number of empirical facts by ‘superintending' upon them a way of thinking which united the facts" (p. 211). The end goal is a true consilience between respective fields, though not the kind proposed by E. O. Wilson which is a bottom-up scientistic imperialism. The goal, rather, is an integration in which respective fields grow into one another in mutual understanding and illumination, rather like the merging sections of a jigsaw puzzle (my image). *For McGrath, rationality emerges as natural human cognitive processes interact with the overarching metanarrative through which one thinks, while engaging with the specific dataset available to oneself informed by one's community and tradition (p. 25). It should be kept in mind that plurality exists within the disciplines: thus, there is no single scientific method, but rather multiple methods, each specific to its domain of inquiry. For example, some modes of scientific inquiry depend on repetition or prediction as an essential heuristic, while others (e.g., particular historical scientific investigation) are concerned with the best explanation for unique and unrepeatable past events (e.g., the origin of the universe). *Given the complexity and richness with which reason is expressed, McGrath argues that we should think in terms of a multiplicity of distinct rationalities. The challenge arises when we mistake culturally contingent forms of reasoning for the intellectually necessary (p. 46). That, of course, embodies the seductive error of the Enlightenment which has emerged time and again, as in logical positivism of the mid-twentieth century and the new atheism of our own day. *McGrath also identifies levels of explanation and the symbiotic relationship between both bottom-up and top-down mechanisms (p. 66), which need to be synthesized into a unified picture of reality. When it comes to imaging what that looks like, McGrath invokes the illustration of five biologists offering five different explanations of a frog jumping into a pond: from the physiologist to the evolutionary biologist, each offers a unique insight and the challenge is to bring them all into a seamless account of reality (p. 59). *As noted above, McGrath is committed to an ontological unity of reality, one that maintains a critical realist orientation, not least because "the success of science would be a miracle if our theories were not at least (approximately) true" (p. 107). That said, the fact that we can advance in understanding objective reality from our particular situatedness is no basis for triumphalism, for a healthy grasp of these multiple, perspectival rationalities should remain open to mystery. McGrath devotes chapter 7 to a careful articulation of the concept of mystery--both that which is temporary and that which may be intrinsic--that conditions all our enquiries, whether in science or theology. *In the middle chapters, McGrath explores several topics, including the nature of theories as complex explanatory frameworks with particular virtues such as objectivity, simplicity, beauty, and prediction (chap. 4); the relationship between causality and unification as two aspects of explanation (chap. 5); and the primary tools of inquiry and argument, including deduction, induction, and abduction (chap. 6). The book concludes with the above-mentioned chapter on mystery (chap. 7) and a concluding chapter on consilience with an interesting parallel exploration of how natural science might relate first to socialism and then to Christian theology. *From the perspective of this reviewer, there are some lacuna in the book, and while some may seem nitpicky, others are perhaps more substantive. While McGrath's discussion of mystery engages in passing with the mysterianism of atheist Colin McGinn, there is no engagement with some of the important recent work among Christian philosophers such as James Anderson's work on paradox, J. C. Beall on nonclassical logic and dialetheism (true contradictions), or the sizable literature on skeptical theism. It is also unfortunate that there is a general absence of analytic theology in McGrath's discussion. While I recognize that one cannot cover every recent school of thought in a prolegomenal survey of this type, the absence is most notable when McGrath discusses deductive, inductive, and abductive models of reasoning in theology, at which point he focuses on arguments drawn from theism simpliciter (e.g., the Kalam cosmological argument). This seems to me a lost opportunity, as recent analytic theology is yielding a harvest of sophisticated deductive, inductive, and abductive arguments which are not limited to mere theism but also distinctively Christian doctrines such as incarnation, atonement, and Eucharist. *Perhaps more notable is the absence of any mention of intelligent design theory. While I recognize that for many the cultural associations of intelligent design with conservative Christian hermeneutics and courthouse shenanigans have constituted a poison pill for further discussion, the basic question of whether (or under what conditions) natural science may appeal to intelligent/agent causal explanations is a critical one which is right on the vanguard of fruitful scientific and theological interaction. It seems to me that the movement deserves at least a mention, even if a critical one. *In my view, the most significant challenge to McGrath's project is another point which receives insufficient attention in the book, and that is the unique plurality that characterizes contemporary theology. Theology is fractured not only into multiple competing models (e.g., neoclassical, process, and open models of God) but also into fundamental disagreements on the function of doctrine (e.g., post-liberalism, metaphorical theology, analytic theology). McGrath clearly privileges a realist orientation in theology, but it would be interesting to hear more on the specific challenges that theology faces in addressing this fracturing, perhaps in an exploration with the similar debates over models and methods that characterize modern science. *While those may be taken as criticisms, they are admittedly modest. For the most part, I found The Territories of Human Reason to offer a rich and eminently helpful survey of the land. McGrath's realist orientation combined with his commitment to multiple situated rationalities strikes just the right balance between the Scylla of Enlightenment reason and the Charybdis of postmodern skepticism. The Territories of Human Reason would make an excellent (and surprisingly affordable) textbook for a course in science and theology, prolegomena/fundamental theology, or philosophy of religion. *Reviewed by Randal Rauser, Taylor Seminary, Edmonton, AB T6J 4T3.

Introduction. V. N. Tatishchev, one of the founders of the Russian history studies, was notable for his broad views on the evolution of society and economic order. His economic views were not widely discussed during his lifetime and were not much in demand afterwards. Familiarity with his major works is hampered by the fact that they were almost never published in the form of notes, letters, and manuscripts. The ambiguity of his approaches, conclusions, recommendations and, accordingly, their evaluation was noted by many researchers who took diametrically opposed views. Deep erudition, reliance on Western European philosophy and Russian theology allowed the enlightener to create the conceptual milestones of the future institutional program. Theoretical analysis. Modernization of society should be based on constant changes in existing legislative and economic practices, ideological perceptions, and cultural patterns. This approach allows us to identify the most effective institutions (formal and informal rules), taking into account national specifics. Methodologically, the relationship between changes in public administration and social ethos “vertically and horizontally” is established; the importance of societal economic culture as a factor of sustainable development is emphasized. Empirical analysis. Considered chronologically consecutive works on purely economic topics and legal foundations of power are supported by a significant array of letters to Peter I, the Academy of Sciences, the Berg Collegium, and public figures of the first half of the 18th century. According to the thinker, economic policy, both at micro and macro levels, should be based on regulations, organizational adaptation and rational borrowing. The qualitative description of the structure of social relations of absolutist Russia, in the form of “physiology of society”, which resonates with the modern concepts in economic sociology and new institutional economic theory, is highlighted. Results. V. N. Tatishchev can reasonably be considered the conceptual forerunner of the modern theory of institutionalism. As an enlightener, in the spirit of eighteenth-century social thought, he created an introduction to the importance of permanent changes in Russian economic and social structures. The imperative of state construction of the economy at the macro level is supported by attention to micro-changes in the form of regular economic practices, combining elements of originality and creative borrowing of foreign innovations. Evolutionary approach of the thinker echoes the formation and development of economic views of the XIX and XX centuries, especially in the prerequisites of the theory of history periodization and the transition from one political order to another on the basis of changes in institutions (formal and informal rules).

RETRIEVING AUGUSTINE'S DOCTRINE OF CREATION: Ancient Wisdom for Current Controversy by Gavin Ortlund. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2020. 264 pages. Paperback; $30.00. ISBN: 9780830853243. *With a long career (of some 40 years) and even longer paper trail (approximately 94 books with all but one surviving, between 4,000-10,000 sermons with approximately 950 available still, and nearly 300 letters extant), Augustine holds a central position as one of the most influential of theologians. He is quoted often--and too often as an authoritative proof text for one's favored position. Yet he is not often well understood. Enigmatic and difficult to parse at times, he inhabited a different world than our own. He even inhabited a different world than his own contemporaries, offering innovative and profound challenges that many could not comprehend. This was clearly the case when his great and arduous work, The City of God, was appropriated by Charlemagne's court in the eighth century to defend the creation of the Holy Roman Empire. Augustine's counterintuitive position and his difficult and drawn-out argument made it difficult for them to comprehend how that work not only did not support their position, it profoundly challenged its very foundations. *In some ways, Augustine's reflections on Genesis 1-3 present a similar challenge. Arguably, they are even more difficult to understand and the potential for misunderstanding is indeed high. Augustine's doctrines of creation evolves over his forty-year career and is found in five works (or major sections of works) dedicated to the subject, with numerous comments critical to unravelling his views found in diverse other works (including sermons, rarely read). Translating Augustine is not just a linguistic activity, it is a wholesale, conceptual challenge. Yet as much as he is employed and has had major impact, it is a necessity! *Gavin Ortlund has commendably thrown himself into this challenge and provided a work that is, in many ways, admirable and important. We ought to split his work into two parts, which the table of contents does not make adequately clear. The first chapter, quite long, serves as a prolegomenon attempting a synthetic overview of Augustine's cosmology. Readers here should note that cosmology is a term that one finds regularly in discussions of ancient and medieval approaches to the cosmos, but the term does not signify its current meaning. Cosmology for ancients was a theological and philosophical activity which reasoned through the underlying metaphysics, driving and defining the cosmos. The subsequent chapters, two to five, focus rather on the book's main aim: offering lessons on impact and import for current concerns, as a form of "retrieval" per the title. The distinction between these two sections, that is, chapter 1 and chapters 2-5, is critical, though. For while I found multiple challenges and difficulties with the first section of the work, I would not want that to pre-empt the reader from looking closer as I have virtually nothing but commendation and praise for the major portion of the book, which I will address further down. *Chapter 1 seeks to outline Augustine's cosmology, which is complex, diffused, develops and alters over time, deeply embedded in the philosophical concerns and scientific views of his day without always self-evidently manifesting the views (for example, Stoic physics) and, as noted above, located across a vast corpus of writing and preaching. This is an ambitious task, and perhaps one that no single chapter can meet adequately. I suspect that Ortlund experienced distress over the magnitude of this challenge. However, the way in which he seeks to meet it belies a problem with the work. Who is it written for, the specialist or the student? If the latter, then why does this initial chapter use highly technical language and ideas that will not be readily accessible to those not trained in ancient metaphysics? Yet it is also not apparently written for the specialist, since it leaves out or fails to adequately emphasize core ideas that a specialist would expect to find. Specialists might also be frustrated by how his synthetic treatment relies in places on the work of other commentators and translators and, as a result, evinces some key misunderstandings. These include, for example, tying Augustine's doctrine of deification to immutability, misunderstanding some of the nuances of Augustine's Latin (such as temeritas on p. 88), depending on the translator's interpretive work (for example, presenting Augustine as naming the tree of knowledge of good and evil an apple tree, whereas the Latin is the generic "fruit tree"; it became an apple tree later in Medieval Europe), not sufficiently addressing ontology and privation--central to Augustine's theology--and thereby not appropriately addressing the building blocks of his cosmology, and not always accounting for forty years of personal development as if works from early in Augustine's career could readily be read beside those from late in his life, without sufficiently acknowledging Augustine's growth and development. *Yet, despite its technical shortcomings, the chapter also reads more like a doctoral dissertation written for a narrow committee of specialists, focused on minutiae and using untranslated terms (such as logos spermatikos) that only scholars would value and easily grasp. For a work written apparently as an undergraduate textbook and for informed lay readers, it presents highly technical topics and uses scholarly traditions which make it harder for the nontechnically trained reader to easily approach the subject (such as using the Latin titles of Augustine's works in the footnotes). It lacks tools that would help students: there is no bibliography of works cited or a list of Augustine's relevant works or a substantial index (the brief index does not do his work justice, causing me to think, after an initial cursory glance, that he failed to address key issues which he does, in fact, address). Ortlund clearly wants to make Augustine accessible, but I fear this initial chapter, navigating between technical approaches and synthetic overview, in combination with these other weaknesses, does not readily accomplish that goal. *In addressing questions of concern to modern readers throughout chapters 2-5, however, Ortlund hits his stride. These address valuable, appropriate matters critical to numerous communities: Augustine's (surprising) model of humility on how one interprets Genesis 1-3 (in chap. 2 of the book); Augustine's hermeneutical management of the introductory chapters of Genesis (in chap. 3); the epic challenge of animal death and predation (in chap. 4); and the truly knotty problem of a historic Adam and Eve (in chap. 5). All offer depth, thoughtful engagement, and enrichment and are critical companions to the discussions that preoccupy readers of this journal and dominate many pulpits, church pews, classrooms, youth groups, and the like. The section is capped off with a conclusion which I found to be winsome and profound. It reiterates the key lessons Ortlund finds: the wonder at sheer createdness; humility concerning the doctrine of creation encouraging irenic behavior; acknowledging the complexity involved in interpreting the opening chapters of Genesis; the existence of different, rational intuitions about key matters which we should ourselves note, including the example here of animal death; resisting a tendency to choose in absolute terms between history and symbol, and thereby allowing for ambiguity and incompleteness (the opening of Genesis does not seek to answer every question we wish to pose). While I have noted concerns about the first chapter adequately making Augustine accessible in this book, Ortlund has certainly succeeded at demonstrating topics for which Augustine's thought and model is applicable and important. *Meanwhile, it is also critical that one attempt to translate Augustine's thought for modern readers. Ortlund reminds us of the import of bringing an author as influential and seemingly familiar--but really rather distant and difficult--as Augustine to a modern audience and, moreover, doing so without falling into the trap of simply appropriating the audience's ideas. By engaging Augustine's core set of ideas with integrity and appropriate attention to context, Ortlund helps identify and clarify Augustine's contemporary significance. *Reviewed by Stanley P. Rosenberg, Executive Director, SCIO/Wycliffe Hall, Oxford, UK, and VP Research and Scholarship, Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, Washington, DC.

ABSTRACTDieser Artikel untersucht die Begriffsgeschichte der Metapher der Oἰκείωσις in der griechischen patristischen Literatur, besonders im Werk Gregors von Nazianz, und versucht, diese Metapher mit der Bußpraxis des östlichen Christentums in Verbindung zu bringen. Teil 1 bilden Prolegomena zur Erforschung der Begriffsgeschichte der griechischen Theologie, Teil 2 verfolgt die Transformation des stoischen Konzeptes der Oἰκείωσις in den Schriften Philos von Alexandrien, Clements von Alexandrien und Gregors von Nazianz und bietet den Versuch einer historischen Definition des patristischen Ausdrucks der Oἰκείωσις πρòσ θεόν der über die byzantinische Epoche hinweg gebräuchlich war. In Teil 3 zeigt eine sorgfältige Lektüre von Gregors

In 1919 het die eerste uitgawe van die epogmakende “Romerbrief” van Karl Barth verskyn. Van die tweede druk in 1922 sê hy dat “kein Stein mehr auf dem andem” gelaat is nie. So opspraakwekkend was hierdie boek dat in 1929 die 5de druk van die tweede, radikaal-hersiene uitgawe verskyn het. Intussen het nog ander werke van Barth en selfs oor Barth verskyn. 0ns noem o.a. sy Der Christ in der Gesellschaft (1920); Das Wort Gottes und die Theologie (1924); Vom Christlichen Leben (1926); Auferstehung der Toten (2. Aufl. 1927), sy preke saam met Eduard Thurneysen Komm Schopfer Geist, (Dritt Aufl., 7-9 Tausend(!) 1926). Maar 1927 was veral belangrik vanweë die verskyning van Barth se eerste Dogmatiekboek: “Die Christliche Dogmatik im Entwurf. 1 Die Lehre vom Worte Gottes. Prolegomena zur Christlichen Dogmatik” . Voor dié datum het dwarsoor die wêreld, maar ook in Nederland wye reaksie op sy teologie ontstaan. In 1926 skryf Max Strauch sy “Theologie Karl Barth’s”, terwyl Haitjema in Nederland ook in 1926 sy Barth boek die lig laat sien (Prof. dr. Th. L. Haitjema, Karl Barth, Wageningen 1926.) Ander Nederlanders wat gereageer het, was drr. A. H. de Hartog, V. Hepp, Ph. Kohnstamm en di. D. Tromp en 0. Noordmans.

Summary The German theologian Helmut Thielicke (1908-1986), whose books were translated into many languages, is still relevant, for example because of his ideas on the essence of religion, on sin and on the value of human life. After a short biography, this article discusses Thielicke’s conservatism and his relationship to the theologies of Karl Barth and Paul Tillich. Martin Luther was most important for him and the article considers three Lutheran topics at the centre of his thinking: the doctrine of the Imago Dei (the image of God), the relation between law and gospel, and the doctrine of the two kingdoms. Thielicke advocated a close relationship between Church and theology, in particular between preaching and theology, and he saw dialogue as a ‘prolegomenon phase’ of Christian mission. During the ‘roaring 60s’ he realised that societal structures do need to be considered critically.

In this contribution, the author reflects on historical theology as theological discipline. After a short introduction to the precarious situation of church history as a theological discipline in South Africa and the question of faith and history, the contribution presents an analysis of Gerhard Ebeling’s 1947 publication on church history in which he proposed that church history should be understood as a history of Biblical interpretation. Based on some of the principles Ebeling delineated, the author proposes that historical theology could be applied to five areas of research: prolegomena, history of the church, history of missions, history of theology and church polity. The point is made that historical theology, when properly structured and presented, could play a major role in enriching the theological and ecclesial conversation and in assisting the church in the process of reformation and transformation.Keywords: Gerhard Ebeling; Hermeneutics; Church History

Recent studies have shown that philosophy and theology, two disciplines separated and distinguished from each other for more than five hundred years, are closer in reality than how philosophers and theologians of today understand them. This is even more evident in those who reflect on the socalled “death of metaphysics” and the “end of philosophy” that Martin Heidegger proclaims. This, however, cannot escape the question of dealing with St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophical and theological enterprise, whose intellectual spirit is characterized by delving both into philosophical and theological questions. This work tries to place St. Thomas Aquinas within this framework, ultimately showing that he exemplifies a lively interaction and interpenetration between these two disciplines. To show this, the paper goes through a brief survey of the historical distinction which finds its roots in St. Thomas himself. Afterwards, it provides a new understanding of the relationship between philosophy and theology primarily found in Jean-Luc Marion. Through this, one sees that in fact, St. Thomas does philosophy and theology ruly, that while speaking of a distinction between these two disciplines, his whole intellectual project can be seen as both hilosophical and theological, in which one cannot be spoken of without the other. References Abulad, Romualdo E. “Atheism as a Prophetic Voice in the Era of Paradigm Shift.”Diwa 38, no. 2, 2013: 77–90. Caputo, John D. Philosophy and Theology. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2006. de Lubac S.J., Henri. “On Christian Philosophy.” Translated by Sharon Mollerusand Susan Clements. Communio 19, 1992: 478–506. ______________. The Mystery of the Supernatural. Translated by Rosemary Sheed.London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1967. de Torre, Joseph M. “Thomism and Postmodernism.” In Postmodernism and ChristianPhilosophy, edited by Roman T. Ciapalo, 248–57. Washington, D.C.:Catholic University of America Press, 1997. Eco, Umberto. “In Praise of Thomas Aquinas.” The Wilson Quarterly 10, no. 4, 1986: 78–87. Elders, Leo L. “Faith and Reason: Synthesis in St. Thomas Aquinas.” Nova et Vetera8, no. 3, 2010: 527–52. Garrigou-Lagrange O.P., Reginald. The One God: A Commentary on the First Partof St. Thomas’ Theological Summ. Translated by Bede Rose. London: B.Herder Book Co., 1944. Jones, Brian. “‘That There Were True Things To Say:’ The Scandal of Philosophyand Demonstrating God’s Existence in Thomistic Natural Theology.” TheNew Blackfriars 95, no. 1038, 2013: 412–29. Kant, Immanuel. The Conflict of the Faculties. Translated by Mary J. Gregor. NewYork: Abaris Books, Inc., 1979. Kerr O.P, Fergus. “The Varieties of Interpreting Aquinas.” In Contemplating Aquinas,edited by Fergus Kerr O.P., 27–40. London: SCM Press, 2003. Marion, Jean-Luc. “‘Christian Philosophy’: Hermeneutic or Heuristic?” In The Visibleand the Revealed, edited by John D. Caputo, translated by ChristinaGschwandtner, 66–79. New York: Fordham University Press, 2008. ___________________. “Evidence and Bedazzlement.” In Prolegomena to Charity, translatedby Stephen E. Lewis, 53–70. New York: Fordham University Press, 2002. ___________________. On Descartes’ Metaphysical Prism : The Constitution and the Limitsof Onto-Theo-Logy in Cartesian Thought. Translated by Jeffrey L. Kosky.Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. ___________________. “On the Foundation of the Distinction between Theology andPhilosophy.” Edited by Philippe Capelle-Dumont. Translated by JohnCarlo P. Uy and Eduardo Jose C. Calasanz. Budhi: A Journal of Ideas andCulture XIII, no. 1–3, 2009: 15–46. ___________________. “The ‘End of Metaphysics’ as a Possibility.” In Religion After Metaphysics,edited by Mark A. Wrathall, translated by Daryl Lee, 166–89.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ___________________. “The Event, The Phenomenon, and The Revealed.” In Transcendencein Philosophy and Religion, edited by James E. Faulconer, translatedby Beata Starwaska, 87–105. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press,2003. ___________________. “Thomas Aquinas and Onto-Theology.” In The Essential Writings,edited by Kevin Hart, 288–311. New York: Fordham University Press, 2004. Marshall, Bruce D. “Quod Scit Una Uetula: Aquinas on the Nature of Theology.” InThe Theology of Thomas Aquinas, edited by Rik Van Nieuwenhove andJoseph Wawrykow, 1–35. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. McCool, Gerald A. Nineteenth-Century Scholasticism: The Search for a UnitaryMethod. New York: Fordham University Press, 1989. Neuner S.J., Josef, and Jacques Dupuis S.J., eds. The Christian Faith in the DoctrinalDocuments of the Catholic Church. 6th ed. Bangalore: Theological Publicationsin India, 1996. Pope John Paul II. “Fides et Ratio.” The Holy See, 1998. http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_15101998_fides-et-ratio_en.html. Pope Leo XIII. “Aeterni Patris.” Logos 12, no. 1, 2009: 169–92. St. Thomas Aquinas. Commentary on the Metaphysics of Aristotle. Translated byJohn P. Rowan. Vol. 1. Chicago: Regnery, 1961. _______________________. On Being and Essence. Translated by Armand Maurer. Toronto:The Pontifical Institute for Mediaeval Studies, 1949. _______________________. Summa Theologica. Vol. 1. New York: Benziger Brothers Inc.,1948. Suarez, Francisco. “Metaphysical Disputations.” In Descartes’ Mediations: BackgroundSource Materials, edited by Roger Ariew, John Cottingham, andTom Sorell, 29–50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. te Velde, Rudi A. “Understanding the Scientia of Faith: Reason and Faith in Aquinas’sSumma Theologiae.” In Contemplating Aquinas, edited by FergusKerr O.P, 55–74. London: SCM Press, 2005. Turner, Denys. Faith, Reason, and the Existence of God. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress, 2004. White, Thomas Joseph. “Engaging the Thomistic Tradition and ContemporaryCulture Simultaneously: A Response to Burrell, Healy, and Schindler.”Nova et Vetera 10, no. 2, 2012: 605–23.

Classical ethics tells us is that we know through our reason acting as an intellect whether what we do is good or bad. By our nature, then, we can know what's ethically correct. That we do evil is not so much because we do not know it to be wrong; rather, we do wrong despite our knowledge. Thus, if MacIntyre is correct that the Enlightenment philosophers share merely "in the project of constructing valid arguments which will move from premises concerning human nature as they understand it to be to conclusions about the authority of moral rules and precepts," if the project is merely to translate one knowledge to another knowledge, that is, from the knowledge of human nature to the knowledge of moral rules and precepts, then we can very well agree that "any project of this form was bound to fail." Any such project is bound to fail, not only for the reason stated by MacIntyre, that these philosophers are inevitably going to come up with ineradicable discrepancies and divergences, but also because, even should such discrepancies and divergences not occur, the defect lies not so much in its being a matter of knowledge as in its being a matter of desire, that is, not in the intellect but in the will. References Ardrey, Robert. After Genesis. London: Collins Fontana, 1968. Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. J.A.K. Thompson. London: Penguin Books, 1965. Arkush, Allan. Moses Mendelssohn and the Enlightenment. New York: State University of New York Press, 1994. Augustine, St. The Confessions. Trans. Rex Warner. New York: Signet Classics, 2001. Bergson, Henri. Creative Evolution. Trans. Arthur Mitchell. New York: The Modern Library,1944. Darwin, Charles. The Origin of Species: By Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. New York: New American Library Mentor Books, 1958. Descartes, René. Key Philosophical Writings. Trans. Elizabeth S. Haldane and G.R.T. Ross. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Classics of World Literature, 1997. _____________. Principles of Philosophy. Trans. Elizabeth Haldane and G.R.T. Ross. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Donceel, Joseph, trans. A Marechal Reader. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970. Fletcher, Joseph. Situation Ethics: The New Morality. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1966. Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie’s World: A Novel About the History of Philosophy. Trans. Paulette Moller. New York: Farrar Strauss Giroux, 2007. Gadamer, Hans Georg. Truth and Method. Trans. Joel Weinsheimer and Donald Marshall. New York: Continuum, 1988. Gaskin, J.C.A., ed. Varieties of Unbelief: From Epicurus to Sartre. New York: Macmillan Publishing Company, 1989. Hadas, Moses, ed. Essential Works of Stoicism. New York: Bantam Books, 1966. Hegel, G.W.F. Philosophy of Right. Trans. T.M. Knox. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. Heidegger, Martin. Being and Time. Trans. John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Thought, 2008. _______________. Preview to Contributions to Philosophy (From Enowning), trans. Parvis Emad and Kenneth Maly. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. _______________. Parmenides. Trans. Andre Schuwer and Richard Rojcewicz. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1992. Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. London: Penguin Books, 1980. Husserl, Edmund. Cartesian Meditation: An Introduction to Phenomenology. Trans. Dorion Cairns. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1973.______________. Ideas: General Introduction to Pure Phenomenology. Trans. W.R. Gibson. New York: Collier Books, 1962. Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. Lewis White Beck. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Library of Liberal Arts, 1977. _____________. Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics that will be Able to come Forward As a Science. Trans. Paul Cairns. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1977. Levinas, Emmanuel. Otherwise Than Being. Trans. Alphonso Lingis. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981. McKeon, Richard, ed. Basic Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House, 1941. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future. Trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random Vintage Books, 1966. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Prologue 2, trans. Walter Kaufmann. New York: Penguin Books, 1978. Lau, D.C., trans. Mencius. London: Penguin Books, 1976. Lyotard, John Francois. The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Trans. Geoff Bennington and Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1993. MacIntyre, Alasdair. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981. McCool, Gerald, ed. A Karl Rahner Reader. New York: Seabury Press, 1975. Mill, John Stuart. Utilitarianism. Ed. Mary Warnock. London: Fontana Library Collins, 1965. Plato. The Republic. Trans. Allan Bloom. U.S.A.: Basic Books, 1968. Radhakrishnan, Sarvepalli and Charles A. Moore, eds. Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1973. Rawls, John. Theory of Justice. Cambridge: The Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1999. Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Emile, trans. Barbara Foxley. London: Everyman’s Library, 1976. ___________________. Social Contract and Discourses on the Origin and Foundation of Inequality Among Mankind. Ed. Lester G. Crocker. New York: Washington Square Press, 1967. Scheler, Max. Formalism in Ethics and Non Formal Ethics of Values. Trans. Manfred Frings and Roger Funk. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1973. Sen, Amartya. Development of Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Spinoza, Benedictus de. Ethics. Trans. Amelia Hutchinson. New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1949. Thomas Aquinas, St. Summa Theologica. Trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province. Maryland: Christian Classics, 1981. Ware, James, ed. Sayings of Confucius. New York: New American Library Mentor Books, 1955.