Academic literature on the topic 'Views on sanctification'

AbstractThe attribution of holiness to various sites in antiquity was confined neither to a particular ethnic or religious group, nor to one particular geographical locale, but was rather practiced by a wide range of groups vis-à-vis many locations. Contrary to these views, the rabbis made a very clear and sharp statement regarding the sanctity of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount and negated the idea of the existence of holy places outside Jerusalem. The rabbis struggled against the sanctity of the biblical “holy mountain,” as well as against sites that could have been regarded as holy on the basis of the biblical narrative. The discovery of this polemic illuminates and offers an explanation for many surprising passages in early rabbinic literature that belittle high mountains and biblical “memorial sites” in the Land of Israel. The examples, drawn from the various strata of early rabbinic literature, demonstrate surprising rabbinic consensus on this issue.

In this article, traces of ancient devout beliefs within the views of the peoples of the Jizzakh oasis on childbearing are displayed in the following cases; that is, within the rites and ceremonies held in the holy shrines and shrines; within the sanctification of certain attributes, in the traditions and ceremonies organized by the bakhshis in the homes of the people, and in the advantageous encounter with Islamic conventions indeed today, it is explained on the basis of ethnographic information obtained in the course of field investigate. At the same time, there are well known sees that epitomize the appearances of antiquated religious convictions that have been preserved in these traditions and ceremonies; the transformational forms in them and the ethnolocal aspects of the ceremonies performed are proved.

RESPONSIVE BECOMING: Moral Formation in Theological, Evolutionary, and Developmental Perspective by Angela Carpenter. New York: T&T Clark, 2020. 200 pages. Paperback; $39.95. ISBN: 9780567698162. *Carpenter, in this well-written, methodologically astute, and thought-provoking study on moral formation rubs several unusual sticks together: Reformed theologies of sanctification, extended evolutionary synthesis theories, and current offerings in developmental psychology. The result is a wonderful fire that sheds much light on all these areas. This study is sure to be an important conversation partner for those interested in the ongoing dialogue between theology and the social sciences, as well as those interested in the doctrine of sanctification and its relationship to understandings of moral formation. We are in Carpenter's debt for such stimulating interdisciplinary work. *The subtitle lists Carpenter's three main interlocutors. In her first three chapters, she begins with a theological analysis of the views of sanctification of John Calvin (chap. 1), John Owen (chap. 2), and Horace Bushnell (chap. 3), in which she uncovers several "recurring questions and difficulties" in the Reformed tradition (p. 3). These difficulties include, first, the extent to which sanctification should be dependent upon "a particular cognitive-affective state" (p. 36)--namely that the believer trusts in God as a loving parent such that one's good works flow from this state of "faith." This can prove to be an unstable foundation given the "unreliability of subjective awareness" (p. 152). A second question centers on the extent to which God's trinitarian sanctifying action should be understood to work through, or alternatively totally displace, "intra-human sources of formation" (pp. 37, 152). Calvin's theology is filled with tension in these areas, tensions which are resolved in one direction in John Owen's theology as he reacts against "Pelagian" threats in his day and upholds "the integrity of grace" (p. 3) in a certain way. Owen emphasizes the objective work of God in sanctification, such that human cognitive-affective states do not matter much, nor is sanctification seen to be mediated through any human formative influences. Bushnell, responding against revivalist accounts of sanctification in his day, takes the opposite tack, and emphasizes both the human subjective response to God and formative processes such as the nurture of children by Christian parents, so much so that "the activity of the Spirit cannot be considered apart from the natural means through which it operates" (p. 87). I learned much from Carpenter's appreciative yet incisive exposition and analysis, not least of which are the ways that typical Protestant views of sanctification, such as those of Calvin and especially Owen, can pull one in the opposite direction from much of the recent revival of virtue theory and discussions of formative practices in Christian ethics and practical theology. *The key link between these chapters and the following ones is the importance of the parent-child metaphor for the relationship of the Christian to God. "God as a loving parent and the faithful person as the adopted child of God" (p. 5) is a common and important image for Calvin, and indeed for the Christian tradition as a whole, as attested by the first two words of the Lord's Prayer. This raises questions about the extent to which the divine-human parent-child relationship has dynamics that are analogous to human-human parent-child relationships, and the extent to which natural processes of human moral formation are related to the process of sanctification through the gracious activity of God, our heavenly parent. *She pursues these and other questions through a deep dive into the intricacies of current discussions of evolutionary theory (chap. 4) and developmental psychology (chap. 5). In both these chapters, a recurring motif is that relationships of care, affect, and social acceptance bring about important changes in humans. The "niche construction" of systems of affect, attachment, and "concern for the emotions and welfare of others" (p. 111) plays a key part in our evolutionary history, and "early and affective social acceptance" (p. 129) plays a key part in the moral development of children. One can see how important moral changes that these natural processes create in human beings resonate with descriptions of sanctified human behavior that result from the parental love of God. Could these processes, especially when seen in light of trinitarian accounts of the work of Christ and the Spirit, help us better understand God's sanctifying work, without reducing God's gracious action to simply these natural processes? Could such an account help one move through the tensions within doctrines of sanctification in the Reformed tradition? This is the direction of Carpenter's questioning and answering throughout the text and especially in her constructive account of sanctification in chapter 6, "Sanctification Revisited." *I have so much admiration for this excellent study, and there is so much to respond to in this rich text. One key lesson I gained was that love, here understood primarily as an affective relationship of social acceptance and care, is not some added luxury in human life, but rather is a foundational component for human evolution and moral formation. As a theologian this will change the way I think about "justification," which was interestingly not a word highlighted in the text. Carpenter pushes me to anchor my Protestant understanding of justification deeply within the realm of a relationship of acceptance and care between a human and God, rather than seeing it primarily as a juridical status. Carpenter shows there are important "sanctifying" aspects of this relationship; the two theological concepts are linked in important ways. *I also came away with two primary sets of questions, especially regarding her proposals for a revisited doctrine of sanctification. The first has to do with the description of sanctification itself. What does a sanctified or holy life look like? Carpenter emphasizes aspects of sanctification that are direct results of being adopted as a child of God; in this way one becomes a "new being" in Christ (p. 153). This relationship with God satisfies "affect hunger" (p. 158) and provides a social context in which a "new heart" can develop (p. 158). Instead of focusing on an examination of one's own heart (p. 161), or alternatively on following rules or examples outside of oneself, such as the example of Jesus understood "legalistically" (p. 158), Carpenter emphasizes that the Christian life of sanctification is an ongoing repentance from alienation from the creator (p. 162); vivification occurs when one turns again and again to the loving arms of God (p. 163). My wonder here is whether increasing conformity with clear models of God's holy intentions for human life that go beyond the activity of continual repentance and returning to God should also be emphasized. Carpenter certainly talks about conformity to Christ, but the pattern of Christ is usually talked about in terms of "repeated returning" (p. 161) and "perfect fellowship with the Father" (p. 162). I sense perhaps an overemphasis on Spirit, and not enough on Word or the patterns that sanctified life takes: in Calvin's trinitarian theology, "Word" (related to attributes of form, pattern, or way of life) and "Spirit" (related to the energy by which that form is achieved; see Institutes 1.13.18) must go together. While the law and prophets hang on the command to love God and neighbor, such love is fleshed out in a variety of holy ways of life that God intends for humanity. Carpenter's wariness about virtue ethics seems to go hand in hand with this reticence to name behaviors, virtues, or practices other than repentance, acceptance, and positive affectivity. It is unclear to me whether this is simply a matter of scope and focus--"focus on the relationship with God, rather than on one's inner life or outer behaviors" is a clear and salutary message throughout the text--or is a feature of her total understanding of sanctification. *I also wonder whether Carpenter's description of God's activity in sanctification could be improved by considering different ways that God relates to the world. Both Karl Barth and especially David Kelsey (in Eccentric Existence) have taught me to consider that God's activity toward all that is not God takes three primary shapes or "trinitarian taxes" in God's work of creation, reconciliation, and in drawing all that is not God to eschatological consummation. Carpenter's important insights about the foundational nature of affective relationships might find greater sharpness through a distinction between (1) God's creational work (which would be mediated generally through evolutionary processes which include human parent-child relationships), (2) God's reconciling work (which many would claim is mediated primarily and more particularly through the people of God), and (3) God's "kingdom" work (mediated through Spirit-inspired renewed ways of life). This might create greater space for talk of justice and vocation, as well as greater distinctions between God's activity in Christian communities and elsewhere. All three avenues of God's activity and human response to it involve the intertwined, yet unified, sanctifying work of God that is based upon affective acceptance; however, by noting these distinctions, greater space might be created both for greater specifications of holy living and for distinctions between God's more particular and more general work in the world. *None of these wonderings should detract from the seminal nature of Carpenter's work. Her emphasis on the importance of intra-human and divine-human affective relationships in moral formation and sanctification provides an important foundational structure to discussions of sanctification. Carpenter's methodologically careful, insightful, and thought-provoking work will surely be a voice of continuing importance in ongoing discussions of sanctification within theology and in the needed intra-disciplinary dialogue between theology and the social sciences. *Reviewed by David Stubbs, Professor of Ethics and Theology, Western Theological Seminary, Holland, MI 49423.

AbstractThere are two different hermeneutical principles between the views of the fallen and unfallen humanity of Christ. Scholars who deny Christ's assumption of corrupted human nature emphasise that, due to a fallen humanity, Christ would have inevitably committed sin in the context of the original sin. However, theologians who are in favour of Christ's fallen humanity explain the issue in the person and work of Christ himself. Here, I present John Calvin's biblical views on the body of Christ as the vicarious humanity for all of us. With regard to the biblical truth that the Word became flesh without ceasing to be the eternal of God, Calvin describes the paradoxical character of the event in scripture. Although Calvin never supports the fallen nature of Christ at a literal level, he is inclined to accept the view of Christ's fallen nature at the level of interpretation, because Calvin has no hesitation in saying that Christ assumed a mortal body like us. Calvin is in line with the views of Christ's fallen human nature, for he uses the biblical concept of Christ's mortal body and the principle of sanctification in his own body through the Holy Spirit, except in that Calvin denies Christ's assumption of the sinful nature of Adam after the Fall. Calvin's opinions not only provide us with the common biblical ground with which the two theological camps would agree, but also demonstrate that Christ assumed fallen humanity for us. In this article, I will explain how the view of Christ's unfallen humanity has logical errors and how it distorts the integrity of the Gospel. Next, in order to demonstrate how Christ's assumption of fallen humanity accords with the orthodox faith in Reformed theology, I examine Calvin's biblical arguments of Christ's assumption of our true humanity. Then, I explain that without assumption of our mortal body by Christ there is no vicarious humanity of Christ in Calvin's christology. Particularly, in order to understand the original and biblical arguments for the humanity of Christ, I will use a dialectical approach to both the Institutes of Christian Religion (1559) and Calvin's commentaries, as the best way to grasp the essence of Calvin's theology.

The article examines the ideological connection of the name glory and Russian philosophy of the name with the theology of father John of Kronstadt, which allows us to speak of him as one of the main precursors of this direction in Russian thought. The article offers the analysis of the most revealing references to father John by the name praisers - first of all, Hilarion (Domrachev), Anthony (Bulatovich) and metropolitan Veniamin (Fedchenkov), who justified the name praising using the views of father John and demonstrated his succession to the traditional patristic heritage. Also the author investigates the most illustrative references of the imyabortsy to father John’s ideas - first of all, the synodal theologians Nikon (Rozhdestvensky) and Sergey Troitsky, for whom the onomatodoxy statements of father John were the problem that required analysis and different interpretation. The ideological relationship between the teachings of John of Kronstadt with the Russian philosophy of the the name - Florensky, Losev and Bulgakov is examined using the example of two topics that reveal their main substantive coincidence and difference. This is the theme that was identically understood by them, the theme of the relationship between the Name and the God - the ontological connection expressed in the main onomatodox formula of father John: “the Name of God is God Himself”, accepted and expanded by each of the representatives of the philosophy of the name. And also the theme of the relationship between the name and the icon that they understand differently - the ontological relationship between the divine name and the icon. From the point of view of father John of Kronstadt, these categories, like all religious symbols, are in essence equal places of the divine presence; while from the point of view of the philosophers of the name, the category of the name, as the divine energy or the place of its residence, ontologically exceeds the icon, as the material phenomenon that receives sanctification and relationship with God through the name.

The aim of this research is to explain and describe the relationship between reformed theology and the reform of European Christians' views on the nature of the church in life as followers of Jesus. The aim of this research is to explain and describe the relationship between reformed theology and the reform of European Christians' views on the nature of the church in life as followers of Jesus. The research method used is qualitative with data collection techniques, literature studies and data analysis is descriptive qualitative. The results showed that Luther's theology of vocations in all areas of life and Calvin's theology of predestination, sanctification, and justification became the basis for changes in the work ethic of European society at that time. They see work and the results of work are part of faith, therefore they work hard, value time, and appreciate the results of work or material. Therefore, work and work are part of the life of faith. In later developments, there was an excessive appreciation of material or capitalism because of the secularization of work culture, which was originally part of faith. In fact, this Capitalism is not in accordance with Christian ethics. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menjelaskan dan mendeskripsikan hubungan antara teologi reformator dengan pandangan orang Kristen Eropa reformasi tentang hakikat gereja dalam kehidupan sebagai pengikut Yesus. Tujuan dari penelitian ini adalah untuk menjelaskan dan mendeskripsikan hubungan antara teologi reformator dengan pandangan orang Eropa Kristen tentang hakikat gereja dalam kehidupan sebagai pengikut Yesus. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah kualitatif dengan teknik pengumpulan data, studi kepustakaan dan analisis data adalah deskriptif kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa teologi panggilan Luther di segala bidang kehidupan dan teologi predestinasi, pengudusan dan pembenaran Calvin menjadi dasar perubahan etos kerja masyarakat Eropa saat itu. Mereka melihat kerja dan hasil kerja adalah bagian dari iman, oleh karena itu mereka bekerja keras, menghargai waktu dan menghargai hasil kerja atau materi. Jadi bekerja adalah bagian dari kehidupan iman. Dalam perkembangan selanjutnya, terjadi apresiasi yang berlebihan terhadap material atau kapitalisme karena sekularisasi budaya kerja yang semula merupakan bagian dari keimanan. Padahal, Kapitalisme ini tidak sesuai dengan etika Kristen.

The issue of how we understand nature and operate with it goes beyond the scope of ecology or economics and directly affects the ontological-anthropological foundations of culture. The subject-object model that dominates today claims universal validity, but many thinkers challenge its universality. Representatives of the European continental conservative thought of the 20th - early 21st centuries focus on the already accepted forms of natural knowledge and nature relations, which do not imply the objectification of nature or its reduction to an economic resource. These cultural forms belong to the historical past, which raises the question of the possible return to them by the contemporary man or of their possible return to his life. The article starts with the analysis of the nature-knowledge that dominated, according to the mentioned conservative thinkers, before the modern ‘objectification’ of nature. The author considers two related but non-identical approaches to the ‘traditional’ understanding of nature developed by these thinkers. The first approach claims the ‘sanctification of nature’, i.e., the natural world is not objectified but understood as a single reality that includes the man and has a sacred status. The second approach is represented by the metaphysically oriented conservatists and considers the natural world primarily through its function of symbolizing the transcendent supernatural world. Then the author considers the conservative thinkers’ views on the ‘nihilism’ of the last centuries, which led to the current subjectobject relationship with nature, and focuses on their perception of the Christian understanding of nature. The article concludes with the hypothesis that the recognition of each culture’s ‘right to its own nature’ (the essence of the contemporary cultural pluralism) can help to overcome the universalization of a specific understanding of nature by choosing a different model known to this culture in past epochs.

The overall plan of this thesis is to present an effective channel of communication between Confucians and Christians in Taiwan and to proclaim the Gospel to Confucians effectively through a study of the comparison of John Stott's and Wang Yang-ming's view on sagehood. Part I (Chs. 1-3) of this thesis gives a review of the major themes of Stott's view on sanctification. Part II (Chs. 4-6) reviews Wang's view on sagehood. After these two preliminary sections, Part III (Chs. 7-9) compares these two views on sanctification (Confucian term, sagehood) in a number of areas: the foundation of the two views; the meaning of the two views; and the means of the two views. Some practical implications of the findings of this study for the church, especially in Taiwan, and suggestions for further research on the comparison of Christian ethics and Confucian ethics are given in the conclusion of the thesis.

This chapter examines Thomas Hobbes' views on the tradition of commonwealth and its relationship to the state by offering a reading of his book The Elements of Law. It argues that Hobbes, by drawing on his understanding of the theory of sanctification and the doctrine of justification, developed a political theory that split the difference between two rival groups: the supporters of the personal rule, who insisted that the law was binding in conscience, and the puritan opposition, who believed that conscience provided a reason for noncompliance. The chapter first considers the most controversial aspects of state building during Charles I's personal rule, the forced loan and the collection of ship money, before discussing Hobbes's ideas on the issue of taxation, his critique of the claims of distributive justice, and his understanding of the persistence of sovereignty as a dynamic relationship between the state and society.

Maimonides’ view of the significance of dying for God, I will argue, is his understanding of the phrase that the rabbis appropriated (at least by the Middle Ages) for dying in martyrdom scenarios—namely, “Qiddush HaShem,” literally: “Sanctification of the Name [of God].” For Maimonides, a holy life is no more but also no less than a life constituted by perfect performance of all commandments in the Mosaic Law without exception. Does this ideal allow for—indeed mandate in specific circumstances—transgressing rather than dying, especially when coerced? Or does a truly holy life require nothing less than perfect performance of all commandments allowing for no violations under any circumstances? The view that demands perfect observance of all commandments in all circumstances, I will call “holiness perfectionism.” Maimonides, I shall argue, offers a critique of this view.

This chapter offers a comprehensive presentation of the three dimensions of Luther’s Trinitarian doctrine of grace. (1) The conversion of the sinner and the birth of faith in Christ, justification “through faith alone,” is effected by prevenient grace, the sole work of God’s Spirit. (2) Participation in (2a) the cross and resurrection of Christ as well as in his (2b) person, life, and divine properties, are possible solely because of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the believer. Justification means simultaneously (2a) the forensic declaration of the guilty non-guilty on the basis of the atonement by Jesus’ cross (favor), as well as (2b) a union with Christ in the Holy Spirit (donum). The believer participates both in the person and life of the incarnated Son of God and in the historical facts of salvation in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. (3) Sanctification means the gradual growth of love for God and neighbor enabled by participation in divine love in the Holy Spirit who also enables the believer to cooperate with grace. Luther’s dependence on Augustine’s doctrine of grace is pointed out. The three-dimensional structure of Trinitarian grace offers an advancement to the Finnish school of Luther interpretation initiated by Tuomo Mannermaa. His fundamental finding of the participatory nature of justification, rooted in Patristic soteriology, is verified in the present study, but an amendment is also offered, based on a critical analysis of Mannermaa’s interpretation of Luther’s Lectures on Galatians (1531/1535).

The twelfth chapter treats the religious dimension of Nietzsche’s values, expressed in his ideas of Dionysus and eternal return. It might have seemed that he wants to replace gods with the superhuman or Übermensch. He attacks belief in gods as false and as spoiling our relation to values: we view them as commanded by gods, whereas our task is to make them for ourselves. Nevertheless Nietzsche still has use and need for gods and for religion more broadly. The universal Yes amounts to a “sanctification” of the world, demanding a strong affective response that is the positive core of religion that he wants to save. Its disadvantages for belief and will are outweighed by its support for a special feeling that is crucial to his new values. His evocations of Dionysus play this role, as does his thought of eternal return. We conclude with this most evocative of Nietzsche’s ideas.

After five centuries, would it be possible to see any chance of reconciliation between Erasmus and Luther? Looking at this question from the point of view of the three dimensions of the doctrine of grace, we might say some hopeful words. As to the first (1) dimension of grace, at many points even Erasmus admits that human choice must be empowered by God’s grace in order to move in the direction willed by God. But here the real difference is that, for Erasmus, free choice is enabled by the grace given in the creation and it is still naturally efficient in the sinners, whereas Luther sees that there is no freedom because of the human being’s enslavement by unfaith —there is a need for the efficient prevenient movement of the Holy Spirit which alone can create faith. As to the second (2) dimension of grace, following the Catholic tradition, Erasmus knows the conception of (2a) the forensic-juridical forgiveness of sins based on the atonement by the cross of Christ—in this respect there is no real point of controversy between the two. But Erasmus knows nothing about (2b) the union of the sinner with Christ in the Holy Spirit, the Trinitarian participatory conception of justification, central for Luther. In respect to the third (3) dimension of grace, both see possible the cooperation of the believer with God, the difference being Erasmus’ more anthropocentric concept of sanctification if compared with Luther’s emphasis of growth in love enabled by the Holy Spirit.