Systematic and Historical Theology

In Dostoevsky’s 1869 novel, The Idiot, two characters mention an intriguing theory, which they both attribute to the eponymous spiritual hero, the Prince: the idea that “beauty will save the world.”  Since then, a long line of writers and thinkers have picked up on this grand and inspiring motto.  After all, who wouldn’t want to believe that beauty will save the world?  Yet few people have tried to work out exactly what that might entail.

One of the most important figures to have taken up this challenge is Sergeii Bulgakov—philosopher, economist, politician, theologian, and priest.  Bulgakov quotes this phrase in at least four different works spanning the major phases of his mature intellectual career: Philosophy of Economy (1912), The Unfading Light (1917), the essay “Beauty and Art” (1934), and The Comforter (1936).  For Bulgakov, this declaration represents the crystallization of an all-encompassing vision for society, a cosmic process of material and metaphysical redemption analogous to individual salvation.  Through it, Bulgakov underlines the continuity between political aims and theological means, with beauty as the pivot. 

In this paper, I consider the role of the aesthetic principle of beauty in Bulgakov’s political theology.  I focus on two dogmatic works of the 1930s: a treatise, The Comforter, and an essay, “Religion and Art,” drawing on a sermon from the same period, entitled “Social Teaching in Modern Russian Orthodox Theology” to clarify key points in his political theology.  I discuss how Bulgakov’s aesthetic notion of Christian humanism enables him to petition for the transfiguration of society and reform of its unjust structures while steering a political theological course between Marxist positivism and Christian apathy.  Furthermore, I argue that the beauty at the core of his conceptual framework enables him to hold together history and eschatology, human freedom and divine sovereignty, in a theologically coherent theandric whole that nevertheless resists collapse into essentially atheistic “progress” or a pantheistic cosmology.  I conclude by posing a question about the possible role of beauty as a functional substitute for Sophia for theologians adapting Bulgakov’s brand of Christian humanism.

"Our words indicate our thoughts, but our thoughts don't make anything happen…. It's not the same with God." In Speaking the Love of God: An Introduction to the Sacraments, Dr. Jacob W. Wood shows how Christ gives his Church the power to speak with God's voice in the seven sacraments. In this foundational guide to the sacraments, discover the power of the signs and words that transform us by grace and prepare us for glory.

Abstract: This study deals with the relationship between the notion of definitive sanctification which is proposed by John Murray (1898-1975) and the ordo salutis. The idea of definitive sanctification has been criticized in many different aspects. One of the main criticisms is that the idea of definitive sanctification destroys the classical ordo salutis as it takes a new position in the ordo. This study will argue that this kind of criticism is theologically inadequate and will propose as follows: the idea of definitive sanctification does not destroy the classic ordo salutis by making a new independent order. Rather, the idea of definitive sanctification along with the idea of progressive sanctification needs to be understood as one of the two dimensions of the same reality “sanctification” in the classic ordo salutis. This understanding can provide a balanced viewpoint on sanctification between God’s sovereign work and human responsibility.

국문초록: 본고는 존 머리(John Murray, 1898-1975)에 의해 제기된 결정적 성화(definitive sanctification) 개념과 구원의 순서(the ordo salutis) 사이의 관계성을 고찰한 논문이다. 결정적 성화 개념은 그간 많은 비판을 받아왔는데 그 중에 한 비판이 바로 결정적 성화 개념이 전통적인 구원의 순서 내에서 독립적인 한 순서를 차지하고 있기 때문에 전통적인 구원의 순서를 무너뜨린다는 비판이다. 본고는 이 비판이 옳지 않다는 것에 대해 논증하며 다음과 같이 주장할 것이다. 결정적 성화 개념은 전통적인 구원의 순서를 무너뜨리지 않는다. 오히려 결정적 성화 개념은 구원의 순서 속에 위치한 성화의 장에서 하나님의 주권과 인간의 책임 사이의 균형을 유지하게 만드는 효과적인 신학적 장치로 작용한다. 결정적 성화 개념은 전통적 구원의 순서 안에서 새롭게 첨가되는 구원의 순서로 이해 되서는 안 된다. 오히려 기존의 구원의 순서 안의 성화의 영역에서 점진적 성화와 불가분의 짝을 이루는 성화의 또 다른 한 측면으로 이해되어야 한다.

* Two American Calvin scholars, John Fesko and Cornelis Venema, had a debate over Calvin’s understanding of the Mosaic covenant. Fesko argues that for Calvin the Mosaic administration of the law embodies a covenant governed by a “works principle,” namely, obtaining eternal life through obedience. He maintains that Calvin characterized the Mosaic covenant as a “republication of the covenant of works.” In Fesko’s view, Calvin’s formulation of the Mosaic covenant was in the mainstream of Reformation and post-Reformation thought. Venema, however, repudiates Fesko’s interpretation of Calvin. He is convinced that there is nothing in Calvin’s formulation of the covenant of grace that would suggest something like the “republication theory.” He points out two problems with Fesko’s interpretation of Calvin’s understanding of the Mosaic administration. In the first place, argues Venema, Fesko misreads Calvin’s language regarding a “legal” and an “evangelical” covenant. In the second place, Fesko also misreads the contrast that Calvin subsequently draws in his Institutes between the “law” and “gospel.” This essay sides with Venema’s interpretation of Calvin. According to Calvin’s Institutes, Commentaries on Galatians and Hebrews, and his Sermons on Galatians, Calvin emphasizes that the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of grace. As long as the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of grace, says Calvin, it is made and continues through the principle of grace. The law in the Mosaic covenant has the function of leading people to Christ, so it does not embody the works principle. Rather, Mosaic law plays the role that serves the covenant of grace. If Calvin presupposes a works principle in his view of the Mosaic covenant, it leads to the result that he himself obscures his understanding of the Mosaic administration. Thus, this essay claims that Venema’s interpretation of Calvin’s view of the Mosaic covenant is more preferable to that of Fesko’s.

* 미국의 칼빈 연구가들인 존 페스코와 코넬리스 베네마는 칼빈의 모세 언약론을 두고 논쟁을 벌였다. 페스코는 모세 언약이 그 안에 행위를 통해서 구원을 획득한다는 “행위 원리(a works principle)”를 갖고 있다고 보면서 모세 언약이 행위 언약의 갱신이라고 주장한다. 페스코 바로 그런 이유에서 모세 언약과 복음이 대조가 된다고 보았다. 이와 달리, 베네마는 모세 언약이란 여전히 은혜 언약의 한 시행 단계에 속한다고 보며, 그것의 원리도 여전히 은혜의 원리라고 주장한다. 그는 모세 언약과 복음 사이에 어떤 본질적 대조가 있을 수 없다고 하며, 다만 모세 언약을 바울 당시의 어떤 유대주의자들처럼 오해한다면, 그렇게 오해된 모세 언약과 복음 사이에는 본질적 대조가 발생한다고 주장한다. 비록 페스코 역시 모세 언약이 본질에 있어서는 은혜 언약이라고 하지만, 그의 주장을 자세히 분석해 보면, 그는 모세 언약을 본질에 있어서 은혜 언약적 요소와 행위 언약적 요소가 섞여 있는 언약으로 묘사하고 있음을 알게 된다. 페스코가 모세 언약을 행위 언약의 갱신이라고 주장하는 것도 그런 이유이다. 베네마는 모세 언약을 행위 언약의 갱신이라고 보는 견해에 반대하면서, 모세 언약은 은혜 언약의 구약적 시행들 가운데 하나라고만 말함으로써 모세 언약을 은혜 언약으로만 파악하려고 한다. 칼빈의 『기독교강요(1559년 판)』, 『갈라디아서 주석』, 『갈라디아서 설교』, 『히브리서 주석』 등을 통해 그의 모세 언약론을 조사해 보면, 그는 모세 언약 역시 은혜 언약임을 지속적으로 강조하고 있음을 발견하게 된다. 칼빈은 모세 언약이 은혜 언약인 이상, 행위의 원리가 아니라 은혜의 원리에 의해서 체결되며 유지되는 것이라 보았다. 그러나 칼빈은 모세 언약의 한계를 정확하게 지적한다. 그에게 모세 언약이란 다만 그리스도께서 오시기까지만 유효했던 언약이었기 때문이다. 칼빈에 따르면, 하나님께서 모세 언약 안에 율법들을 두신 것은 행위 원리를 부과하기 위해서가 아니었다. 오히려 그것은 율법을 통해서 죄를 깨달아 그리스도께로 나아오도록 하신 하나님의 섭리였다. 만일 칼빈이 행위 원리를 자신의 모세 언약론에서 주장했다면, 그의 전체적 논지가 오히려 흐려지게 된다. 칼빈은 모세 언약 역시 철저하게 은혜 언약의 관점에서 해석하고 있다. 따라서 이 논문은 칼빈에 대한 페스코의 독법보다 베네마의 독법이 더 나은 것으로 판단한다.

Anselm of Canterbury was the father of the first systematic effort at explaining the redemption of Christ by means of satisfaction in Cur Deus Homo.  Others before him offered multiple explanations.  However, his efforts have remained the cornerstone by which subsequent theologians have developed the understanding of redemption as objectively done by God to and for humanity. His model then, is the paradigm necessary for understanding soteriology because of its seminal importance and lasting influence. Therefore, by an analysis and evaluation of Anselm’s soteriology, its strengths and weaknesses can be acknowledged and adapted into a new soteriology for today’s situation.

We are all haunted by histories. They shape our presuppositions and ballast our judgments. In terms of science and religion this means most of us walk about haunted by rumors of a long war. However, there is no such thing as the “history of the conflict of science and Christianity,” and this is a book about it. In the last half of the twentieth century a sea change in the history of science and religion occurred, revealing not only that the perception of protracted warfare between religion and science was a curious set of mythologies that had been combined together into a sort of supermyth in need of debunking. It was also seen that this collective mythology arose in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries by historians involved in many sides of the debates over Darwin’s discoveries, and from there latched onto the public imagination at large. Flat Earths and Fake Footnotes takes the reader on a journey showing how these myths were constructed, collected together, and eventually debunked. Join us for a story of flat earths and fake footnotes, to uncover the strange tale of how the conflict of science and Christianity was written into history.

"Flat Earths and Fake Footnotes offers a comprehensive and compelling demolition of the tired myth of an enduring conflict between science and religion. Peterson not only exposes the historical bankruptcy of this familiar story, but also shows how it became a foundational narrative for Western modernity and why it persists. Beautifully written
and impeccably researched, this book deserves a wide readership."

-Peter Harrison, Former Andreas-Idreos Chair of Science and Religion, Oxford University, Current Australian Laureate Fellow and Author of The Territories of Science and Religion


"Peterson shows himself a gifted storyteller as well as scholar, combining true accounts of famous events (which prove no less interesting than the legends that have grown up around them and in some cases have replaced them) with the story of how those events were overlaid and refashioned into the myth so many treat as common
knowledge today: the untrue history of the war between religion and science. In an era full of so much untruth, Peterson's book is a breath of fresh air."

--James F. McGrath Clarence L. Goodwin Chair in New Testament Language and Literature, Butler University and Author of Science Fiction Theology.


"This work on the historiography of science and Christianity is
must-reading for high schoolers and college students, along with their parents and professors, and will, if heeded, change the way future generations will see the world. It

It is not easy to debunk a history that never happened, but Peterson has done precisely that, and achieved it admirably. The history of science is littered with stellar figures of immense importance, erudite thinking, and deeply Christian convictions. A new generation of Christians needs to be reacquainted with these scientific saints and Peterson's
work is a sure guide to this task."

--Myk Habets, Senior Lecturer in Theology, Laidlaw College, New Zealand. Author of Theology in Transposition: A Constructive Appraisal of T.F. Torrance


"Peterson is seeking to wake us from our dogmatic slumbers. Historians of
science, scholars of religion, and theologians often plough separate furrows, paying little attention to each other's work. But in Flat Earths and Fake Footnotes, Peterson has brought them all into conversation, condensing a truly vast amount of scholarship. He has shown, moreover, that scholars ignore each other at their own peril. Despite over
a hundred years of scholarship debunking the so-called 'conflict thesis,' the idea thatscience and religion are at war, perceptions of conflict persist. The only way forward from our scholarly impasse is to combine these fields of scholarship to paint a more comprehensive picture of what is going on. Impeccably researched and thoroughly readable, Peterson offers the reader a tour de force of the best research in the history
of science, religion, and theology."

--James C. Ungureanu, honorary research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland and in the Department of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Author of Science, Religion, and the Protestant Tradition: Retracing the Origins of Conflict


"Those who set the historiographical terms of debate frame the narrative involving the alleged conflict of Christian faith and science. Derrick Peterson's learned interdisciplinary study tracing the formation and deconstruction of the erroneous though ever-popular warfare thesis carefully sets the stage for future constructive work recounting
the complex developments of scientific history involving Christianity. Flat
Earths and Fake Footnotes provides the kind of critical analysis and creative catalyst so greatly needed today if we are to build nuanced understanding and trust between the scientific and faith communities for the sake of human flourishing."

--Paul Louis Metzger, Multnomah University & Seminary, Author of The Word of Christ and the World of Culture: The Sacred
and the Secular Through the Theology of Karl Barth

"Why won't this stubborn pseudohistory die? To the rescue comes Peterson, a historian extraordinaire with many stories to tell. Exuding a palpable glee, he quests to debunk the grand pseudohistorical myths of conflict. His book about books leads the reader in an adventure across centuries. Hacking through the webs of false references and out-right fabrications, the payoff is a glimpse of what really happened.
The truth is far more hopeful than the fiction. Rather than inevitable conflict, the true arc of science and religion might be dialogue, maybe even friendship. May this book
get the wide readership it deserves."

--S. Joshua Swamidass, M.D., Ph.D., Author of The Genealogical Adam and Eve


"Peterson offers us more than simply another genealogy debunking the warfare thesis. Rather, Flat Earths and Fake Footnotes offers us a deeply learned and absorbing meta-genealogy: a story of why and how the historiography that manufactured the myth of faith/science
conflict came to be superseded by the alternative and debunking historiography that we find today. The result is among the clearest and most bracing articulations I've read on the complex historical interplay between religion and science. Peterson's narrative
corrects our retellings of that interplay in the past. But more than that, Flat Earths challenges us to make explicit our present interests in such retellings and encourages us to imagine what sort of future for science and religion we are projecting with our historiographies. A remarkable first book by a formidable young scholar."

--Sameer Yadav, Author of The Problem of Perception and the Experience of God: Toward a Theological Empiricism


"In this remarkable volume, Peterson collates and contributes to a quiet revolution in the world of scholarship that is just now being disseminated to the masses. In your hands lies not just a book but the intersection of more scholarly threads than I thought possible in a single volume. Like a relentless detective, Peterson removes the dramatic
curtain that has been put over our collective consciousness for so very long, and what remains is a tale of mere mortals, behaving very much as they do today. None will leave without enduring the slow dissipation of myths that we didn't know we believed.
The cosmos that remains is, of course, so much more interesting and grand. This should serve as the definitive nail in the coffin of the warfare thesis for a generation to come. Even more than that, and especially delightful, it is a model of intellectual curiosity--of what scholarship ought to be."

--Joseph Minich The Davenant Institute

"Peterson's detailed and well-researched description and argument ought to dispel any notion that the earliest 'scientists' were hindered by religion in their pursuit of understanding the natural world. A must read."

--Mike L. Gurney, Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics, Multnomah University


"Peterson's book is another nail in the coffin of the Warfare Thesis and takes a different tack and gives an interesting and illuminatingly different perspective than the standard fair. Highly recommended."

-Michael Roberts. Retired Anglican priest and Historian of geology and Genesis. Author of Evangelicals and Science


"As a *very* hopeful agnostic, I have a keen interest on the relationship between science and faith. This book is probably the most delightful exploration of this history that I have ever read. In an erudite yet entertaining manner, Peterson explores this history in a way that undoubtedly makes the case that the enmity between science and religion, although undoubtedly present, has been rather exaggerated. Peterson acts as an ideal ambassador between these two disciplines. ... Using the obligated--yet fully felt--remark, I must say: Highly recommended."

--Oné R. Pagán, PhD, Professor of Biology, West Chester University.
Author of 'The First Brain', 'Strange Survivors', and 'Drunk Flies and Stoned Dolphins'.

In einem trivialen Verständnis bedeutet Mystik das, was die Religionen der Erde jenseits ihrer institutionell-dogmatischen Ausprägungen miteinander verbindet. Inwieweit ein solch entkontextualisierter Mystik-Begriff wissenschaftlich vertretbar ist, soll genauso diskutiert werden wie die christlichen Voraussetzungen und Möglichkeiten einer sinnvollen Verständigung über fremde mystische Überlieferungen im interreligiösen Dialog. In diesem Zusammenhang sollen zwei theologische Ansätze (Josef Sudbrack und John Hick) näher besprochen werden, um zu zeigen, wie die (christliche) Theologie der Religionen über die Rolle und den Stellenwert der Mystik in der interreligiösen Verständigung urteilt. Es wird sich dabei zeigen, dass in der Einstellung außerchristlichen mystischen Überlieferungen gegenüber dieselben Dichotomien obwalten wie in der Beurteilung von nichtchristlichen Religionen: Schroffe Ablehnung des fremden Mystischen bei zeitgleichem Anspruch auf die Exklusivität der eigenen mystischen Tradition ist eher untypisch; inklusivistische und pluralistische Tendenzen sind desto häufiger anzutreffen. Vor diesem Hintergrund stellt sich die Frage, ob sich in der eigenen zweitausendjährigen Theologiegeschichte einen Ansatz findet, der nicht nur die zum Dialog erforderliche Offenheit fremden religiösen Überlieferungen gegenüber aufweist, sondern auch ein wissenschaftlich verantwortbares Umgehen mit der eigenen Tradition ermöglicht. Dabei geht es um den Ansatz der Negativen Theologie, dem beim rechten Licht gesehen sowohl das Absolutheitsdenken als auch der religiöse Relativismus fremd sind.

John's Logos-hymn reflect a response to the Johannine narrative, functioning with other Christological hymns to pose a Jewish challenge to Empire and its divine-Caesar cult. It is added to the final edition of John as an experientially engaging introduction. Published in Creation Stories in Dialogue: The Bible, Science, and Folk Traditions (Radboud Prestige Lecture Series by Alan Culpepper), eds. R. Alan Culpepper and Jan van der Watt, BINS 139 (Leiden: E.J. Brill 2016)--uncorrected proofs.

헤르만 바빙크(1854-1921)는 교의학자였지만 중요한 윤리학 작품도 남겼다. 최근에 발간된 『개혁파 윤리학』은 아주 탁월한 기독교 윤리학 저서이다. 바빙크의 『개혁교의학』과 『개혁파 윤리학』은 다음과 같은 밀접한 관련성이 있다. 첫째, 『개혁파 윤리학』은 『개혁교의학』에 나타난 종합적-발생론적 방법론을 사용한다. 둘째, 『개혁파 윤리학』은 교의학과 윤리학의 상호보완적 관계성을 유지한다. 셋째, 『개혁파 윤리학』은 교의학과 윤리학을 밀접하게 관련시키면서도, 교의학을 너무 많이 개입시키지 않고 윤리학에서 꼭 다뤄야 하는 교의학의 내용만을 엄선해서 다룬다. 넷째, 『개혁파 윤리학』의 내용은 『개혁교의학』과 내용상으로 짝을 이룬다. 다섯째, 바빙크는 교의학과 윤리학에서 철학과 깊이 있게 대화한다. 여섯째, 바빙크의 교의학과 윤리학은 초기 근대 개혁파 신학에서 많은 내용들을 인용하고 다룬다. 일곱째, 바빙크의 교의학과 윤리학은 성경을 근거로 주제를 전개하고 결론을 완성한다. 바빙크 사후 100주년을 기념하는 오늘날의 개혁신학이 앞으로의 100년을 건설적으로 모색하고자 한다면, 바빙크라는 거인의 어깨에 올라가서 보다 성경적이면서도, 역사적 자료에 충실하고, 현대 학문과 대화하면서, 오늘날의 교회와 사회의 구체적 문제에 응답하는 교의학과 윤리학을 발전시켜 나가야 할 것이다.
====
Herman Bavinck (1854-1921) was a dogmatician, but he also wrote important ethical works. The recently published Reformist Ethics is an excellent book on Christian ethics. Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics and his Reformed Ethics are closely related. (1) Reformed Ethics uses the synthetic-genetic method endorsed in Reformed Dogmatics; (2) Reformed Ethics shows a complementary relationship between dogmatics and ethics; (3) Reformed Ethics intimately relates dogmatics to ethics but carefully selects and treats only the theological topics that should be dealt with in ethics without involving dogmatics too much; (4) the content of Reformed Ethics is paired with Reformed Dogmatics; (5) Bavinck has an in-depth dialogue with philosophy in both works; (6) the two works quote and deal with a lot of material from early modern Reformed theology; and (7) Reformed Dogmatics and Reformed Ethics develop the subjects and complete their conclusions based on the Scriptures. If today’s Reformed theology, commemorating the 100th anniversary of Bavinck’s death, wants to constructively explore the next 100 years, it should climb on his shoulders and develop dogmatics and ethics that respond to specific problems of the church and society while being more biblical and faithful to historical data and conversing with modern academic studies.

Augustine is known as the great theologian of sin. For this he has been celebrated as a realist and criticized as a pessimist. What modern readers often miss is the deeply humane source and character of Augustine's views about sin. We tend to think of Augustine as an observer of humanity whose setting in the midst of the slow demise of an empire provided ample material for reflection on the darker side of life. But Augustine's doctrines of sin and evil were less a product of empirical observation than that picture suggests. Rather, he began with a doctrine of grace and a conception of the good. His ideas about evil and sin were driven by those commitments and laced with compassion for the plight of all those whose lives are a disappointment to them (though also with scorn for those who are self-satisfied).

A key argument in this chapter is that Augustine’s views about sin and evil are derived from his views about grace and goodness. Given his ways of thinking about the latter, the former follow. Keeping this fact in mind may or may not make Augustine’s views easier for modern readers to love, but it can help to avoid some common misunderstandings. A second major contention is that Augustine’s ontology of evil as a privation should shape the way we understand Augustine’s claims about sin. This point is developed in conversation with Augustine’s doctrine of original sin, which applies his privation account to moral psychology, and in conversation with Augustine’s doctrine of primal sin, which has more in common with his understanding of original sin than is commonly realized.

In order to illuminate our theological understanding of love this essay
analyzes love in the context of the Pauline formula of faith, love, and hope.
In terms of method, the essay combines exegetical observations, conceptual
tools from communication theory and constructive theology. Faith, love,
and hope are theologically conceptualized not as virtues but as media of
communication of the Holy Spirit. The relationships between faith, love,
hope are illuminated with conceptual tools coming from communication
theory: They can be seen as symbolically generalized media of communication.
On this basis the rich texture of love is unfolded. The unity of faith,
love, and hope constitutes the shape of the Christian life and provides an
indispensable contribution to social live.

From its earliest days, Christianity is a faith that has demonstrated its ability to be articulated, believed, and practiced in a multitude of cultural contexts. Its Scriptures have been translated into a multitude of languages, and its manifestations have appeared in countless places and eras. The task of the Christian missionary, then, is the translation of the unchanging message of the gospel into the changing contexts of the world in a perennial dance requiring exegesis of both text and context. To avoid the imposition of extra-contextual interpretive pressure, some missionaries and global theologians encourage the development of contextual Christologies that prioritize concepts and terms relevant and native to the culture over biblical or creedal terminology. To the contrary, this article contends that the Chalcedonian articulation of the Sonship of the second person of the trinity has enduring cross-cultural relevance for contemporary Christian missiology.

Anselm of Canterbury was the father of the first systematic effort at explaining the redemption of Christ by means of satisfaction in Cur Deus Homo.  Others before him offered multiple explanations.  However, his efforts have remained the cornerstone by which subsequent theologians have developed the understanding of redemption as objectively done by God to and for humanity. His model then, is the paradigm necessary for understanding soteriology because of its seminal importance and lasting influence. Therefore, by an analysis and evaluation of Anselm’s soteriology, its strengths and weaknesses can be acknowledged and adapted into a new soteriology for today’s situation.

In this essay I offer a novel interpretation of Calvin’s eschatological imagination and the ways the latter shapes Calvin’s overall theological narrative. In addition to his explicit, infralapsarian eschatology, which circles around the reconciling work of the incarnate Christ, Calvin also has an implicit, supralapsarian eschatology, according to which human beings were created for an upward journey toward God, mediated by the non-incarnate divine Word. Tracing the contours of this eschatology sheds new light on Calvin’s account of mediation, incarnation, and expiation, his understanding of the end of Christ’s mediatory work, and the contemporary discussion about Calvin and deification.

The article discusses the spectacle of Christ's wounds after His resurrection based on the account from the Gospel of John within the context of the dogmatic meaning of the resurrection from the dead and what it entails for humans. It mainly addresses the reasons why Christ was eager to show the scars of His Passion although His human nature had indeed transformed into an incorruptible, perfected and de-ified one. This gesture was proof that the person who had suffered was the same person who had defeated death, sacrificed His life and had risen from the dead out of His limitless love for the human race. The author then draws the link between this dogmatic truth and the ethos of the ecclesiastical life, as he contends that the members of the Church should lead a Christ-like life by being compassionate and affectionate towards other peoples' suffering, i.e. the suffering of the entire world. ▶

Abstract: The thorough and meticulous studies regarding the nowness and futureness of the Kingdom of God have sufficiently set forth in the tensional and macroscopic structure of “already, but not yet.” Yet even these studies have not been fully paid attention to how to connect the nowness with the futureness of the Kingdom of God in light of anthropological and eschatological perspective. The purpose of the present study is to fill up this kind of academic shortage. The filling work will be carried out in light of John Calvin’s Psychopannychia (1534). The thesis of this study is that the immortal and conscious human soul even before and after death, which is highlighted throughout Calvin’s Psychopannychia, can faithfully play as a “theological bridge” to connect the nowness(already) with the futureness(but not yet) of the Kingdom of God. Of course, it is somewhat unfit to say that the core idea of Calvin’s Psychopannychia is the Kingdom of God per se. For Psychopannychia is Calvin’s biblical answers to the problematic ideas of Calvin’s time such as annihilationism and a theory of soul sleep. However, through examining Psychopannychia, the clue of how to connect the nowness to futureness of the Kingdom of God can be found in light of anthropological and eschatological perspective.

국문초록: “이미, 그러나 아직 아니”(already, but not yet)라는 거시적 조망과 긴장의 틀 가운데서 하나님 나라의 현재성과 미래성에 대해 깊이 있는 성경적 논증을 한 연구들은 이미 충분히 개진되었다. 하지만 하나님 나라의 현재성(이미)과 미래성(아직 아니) 사이의 연속을 이어주는 인간론-종말론적 신학적 가교가 무엇인지에 대해서는 충분한 논의가 이루어지지 않고 있다. 본고는 이 부족한 부분을 보충하는 차원으로서의 목적을 지닌다. 이 작업을 존 칼빈(John Calvin, 1509-1564)의 첫 신학 소품인 『영혼의 깨어있음에 관하여』(Psychopannychia, 1534)의 빛 아래서 할 것이다. 『영혼의 깨어있음에 관하여』는 청년 칼빈이 쓴 첫 신학 소품임에도 불구하고 그 신학적 깊이가 농후하다. 특히 하나님 형상(imago Dei)이 거하는 좌소(坐所)로서의 “영혼”의 불멸성과 의식성 강조는 『영혼의 깨어있음에 관하여』의 백미임에 분명하다. 본고가 하려는 주장은 다음과 같다. 『영혼의 깨어있음에 관하여』 작품 두루에 걸쳐 칼빈이 강조한 신자의 영혼의 불멸성과 의식성은 이미 실현된 하나님 나라와 장차 완성될 하나님 나라 사이를 연결하는 “신학적 가교 역할”을 충실히 할 수 있다는 것이다. 이는 하나님 나라의 현재성과 미래성 사이의 연속성과 긴장을 인간론-종말론적 관점에서 포괄적으로 고찰할 수 있는 시각으로 청년 칼빈이 우리에게 제공하는 귀한 통찰이다.

Dans les perspectives de la Théologie Pratique, la Santé, la Maladie, et la Guérison prennent une posture holistique, chacune sur un axe triangulaire : physique, psychologique, et spirituelle. L’on ne saurait limiter la santé, la maladie, et la guérison exclusivement sur l’angle physique.

Free sample! Sample and the book are also available from Baker Academic  (http://www.bakerpublishinggroup.com/books/salvation-by-allegiance-alone/380521). Or preview/purchase from Amazon (https://www.amazon.com/dp/0801097975/)

We are saved by faith when we trust that Jesus died for our sins. This is the gospel, or so we are taught. But what is faith? And does this accurately summarize the gospel? Because faith is frequently misunderstood and the climax of the gospel misidentified, the gospel's full power remains untapped. While offering a fresh proposal for what faith means within a biblical theology of salvation, Matthew Bates presses the church toward a new precision: we are saved solely by allegiance to Jesus the king. Instead of faith alone, Christians must speak about salvation by allegiance alone. The book includes discussion questions for students, pastors, and church groups and a foreword by Scot McKnight.

Drawing from Irenaeus, the Gospel of John, and various other sources, this paper presents a theological interpretation of the imago Dei as a dramatic role whose mission is to mediate God's blessing to the world through embodied communicative action. The paper was presented at the Society for the Study of Theology Postgraduate Conference in January 2014 at Oxford, England. A preliminary version of the paper was also presented at the Centre for Pentecostal and Charismatic Studies Seminar, University of Birmingham, December 2013.

We have two ways of knowing. Our mind knows forms, things, both subtle and gross. Faces, hands, buildings, trees, math formulas, mind knows subject and the mind knows otherness. The mind knows dualities, the mind knows me and you, us and them, and this and that. Mind knows time, mind knows the past, the present and the sense of the future. The mind knows things and entities, the mind knows beings, infinite numbers of beings and things. The mind knows difference. The mind thinks conceptually, feels affectively, imagines through imagery, the mind has sense and the mind has memory. The mind knows dualistically.

저자 서문: 저는 신학대학과 신학대학원에서 학부생들과 대학원생들에게 조직신학 과목들을 가르치고 있습니다. 동시에 저는 교회 새가족반과 교리 성장반에서 성도들을 대상으로 기독교의 기본 교리들을 가르치고 있습니다. 그러다보니 제가 가르치는 대상의 색깔도 참으로 다양합니다. 학교에서는 신학을 처음 접하는 20대 초반 대학생에서부터 학자의 길을 준비하시는 나이 지긋한 박사과정 대학원생들까지, 교회에서는 일평생 처음 교회에 나오신 새 가족부터 수 십 년간 신앙생활을 해 오셨던 권사님‧장로님까지 실로 다양한 분들에게 신학과 교리를 가르치고 있는 셈입니다.
  이 책은 학교에서나 교회에서나 기독교 기본 교리를 가르칠 때마다 주로 받았던 ‘질문’들을 선별해 신학적으로 명료하게 답변하는 형식을 취합니다. 제가 깨달은 것 중 하나는 신학의 성숙도에 따라 질문의 수준이 약간씩 차이가 있긴 하지만 그럼에도 불구하고 대부분의 사람들은 각 주제에 맞춰 비슷비슷한 의문점들을 갖고 있다는 점입니다. 이 책에 등장하는 질문들은 제가 현장에서 신학과 교리를 가르치면서 실제적으로 직‧간접적으로 받은 질문들이기 때문에 현장성이 가득 녹아 들어가 있는 질문으로 볼 수 있습니다.
  각 질문들에 대한 저의 답변은 순수하게 저만의 고유한 답변이라기보다는 개혁신학(改革神學, Reformed Theology)의 전통 위에서 신앙의 선배들이 대답해 왔던 것들을 제 시각 하에서 재정리 한 것에 더 가깝다고 볼 수 있습니다. 개혁신학이란 16세기 유럽에서 발흥한 신학 전통으로 다시 한 번 ‘성경이 말하는 바로 돌아가자’라는 태도와 자세를 가지고 하나님의 뜻과 주권을 겸비하게 인정하는 특징을 가진 신학 전통입니다.
  이 책의 구성은 크게 7개의 장으로 이루어집니다. 7개의 장으로 구성한 이유는 전통적으로 조직신학을 7개의 각론 즉 성경론(서론), 신론, 인간론, 기독론, 구원론, 교회론, 종말론으로 나눴기 때문입니다. 7개의 각론들은 또 다시 7개의 세부 질문과 대답으로 나누어 한 교리적 주제에 대해 최대한 종합적으로 설명하려고 노력했습니다. 그러므로 이 책은 총 49개의 주요 교리적 질문들에 대한 답변이라고 볼 수 있습니다.
  각 장들의 세부 구성은 ‘신학이 있는 답변,’ ‘깨달음이 있는 성경 구절,’ 그리고 ‘적용이 있는 묵상’ 등으로 크게 3부분으로 나뉩니다. 신학이 있는 답변 부분은 던져진 질문에 대해 가능하면 선명하고 명료하게 교리적 핵심을 짚는 부분으로 신자들이라면 반드시 알아야 하는 기본적인 신학 개념들을 소개하고 설명하는데 방점을 찍은 부분입니다. 깨달음이 있는 성경 구절 부분은 앞에서 설명한 신학적 개념들을 관련 성경 구절들을 통해서 다시 한 번 재 확증하여 복된 깨달음으로의 물꼬를 트는 것에 방점을 찍는 부분입니다. 적용이 있는 묵상 부분은 특정 질문에 대한 신학적‧성경적 고찰을 근거로 각 개개인의 삶 속에서 특정 교리를 어떻게 적용할 수 있을지에 대한 가늠자를 제공하는 것에 방점을 찍은 부분입니다.
  이 책은 지역 교회에서 새가족부 교육 교재로, 각종 소그룹 모임 교재로, 가정에서는 가정 예배 참고 도서로, 혹은 신학교에서는 조직신학 개론 참고서로 활용될 수 있는 성격을 지닙니다. 물론 혼자 읽으면서 기독교의 기본 교리를 다시금 재정립하는 귀한 기회로 삼아도 좋습니다. 이 책을 읽다보면 분명히 더 많은 신학적 질문들이 쏟아져 나오게 될 것입니다. 그 때는 이 책과 더불어 조직신학 필수 교본들을 상보적으로 읽어 가시며 신학의 뿌리를 든든히 하는 기회로 삼으시길 바랍니다. 하지만 그 어떤 책보다 더 중요한 책은 성경책입니다. 모든 신학과 교리는 성경 말씀에 비추어 궁극적으로 평가 받아야하기 때문입니다.
  이 책에서 인용된 모든 성경 구절들은 개역개정역이며, 성경 이름은 줄여서 표기 했고, 인용된 신앙고백서‧교리문답 문구의 한글 번역은 모두 다 제 번역임을 밝힙니다. 핵심적인 신학 단어들은 가능하면 한자어와 영어로 혼용 표기해 의미적 용례를 드러내길 힘썼습니다.
  이 책을 통해 아리송했던 신학적 개념들이 더 선명해지길 바라며, ‘여호와를 힘써 아는 것’(호 6:3)의 물꼬가 은혜 가운데 힘차게 터지길 진심으로 갈구합니다. 사실 책 전반에 걸친 일련의 질문들에 대한 대답은 제가 했지만, 그 대답들이 제 대답으로 그치는 것이 아니라 진리의 영이신 성령 하나님께서 주시는 대답이 되길 위해 이 책을 읽으실 독자들 개개인에게 역사하실 성령의 조명하심을 간절히 기대하며 사모합니다. 성령의 조명하심이 없는 진리에 대한 탐구는 무의미합니다. 성령의 조명하심을 간절히 기대하며 이 책을 믿음으로 집어 들어야 하는 필연적인 이유가 바로 여기에 있습니다.

The cross of Christ lies at the heart of the Christian faith. It is the focus and climax of the Gospel narratives. The apostle Paul told the Corinthians that he was determined to know nothing among them 'except Jesus Christ and him crucified' (1 Cor. 2:2). Later in the same letter he identified those things of first importance which had been delivered to him and which he now proclaimed to others: 'that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve' (1 Cor 15:3-5). It is hardly surprising, then, that John Calvin, determined as he was to present a genuinely biblical presentation of Christian doctrine, should give careful and sustained attention to the theology of the cross. As he moves towards his treatment of the cross in the Institutes of the Christian Religion, he describes the priestly work of Christ as 'the principal point [praecipuum … cardinem] on which […] our whole salvation turns'.

The whole Gospel is contained in Christ.' So writes John Calvin, commenting on Romans 1:3. 'To move even a step from Christ means to withdraw oneself from the Gospel. Since Christ is the living and express image of the Father, it need not surprise us that He alone is set in front of us as the One who is both the object and centre of our whole faith.' 1 This was no isolated comment, tied to the exegesis of a particular biblical text and easily forgotten. Though he did not leave us a treatise on Christology, the generally Christocentric character of Calvin's theology has long been recognised. 2 So too has been his Christological approach to the 'plain sense' of Scripture. 3 He took very seriously the character of Scripture as a testimony to Christ and just as seriously the discipline of ensuring that everything Christians say about Christ is properly 1 J. Calvin,

Abstract
Adventist pioneers understood their beliefs as a harmonious system of truths. The principle that articulated that system was the truth of the sanctuary. However, as time passes, it has not been continually used for that purpose. This work explores the changes in the articulation of Adventist theology from the time of the pioneers to the present. It is proposed that Adventist theology has been leaving the sanctuary behind to embrace the Protestant perspective of justification as a new articulating principle. Some of the most important historical agents of this change and some of the implications that this has on the theological system and Adventist identity are identified.

Résumé
Les pionniers adventistes ont compris leurs croyances comme un système harmonieux de vérités. Le principe qui articulait ce système était la vérité du sanctuaire. Cependant, ce principe articulé n’a pas été maintenu au fil du temps. Ce travail explore les changements dans l’articulation de la théologie adventiste de l’époque des pionniers à nos jours. Il est proposé que la théologie adventiste ait quitté le sanctuaire pour embrasser la perspective protestante de la justification comme nouveau principe d’articulation. Certains des agents historiques les plus importants de ce changement et certaines des implications que cela a sur le système théologique et l’identité adventiste sont identifiées.

Resumen
Los pioneros adventistas comprendieron sus creencias como un sistema armonioso de verdades. El principio que articulaba ese sistema era la verdad del santuario. Ese principio articulador, sin embargo, no se ha mantenido a través del tiempo. Este trabajo explora los cambios en la articulación de la teología adventista desde el tiempo de los pioneros hasta la actualidad. Se propone que la teología adventista ha ido dejando atrás el santuario para abrazar la perspectiva protestante de la justificación como nuevo principio articulador. Se identifican algunos de los agentes históricos más importantes de este cambio y algunas de las implicancias que este tiene en el sistema teológico y la identidad adventista.

Throughout his theological career Paul Tillich was fundamentally concerned with the question of the religious meaning of culture. The answers that he gave -initially in the revolutionary ferment of 1920s-1930s Germany and then again in the brave new world of post-World War II America -were profound and far-reaching in their importance for twentieth-century theology. This article will explore the development of Tillich's interpretations of the religious meaning of culture and apply his analyses to our contemporary religious and cultural situation by suggesting a trinitarian enlargement of Tillich's concept of theonomous metaphysics towards a multidimensional theology of culture.

In the summer of 2013 at the Tibetan Center in Poolesville, Maryland the great Lama YangThang Rinpoche gave instruction on the practice of the great compassion, or as he described the practice, as being the practice of Absolute Compassion. The instruction was to extend the light of awareness into the world and into the cosmos. Extending the light of awareness into the present moment of a person, extending the light of awareness into the past time of the person and extending the light of awareness into the future time of the person. This truly is the great practice of the great compassion and everyone can practice this extension of the light of awareness. This very proactive praxis brings forth the light within us and fills us with the light of the field of awareness. It is great to practice this vast practice. Of course it takes a boldness of intention and passion of heart. Extending the light of our innermost awareness into the present of those we love, and into the past of those we love, and then extending the light into their future of those we love is self-liberating. The light of awareness illuminates experience, metabolizes experience, opens us into un-bound awareness, undoes fixated-ness, and brings forth luminous intensity. The light of awareness is pure potentiality. The same practice can be used with those whom we hate or dislike or whom disgust us. This practice of extending the light of awareness deepens our own experience of becoming aware of awareness. As we practice extending the light of awareness, awareness itself completely opens up for us and deepens our experience in depth and breath. In time we begin to experience the true secret of this praxis. Timeless awareness begins to be experienced by us and sustained by us. Timeless awareness is the

This chapter re-evaluates the sources and directions of twentieth-century eschatological thought, that is, of reflections on the Christian hope for 'the last things'. The chapter opens with a sketch of the sources of 20 th-century developments in the 19 th century. Although 19 th-century eschatology was dominated by assimilation to the age's general meliorism, the roots of early 20th-century eschatologies of crisis are found here, for example in the work of Franz Overbeck. A second section examines in depth the eschatological responses of theologians to the crisis of the First World War, both existential (Barth, Bultmann, Gogarten) and political (Peterson). A third section details the dominant eschatologies of the postwar years, particularly Moltmann's and Pannenberg's, which rethink the eschatological future as retroactive. A fourth and final section examines the shift of eschatological discourse from a speculative to a pragmatic register in confrontation with the 'eschatological' ambitions of biological and digital technology.

This article aims to provide an intelligible explication of the doctrine of Transubstantiation. A new model of this doctrine is formulated within the formal, Neo-Aristotelian metaphysical and ontological framework of E.J. Lowe, termed Serious Essentialism and the Four-Category Ontology. Formulating the doctrine of Transubstantiation within this metaphysical and ontological framework-which we can term the Neo-Aristotelian Account-will enable it to be explicated in a clear and consistent manner, and the oft-raised intelligibility objection and question can be answered.