Edited by James Cutsinger
InterVarsity Press
1997
This book is the outcome of a conference between traditionally minded Christians several years back- Orthodox, Roman and Protestant. You can purchase the whole conference, which includes all of the paper presented in this book, along with articulate responses, by going here: http://www.orthodoxtapes.org/catalog/not_of_this_world.html
Chapter one is by the Catholic professor of philosophy at Boston College, Peter Kreeft. Entitled, Ecumenical Jihad (also the title of the book he published through Ignatius Press in 1996), he proposes that greater unified action is called for between Christians and Muslims in the realm of the culture wars: abortion, secularism, relativism, etc. Kreeft sees the marginalization of religion in the U.S. and western Europe as the root problem confronting not only the religions themselves, but the foundations of a moral society. Therefore he proposes that the State should make room for, and support, a generalized religion. Given that this conference took place in 1995, it seems even more prophetic in a post-9/11 world. The response is by Theodore Pulcini, an Orthodox priest who does not share Kreeft’s lament regarding the marginalization of religion in America. He sees much good in the lines being drawn between secular and sacred in society, lines which highlight the truth of the gospel of Christ. Interestingly, Pulcini remarks that he is not so sure that there is a convergence in cooperation between monotheists, as Kreeft maintains. I think we could now sadly say with some confidence that he was correct.
Chapter two is an excellent overview of ecumenism in the past and where it is leading today by Fr. Neuhaus. He was, until his recent death, the editor of First Things and a leading apologist for the rationality of the Faith. He gives attention to the documents and statements of ETC (Evangelicals and Catholics Together) and points out this is something of a kairos, or moment of opportunity for Christians. He is an optimistic realist, if I can coin that phrase, in that he doesn’t sell the farm to get everyone on the same rainbow train, nor does he circle the wagons in a “we’re in you’re out” mentality. It is (Catholic) ecumenism at its best. The response by Sam Hutchins, an editor of Touchstone, gives a kind and equally generous response. He notes that much of what Protestants hold to be Roman errors are in fact mere caricatures of what Catholics believe, and that given a little education, Protestants can see that much is to be learned from “Mama” Church. He also points out the various divisions within Evangelicalism that polarize the discussion away from unity and dialogue. He, too, is hopeful that we are in a kairos of unifying grace.
Chapter three, by Harold O.J. Brown, examines the pros and cons of tradition. Realizing that tradition is inevitable, he wonders how it can be kept reigned in from the temptation to set up as the word of God the mandates of men. He points out that, from his Evangelical perspective, Orthodox and Roman Catholics do not hold a position against sola scriptura, but something more like “scripture plus”, which is the weight of tradition, good and bad. He would understand the development of doctrine, as proposed by Newman, for example, as a bad thing. (But to me, this misses the point of how scripture and tradition interact, and how they are really one thing. But you can see my other reviews for that!) He goes on to affirm that Protestants, Orthodox and Catholics hold the same fundamental understanding of saving faith, in that there is no such thing as “naked faith”; you can’t just make an intellectual assent and be “saved”. This is helpful to remember, he notes, when discussing theological technicalities with each other. He ends with a good line: “Tradition, we cannot do without it, but we must take care not to let it do too much to us.
His respondent is the Orthodox Isaac Melton. On the whole he is affirmative of Brown’s thesis, He affirms, however, that where Brown may be a minimalist in terms of tradition, Orthodox are maximalists. He gives a very insightful critique of tendencies within all Christian traditions to do away with tradition, often influenced not by supposed interpretations of the bible, but rather by secular minimalism.
Chapter four, by Fr. Patrick Reardon, deals beautifully with the trinitarian theology of the east, as well as a strong dose of proper apophaticism, which is the revelation of God as unknowable, except in Christ and the Spirit. It is one of the better essays that I have read on the subject. Reardon goes into the topics of the Name of God, priesthood and worship, who is Jesus Christ and much more. (He is also the author of Christ In The Psalms and Christ In His Saints which are powerful devotional companions.) His respondent is William Abraham, and in truth I cannot say anything useful came from his position. It was less of a critical response and more of the “But doesn’t calling God Father mean we are going to devalue women?” line of questioning that I would expect not to be voiced at a conference of this caliber. (The question isn’t bad, but just a little basic and already answered negatively by mainstream Orthodoxy. So it is odd that he brings it up, as if he had nothing really to add to the discussion.)
Chapter five, by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, deals further with the trinitarian nature of Christianity and is, like his other works and lectures, full of insight and faithfulness to the Orthodox tradition. Ware's Orthodox Way and Orthodox Church are standard introductions to Orthodoxy in the western world. His respondent is the Roman Catholic Robert Fastiggi, and, predictably, he defends the filioque as an acceptable addition to the Nicene Creed. His essay is a very sound treatment of the topic and he affirms Ware’s fundamental thesis that the Trinity is the heart of our lives, or at least it ought to be.
Chapter six is J.I. Packer at his best, full of wit and wisdom, and Anglican tendencies that place him close to RC and EO at times. Like, Kreeft, he discusses the culture war, but contra Kreeft suggests that we are better to act like resident aliens than anything else. He also affirms that EO, P and RC each hold to a common faith that is greater than our divisions. Bradley Nassif responds favorably, saying that Evangelicalism is closest in spirit to Eastern Orthodoxy, but suggests that a greater understanding of what ‘mere Christianity’ means needs to be explored by Protestants.
Carl Braaten, a Lutheran scholar and editor of Pro Ecclesia, provides a summary that is quite insightful and useful.
This is a book from which all Christians can benefit. As an Orthodox, I flatly reject the circle-the-wagons mentality of some who say that this book is anti-Orthodox. It is only a conference of thinkers and theologians and obviously not an Ecumenical council! Just dialogue. No one compromised anything. See for yourself. If you think so strongly that you have the truth, share it in a spirit of love and patience. Not everybody has to agree with you and do not forget that your need to be right all the time may have very little to do with love for the truth. Moreover, we can believe the right things for very wrong reasons. Talking to people who don't see things "our way" is one of the best measures of charity and a sure path to understanding. That is the underlying message of this collection of essays. Not all ecumenical activity is trying to sell the farm to create the rainbow universe of "it doesn't matter". Please challenge yourself with this great collection.
May we all be one.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Mother Church
By Carl Braaten
Read this book if you have any interest in ecumenism that doesn't seek the lowest common denominator, especially if you are Lutheran.
Peter Brunner, a Lutheran theologian, once wrote that if a Lutheran does not regularly ask himself why he is not a Roman Catholic, he doesn't understand why he is a Lutheran. Mother Church kept reminding me of that sentence, since the premise of the book is that it is incumbent upon Christians (and especially Lutherans) to honestly ask themselves why they are not united, and then to work toward that healing. Braaten, a theologian with a very long history of ecumenical work, asks readers to consider why they are where they are, and if it is necessary. Referring to the Reformation as a tragic necessity (Jaroslav Pelikan's line), he outlines the causes and consequences of such a dramatic break with the continuity of the past, showing that what has emerged is something of a theological free-for-all, even if well-intentioned. Quoting Harnack, of whom Braaten is not a follower!, he says that the meager tradition which Protestantism has left is only the partial remains of Catholicism, like the aroma left in an empty bottle.
Braaten seeks to cure that disease of accepted denominationalism, and I think this book is both a strong diagnostic and beginning remedy. Seeking a new and authoritative dogma of the Church, claiming that none exist from the early Church of the creeds, he tends toward the episcopal structure that in many ways is a connection to the likes of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, a structure that can defend and articulate the "faith once delivered to the saints" according to the 'canon of truth". He goes into detail for how to work Protestantism back to the episcopal unity, which would have union with Rome in there somewhere, focused on the eschatological hope of Christ's return in Glory.
But wait! There's more! In the process of all of this he finds time to masterfully critique the left wing exegesis of the Jesus Seminar, completely bash (lovingly) liberal theology, make the reader second guess all his/her assumptions of what "Church" and "Communion" really mean, refute the claims of some Protestants that Catholics believe that they are not saved by grace alone, and much much more.
Personally, I found this to be his best book. I know this review is lacking, since I read the book a few years ago, but what I recall as most significant is his call for those in the Lutheran tradition to return to their roots and quit trying to be Protestant like the rest of them. Lutheranism is distinctive among the churches of the reformation in that it holds to the sacraments, liturgy and episcopacy-or at least it used to... This may not be welcome to the ears of those who have sold their heritage for a drum kit and a pastor in a polo, but it's true nonetheless. Sadly true. Yet he remains optimistic and hopeful. He writes, "What propels us is not so much pride in what we possess, but hope for what we might receive from the bounty of God's grace. We may quote the words of George Tyrell of the Roman Catholic Church, `God will not ask, What sort of church have you lived in?, but What sort of church have you longed for?' For our part, we long for a church that will be both evangelical and catholic, continuous with the faith of the apostles, and coterminous with all that is valid in the experience of Christ's body on earth." Well put.
Read this book if you have any interest in ecumenism that doesn't seek the lowest common denominator. Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics & Orthodox in Dialogue, edited by Cutsinger, is also a fantastic resource in this regard, and yo can order the tapes from the conference, at which Braaten spoke, online at http://www.orthodoxtapes.org/, which is a treasure trove of theological lectures at cheap prices.
Read this book if you have any interest in ecumenism that doesn't seek the lowest common denominator, especially if you are Lutheran.
Peter Brunner, a Lutheran theologian, once wrote that if a Lutheran does not regularly ask himself why he is not a Roman Catholic, he doesn't understand why he is a Lutheran. Mother Church kept reminding me of that sentence, since the premise of the book is that it is incumbent upon Christians (and especially Lutherans) to honestly ask themselves why they are not united, and then to work toward that healing. Braaten, a theologian with a very long history of ecumenical work, asks readers to consider why they are where they are, and if it is necessary. Referring to the Reformation as a tragic necessity (Jaroslav Pelikan's line), he outlines the causes and consequences of such a dramatic break with the continuity of the past, showing that what has emerged is something of a theological free-for-all, even if well-intentioned. Quoting Harnack, of whom Braaten is not a follower!, he says that the meager tradition which Protestantism has left is only the partial remains of Catholicism, like the aroma left in an empty bottle.
Braaten seeks to cure that disease of accepted denominationalism, and I think this book is both a strong diagnostic and beginning remedy. Seeking a new and authoritative dogma of the Church, claiming that none exist from the early Church of the creeds, he tends toward the episcopal structure that in many ways is a connection to the likes of Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, a structure that can defend and articulate the "faith once delivered to the saints" according to the 'canon of truth". He goes into detail for how to work Protestantism back to the episcopal unity, which would have union with Rome in there somewhere, focused on the eschatological hope of Christ's return in Glory.
But wait! There's more! In the process of all of this he finds time to masterfully critique the left wing exegesis of the Jesus Seminar, completely bash (lovingly) liberal theology, make the reader second guess all his/her assumptions of what "Church" and "Communion" really mean, refute the claims of some Protestants that Catholics believe that they are not saved by grace alone, and much much more.
Personally, I found this to be his best book. I know this review is lacking, since I read the book a few years ago, but what I recall as most significant is his call for those in the Lutheran tradition to return to their roots and quit trying to be Protestant like the rest of them. Lutheranism is distinctive among the churches of the reformation in that it holds to the sacraments, liturgy and episcopacy-or at least it used to... This may not be welcome to the ears of those who have sold their heritage for a drum kit and a pastor in a polo, but it's true nonetheless. Sadly true. Yet he remains optimistic and hopeful. He writes, "What propels us is not so much pride in what we possess, but hope for what we might receive from the bounty of God's grace. We may quote the words of George Tyrell of the Roman Catholic Church, `God will not ask, What sort of church have you lived in?, but What sort of church have you longed for?' For our part, we long for a church that will be both evangelical and catholic, continuous with the faith of the apostles, and coterminous with all that is valid in the experience of Christ's body on earth." Well put.
Read this book if you have any interest in ecumenism that doesn't seek the lowest common denominator. Reclaiming the Great Tradition: Evangelicals, Catholics & Orthodox in Dialogue, edited by Cutsinger, is also a fantastic resource in this regard, and yo can order the tapes from the conference, at which Braaten spoke, online at http://www.orthodoxtapes.org/, which is a treasure trove of theological lectures at cheap prices.
Seeds of the Word: Orthodox Thinking on Other Religions (Foundations Series)
By John Garvey
Having read and loved Prematurely Saved and Other Varieties of the Religions Experience, I was very interested in what John Garvey would have to say about Eastern Orthodox perspectives on various religious traditions. I was disappointed.
Even so, this thin book is handy for a brief overview of the major world religions, which takes up about well over half the book. I felt, however, that this was something that I could have used the internet for. The title didn't indicate anything about those chapters and the book could have done without them altogether. So the heart of the book for me began on page 79 (out of 126 pages of text, excluding bibliography and further reading). Honestly the first 2/3rds felt like filler now that I think about it. He could have just given the list of suggested readings and left it at that. (I know this is just a matter of taste and expectations and not a flaw in the book per se). So chapter 3 onwards does a very fine job of outlining the various ways that EO has thought about and presented itself to the outside world, beginning with the Greeks and moving on to Islam, which was often very uninterested in any dialogue with Eastern Christians. Of course exceptions can be found in all camps (like St Gregory Palamas and St John of Damascus), but on the whole a militaristic offense/defense mentality prevailed.
Not much else is really offered in the terms of history. Garvey then concludes with a general "how to approach others" piece that is useful to the extent that it soundly rejects relativism, as is so often proposed by others (but not Orthodox, usually). He correctly asserts that we are all actually closer to each other when we hold fast to our deepest convictions, rather than trying to have a least-common-denominator approach, since at that point we are seeking truth, not compromise, and God is of truth. Although I would certainly not purchase this book again, that is owing to my misconception of what it would contain rather than any error or fault on the author's part.
I would add that Orthodoxy has the luxury of not painting itself into a theological corner by declaring everyone else damned either by some predestination of God or by a "you never called upon the name" theory. For Orthodox, salvation is not a game or magic, but the grace of God in the hearts of men, many of whom do not "claim the Name" in this lifetime, but are much holier than some who do. God loves all and calls all, and, as St Paul says in Romans, each will be judged according to their ability to know. Of course we believe that the EO is the fullness of God's revelation in Christ and the Spirit, but we are limited by the holy mysteries, God is not. If you have any suggestions for books along these lines, please let me know. One that I have found to be useful, although brief, is Face to Face: A guide for Orthodox Christians Encountering Muslims by Fr. Ted Pulcini. Of course, the perennial philosophy books have much to say as well.
Having read and loved Prematurely Saved and Other Varieties of the Religions Experience, I was very interested in what John Garvey would have to say about Eastern Orthodox perspectives on various religious traditions. I was disappointed.
Even so, this thin book is handy for a brief overview of the major world religions, which takes up about well over half the book. I felt, however, that this was something that I could have used the internet for. The title didn't indicate anything about those chapters and the book could have done without them altogether. So the heart of the book for me began on page 79 (out of 126 pages of text, excluding bibliography and further reading). Honestly the first 2/3rds felt like filler now that I think about it. He could have just given the list of suggested readings and left it at that. (I know this is just a matter of taste and expectations and not a flaw in the book per se). So chapter 3 onwards does a very fine job of outlining the various ways that EO has thought about and presented itself to the outside world, beginning with the Greeks and moving on to Islam, which was often very uninterested in any dialogue with Eastern Christians. Of course exceptions can be found in all camps (like St Gregory Palamas and St John of Damascus), but on the whole a militaristic offense/defense mentality prevailed.
Not much else is really offered in the terms of history. Garvey then concludes with a general "how to approach others" piece that is useful to the extent that it soundly rejects relativism, as is so often proposed by others (but not Orthodox, usually). He correctly asserts that we are all actually closer to each other when we hold fast to our deepest convictions, rather than trying to have a least-common-denominator approach, since at that point we are seeking truth, not compromise, and God is of truth. Although I would certainly not purchase this book again, that is owing to my misconception of what it would contain rather than any error or fault on the author's part.
I would add that Orthodoxy has the luxury of not painting itself into a theological corner by declaring everyone else damned either by some predestination of God or by a "you never called upon the name" theory. For Orthodox, salvation is not a game or magic, but the grace of God in the hearts of men, many of whom do not "claim the Name" in this lifetime, but are much holier than some who do. God loves all and calls all, and, as St Paul says in Romans, each will be judged according to their ability to know. Of course we believe that the EO is the fullness of God's revelation in Christ and the Spirit, but we are limited by the holy mysteries, God is not. If you have any suggestions for books along these lines, please let me know. One that I have found to be useful, although brief, is Face to Face: A guide for Orthodox Christians Encountering Muslims by Fr. Ted Pulcini. Of course, the perennial philosophy books have much to say as well.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement
By Gustaf Aulen
I was going through my shelf the other day and came across a 1969 edition and recalled a conversation I had with the folks at Wipf and Stock a few years ago about reprinting it and lo, there it was on amazon.com! Very cool guys. Why more folks don't read this book surprises me, since it was seminal in modifying my views on the atonement from an American Lutheran to a more Eastern Orthodox position. I have spoken with so many grad students in Christian theology who are ignorant of the various historical interpretations of the atonement.
So why does this book matter? Aulén challenges the status quo answer to the question: Why did Jesus have to die and what effect does the resurrection have? Raised Lutheran (Missouri Synod), I was taught a very Anselmian version of God's rationale for the events of our salvation which the author of this book takes to task (or at least demonstrates to be a more modern and less patristic development). It went like this: We sinned in Adam, are guilty for his sin, and the offense to God's justice demands His wrath be taken out against us. Jesus takes the wrath of God upon himself, so when the Father sees me He really sees me through Jesus-colored glasses and doesn't take His anger out on me. Of course there is a biblical basis to some of this, but not to the exclusive extent that this theory holds over most of Protestant theology (although, as the author points out, Luther himself had a more nuanced version in his theology with the "blessed exchange" of the natures in Christ and, by that virtue, our own in Christ). Such a model focuses heavily upon the death of Christ, and personally I can remark that often the incarnation and resurrection are taught as an afterthought. Such is the result of the 'wrathful Father' model.
Aulén begins his work by stating the problem of the atonement and its possible answers, tracing the history and role that the Anselmian, Latin version has played, commonly known as the substitutionary theory or satisfaction theory: Jesus takes my place under the wrath of God. Then Irenaeus is used as the example of the earlier and more universal theory of the early church and New Testament: Christ tramples down sin, death and the power of the devil by his incarnation, death and resurrection. This is the classic model of recapitulation in Christ. Then the Middle Ages are examined with the roles of Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory the 'Big One' and Anslem, among other notables. Here the classic idea is beginning to wane and almost disappear under the weight of the Latin model. Although Luther moves markedly to the classical model, he still employs terms and sometimes the meaning of the Latin model, which has been further solidified in his tradition. The author concludes with an analysis of post-Luther developments and posits that a return to the original model is a needed corrective to have a more biblical soteriology. A very comprehensive and packed slim volume indeed!
Other books of interest may include How Are We Saved?: The Understanding of Salvation in the Orthodox Tradition by Kallistos Ware, Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian by Jordan Bajis, and for a Lutheran reappropriation of the classical idea, Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther, edited by Braaten and Jenson. Lastly, perhaps the best book on the topic, although dated to 1927, is Grensted's A Short History Of The Doctrine Of The Atonement (1920). In fact, I would probably buy Grensted's work before Christus Victor for a more complex and in-depth study. They compliment one another perfectly.
I would find it most interesting to look at this whole question through liturgical theology, since how we understand the sacrifice of Christ, along with his taking on and renewing our nature, is intimately bound to the Eucharist and Baptism (think of the Mass as Sacrifice, Recapitulation, partakers of divinity etc); For Christianity is primarily a doxological religion. Lex orandi lex credendi is true, even if we pretend it isn't. How we pray really does inform what we believe. Moreover, it is not only the words that are said or sung, but how they are said or sung that matter. (But that is going to be taken up in other reviews!) Such a study would refocus our attention upon the necessity, nature and role of the sacraments/mysteries. PhD/ThD thesis anyone?
May we all be one.
I was going through my shelf the other day and came across a 1969 edition and recalled a conversation I had with the folks at Wipf and Stock a few years ago about reprinting it and lo, there it was on amazon.com! Very cool guys. Why more folks don't read this book surprises me, since it was seminal in modifying my views on the atonement from an American Lutheran to a more Eastern Orthodox position. I have spoken with so many grad students in Christian theology who are ignorant of the various historical interpretations of the atonement.
So why does this book matter? Aulén challenges the status quo answer to the question: Why did Jesus have to die and what effect does the resurrection have? Raised Lutheran (Missouri Synod), I was taught a very Anselmian version of God's rationale for the events of our salvation which the author of this book takes to task (or at least demonstrates to be a more modern and less patristic development). It went like this: We sinned in Adam, are guilty for his sin, and the offense to God's justice demands His wrath be taken out against us. Jesus takes the wrath of God upon himself, so when the Father sees me He really sees me through Jesus-colored glasses and doesn't take His anger out on me. Of course there is a biblical basis to some of this, but not to the exclusive extent that this theory holds over most of Protestant theology (although, as the author points out, Luther himself had a more nuanced version in his theology with the "blessed exchange" of the natures in Christ and, by that virtue, our own in Christ). Such a model focuses heavily upon the death of Christ, and personally I can remark that often the incarnation and resurrection are taught as an afterthought. Such is the result of the 'wrathful Father' model.
Aulén begins his work by stating the problem of the atonement and its possible answers, tracing the history and role that the Anselmian, Latin version has played, commonly known as the substitutionary theory or satisfaction theory: Jesus takes my place under the wrath of God. Then Irenaeus is used as the example of the earlier and more universal theory of the early church and New Testament: Christ tramples down sin, death and the power of the devil by his incarnation, death and resurrection. This is the classic model of recapitulation in Christ. Then the Middle Ages are examined with the roles of Tertullian, Cyprian, Gregory the 'Big One' and Anslem, among other notables. Here the classic idea is beginning to wane and almost disappear under the weight of the Latin model. Although Luther moves markedly to the classical model, he still employs terms and sometimes the meaning of the Latin model, which has been further solidified in his tradition. The author concludes with an analysis of post-Luther developments and posits that a return to the original model is a needed corrective to have a more biblical soteriology. A very comprehensive and packed slim volume indeed!
Other books of interest may include How Are We Saved?: The Understanding of Salvation in the Orthodox Tradition by Kallistos Ware, Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian by Jordan Bajis, and for a Lutheran reappropriation of the classical idea, Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther, edited by Braaten and Jenson. Lastly, perhaps the best book on the topic, although dated to 1927, is Grensted's A Short History Of The Doctrine Of The Atonement (1920). In fact, I would probably buy Grensted's work before Christus Victor for a more complex and in-depth study. They compliment one another perfectly.
I would find it most interesting to look at this whole question through liturgical theology, since how we understand the sacrifice of Christ, along with his taking on and renewing our nature, is intimately bound to the Eucharist and Baptism (think of the Mass as Sacrifice, Recapitulation, partakers of divinity etc); For Christianity is primarily a doxological religion. Lex orandi lex credendi is true, even if we pretend it isn't. How we pray really does inform what we believe. Moreover, it is not only the words that are said or sung, but how they are said or sung that matter. (But that is going to be taken up in other reviews!) Such a study would refocus our attention upon the necessity, nature and role of the sacraments/mysteries. PhD/ThD thesis anyone?
May we all be one.
A Short History Of The Doctrine Of The Atonement (1920)
A Short History Of The Doctrine Of The Atonement (1920)
by L. W. Grensted
All Christians agree that Jesus is the Messiah and Savoir, but what exactly does that mean? What did his death actually accomplish and for whom was it done? Is God the Father angry at us and needs to have his wrath given out on someone? Does Jesus redeem the world, the universe, or just the elect? Is the devil holding us hostage and in need of a ransom? Is the state of death what needs to be "satisfied" and broken? What do the Gospels tell us? St Paul? The earliest church writers? The Fathers East and West? The Medieval theologians? The later Romans and Reformers? These are the types of questions that are at the heart of Grensted's classic, and until recently out of print, text. Such questions are at the very heart of what we think about the nature and "personality" of our God. Grensted rightly says that from the beginning, all Christian theology is soteriology, having to do with the stuff of salvation.
I have used this book extensively in my own study and have found it a fantastic jumping off point, since he has extensive footnotes to the Fathers, theologians and reformers, and he almost always provides a full quotation in the footnotes in the original language after he translates it in the main body of the text. Also be warned that this edition is a copy of the original text, so some pages are a little faded and there is brief underlining by a previous owner, who provided the "proof pages", but they are minimal and neatly scribed. I have found no pages missing, although the publisher's preface warns of it. I think that it must be a general disclaimer. Something that I thought could have been made much more of is the Eastern doctrine of deification (theosis), since that is to my mind the heart of eastern soteriology, and I provide a title to a book on that subject below.
Other books that go along the lines of this one are: Cur Deus Homo, On The Incarnation, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement by Aulen (which is VERY useful), The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (look via Schreiner), Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine (Finlan), The Background And Content Of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors (Academia Biblica (Society of Biblical Literature) also by Finlan, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament by the great Hengel (but if you can find Hengel's "The Cross of the Son of God" you will get this book along with two of his others on the subject in one binding. For a new view of Luther, see Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (ed by Braaten). For an Orthodox view, seePartakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions (edited by Christensen). Jordan Bajis' Common Ground is also a good comparison of Eastern and Western models.
Let me know if you have other books on the topic, or if you would like to share your thoughts.
May we all be one.
by L. W. Grensted
All Christians agree that Jesus is the Messiah and Savoir, but what exactly does that mean? What did his death actually accomplish and for whom was it done? Is God the Father angry at us and needs to have his wrath given out on someone? Does Jesus redeem the world, the universe, or just the elect? Is the devil holding us hostage and in need of a ransom? Is the state of death what needs to be "satisfied" and broken? What do the Gospels tell us? St Paul? The earliest church writers? The Fathers East and West? The Medieval theologians? The later Romans and Reformers? These are the types of questions that are at the heart of Grensted's classic, and until recently out of print, text. Such questions are at the very heart of what we think about the nature and "personality" of our God. Grensted rightly says that from the beginning, all Christian theology is soteriology, having to do with the stuff of salvation.
I have used this book extensively in my own study and have found it a fantastic jumping off point, since he has extensive footnotes to the Fathers, theologians and reformers, and he almost always provides a full quotation in the footnotes in the original language after he translates it in the main body of the text. Also be warned that this edition is a copy of the original text, so some pages are a little faded and there is brief underlining by a previous owner, who provided the "proof pages", but they are minimal and neatly scribed. I have found no pages missing, although the publisher's preface warns of it. I think that it must be a general disclaimer. Something that I thought could have been made much more of is the Eastern doctrine of deification (theosis), since that is to my mind the heart of eastern soteriology, and I provide a title to a book on that subject below.
Other books that go along the lines of this one are: Cur Deus Homo, On The Incarnation, Christus Victor: An Historical Study of the Three Main Types of the Idea of Atonement by Aulen (which is VERY useful), The Nature of the Atonement: Four Views (look via Schreiner), Problems With Atonement: The Origins Of, And Controversy About, The Atonement Doctrine (Finlan), The Background And Content Of Paul's Cultic Atonement Metaphors (Academia Biblica (Society of Biblical Literature) also by Finlan, The Atonement: The Origins of the Doctrine in the New Testament by the great Hengel (but if you can find Hengel's "The Cross of the Son of God" you will get this book along with two of his others on the subject in one binding. For a new view of Luther, see Union With Christ: The New Finnish Interpretation of Luther (ed by Braaten). For an Orthodox view, seePartakers of the Divine Nature: The History and Development of Deification in the Christian Traditions (edited by Christensen). Jordan Bajis' Common Ground is also a good comparison of Eastern and Western models.
Let me know if you have other books on the topic, or if you would like to share your thoughts.
May we all be one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
