history of doc ok
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Dallas Theological Seminary *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
HT5102
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
Pages
22
Uploaded by ColonelSnailPerson566
History of Doctrine, HT200
Dr. John D. Hannah
Dallas Theological Seminary
INTRODUCTION
Lesson #1
1.Can you distinguish dogma and doctrine?
Dogmas are essential beliefs stated clearly and agreed upon in the Church. Dogma is credal teaching. Doctrine is synonymous with Christian teaching, most doctrine is agreed upon by the Church but can be debated.
2. What are the available approaches to the study of the history of doctrine?
Historical analytical method - use the historical framework to study the development of doctrine over time and synthetic historical method - uses individual doctrines and see its development through history. 3.Why do you suppose the study of the history of doctrine emerged in the Enlightenment?
Enlightenment emphasised reason, natural evidence and the scientific method. It attempts to use history and circumstances to explain development of doctrine.
4.Why do you suppose the Germans have out distanced other nationalities in the advance of Historical Theology?
Germans chose to specialise in certain fields rather than investing their knowledge in knowing a little about all fields. THE DOCTRINE OF THE SCRIPTURES
Lesson #2
1.How did the Church (Apostolic) Fathers view the books now designated as the canonical Scriptures?
They were elevated in stature but not equal to the old testament writings.
2. What does it mean that the canon was formulated?
Certain books were drawn from a group of books according to criteria such as ecclesiastical usage and authority, these were considered to be of apostolic origin and witness by the Holy Spirit.
3. Is there a “central church tradition” from the beginning of the church asserting the inerrancy of the message, but not the words of the Bible?
Yes. They believed the message of Christ was authoritative, but the medium of teaching was not as important. Some Church fathers stated verbal and plenary aspects of inerrancy and others held to inerrancy of words. 4. What is Alexandrian hermeneutics?
It is a way of interpreting scripture with a literal sense, but also to see the allegorical meanings, particularly the historic books and prophetic texts. 5. How could the Early Fathers elevate tradition to authority equal with Scripture?
The oral tradition of scripture is the same as written scripture. 2
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SCRIPTURES
Lesson #3
1.
Since you read the portion of Polman’s text on Augustine’s view of the integrity of Scripture, do you think Augustine asserted a “Central Church Tradition” of authority, though not inerrancy (i.e., the message, not the words; the gospel, not science or history)?
No. Augustine did not assert authority without inerrancy. You can make a positive argument from the absence of specificity from the absence of inclusivity.
2.What is the Roman Catholic view of authority?
The tradition of the Church is equal to the Scripture. 3. In the Protestant Tradition when was the canon recognised?
The Gallican (French) confession of faith (1559) was when the canon was recognised. 4. What criteria did Catholic and Protestant teachers use to arrive at different canons?
The catholic teachers used the holy church tradition, whereas the protestants used primarily the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE SCRIPTURES
Lesson #4
1. What is the philosophical Enlightenment? What question did they attempt to answer?
It is a shift from the authority of truth finding its source in God to finding its source in man. The starting point for knowledge became man and all things natural.
2.Why does philosophical discourse precede theological discovery?
Philosophical methodology will determine ones trusted source of revelation. Schleiermacher believed philosophically that one must be committed to christ before Scripture becomes authoritative. 3. What is Scripture to Friedrich Schleiermacher? How is Scripture validated?
Scripture is a byproduct of faith in God that results from mans conciseness. Faith is what authenticates scripture. The Church as a community of faith is what gives scripture authority. 4. How does the Bible become revelation according to Karl Barth?
The Bible must become the word of God and this is done through the Spirit. IT is only a tool that God can use to reveal Himself. 5. To what does the Spirit witness at regeneration?
The Spirit witnesses to the person of Christ and also Scriptures which contain revelation of Christ. THE DOCTRINE OF GOD
Lesson #5
1. Can you distinguish a Dynamic Monarchian and a Modalistic Monarchian?
Dinamic Monarchian - Jesus was human who became God. Modalistic Monarchian - Father and Son are the same person with different names / modes.
2. Can you keep the following terms distinct: Sabellianism, Praxeans, Noetians, Samosotianism, Adoptionism and Lucanists?
Sabellianism: God and Father where just two names of one God who was both father and son at the same time. Praxeans: God is so unified that Father was crucified and was the same as Christ. Noetians: Similar to Sabellianism but God was called those names at different times and at different events.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Samosotianism: Jesus was a man who gradually became God through the indwelling of Christ. Adoptionism: Jesus was a human being but at baptism was elevated to deity and became God. Lucanists: Father was eternal and he begot the son, therefore the father and son were not equal. 3. What was the area of confusion in the Fathers and Apologists that hindered their ability to state the doctrine of the trinity distinctly?
The confusion was between substance and person It took the work of three scholars to bring clarity on the distinction. There was Gregory of Nazianzus, Gergory of Nyssa, Basil of Cesarea.
4. What is so important about the distinction between tri-theism and triunitarianism?
Tri-theism three distinct Gods. Triunitarianism God is of one character and essence yet three distinct functions. 5. How did the Alexandrian scholars differ in method and approach from the School of Asia Minor in their approaches to the doctrine of God?
Alexandrian school was influenced by teachings of Philo by putting an emphasis on oneness and idealism. 3
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD
Lesson #6
1. What was distinguishing about Athanasius’ approach to the trinitarian issue that proved insightful?
He looked at the practical point of view, monotheism and soteriology. He rid his theology of all forms subordinationism. 2. Why was the Council of Nicea a failure?
it had two failures, first is Failure to clarify the word begotten and second is the failure to give clarity about the Holy Spirit.
3. What is the importance of the Cappadocians?
They specifically defined hypostatis which is an individual subsistence of a thing or essence. This clarity unified the east and the west. 4. Why was the Council of Constantinople a success when Nicea was not?
The doctrine was clarified and the terms were well defined. They added begotten not created , they also included a section on the Holy Spirit
5. What is the orthodox statement of tri-unitarianism?
God is three and He is one.
6. Do we know God or merely about Him?
We must know God personally and not merely knowledge about him. This side of eternity, we will never fully know God.
7.Has the issue been clarified? In what sense?
We clarified what God is by clarifying what he is not.
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD
Lesson #7
1.Why do you think the Fathers were so confused on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit
when we put so much importance on correctly relating to Him as the basis of spiritual vitality?
They were silent on the Holy Spirit work and confused about his person. This confusion was rooted in the lack of necessary clarification. It wasn’t until the 4th century that the person of the Holy Spirit began to be addressed.
2.In what sense did the Holy Spirit have a beginning?
The Holy Spirit was present in Genesis 1:2 where the spirit was hovering over the waters. It had a beginning in council of Nicea and solidified in Chalcedon.
3.What was Athanasius’ approach to the person of the Holy Spirit?
Equate him with the Father in substance: to elevate him to divine status.
4.Who were the Macedonians? What did they confess?
Holy Spirit was subordinate to Jesus Christ.
5.What is the doctrine of Procession? How can you have subordination without
inequality? The Spirit proceeds from the father. Subordination is not an hierarchy in worthiness. You can be under authority but still be equal to them. It’s just a functional heirarchy.
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD
Lesson #8
1.What contribution (i.e., clarification) did the medieval scholastics make in the
area of trinitarianism?
They used rationalism as a tool. Theybrralized they needed good apologetics to counter the rise of Islam. I dont think any new contributions were made.
2.Does the Roman Catholic view of trinitarianism differ from the traditional Protestant view?
Hold Same view. 3.What is meant by the Non-Protestant Tradition?
Traditions that do not hold to the trinity like socinians and unitarians.
4.How did Socinians define Theology Proper?
Used the ideas of Monarchians. They defined essence of God is not one in kind but in number.
5.How do Unitarians differ from deists in Theology Proper?
All deists are Unitarian. Deists believed that God was found as nature.
4
THE DOCTRINE OF GOD
Lesson #9
1.Why is the “Scientific Method” inadequate in the study of theology? Do you
suspect that it is inadequate? Is theology only science?
The Scientific Method is inadequate in the study of theology because it can only apply to the natural world, not the supernatural. Theology is not only science.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
2.How did Schleiermacher shift the traditional understanding of Theology Proper?
According to Schleiermacher, the authority and revelation from God are discovered through the inward condition of our own self-consciousness, which must be in line with all other contents of our consciousness in our minds.
3.What is Feuerbachianism?
Feurerbachianism is the belief that only what is discovered through the senses is real
4.What is Ritschl’s view of Theology Proper?
He believed that God was knowable by reason only. His personally reasoning was that religion was the result of our common recognition on God.
5.How does Barth evidence a reaction to his Enlightenment Tradition as seen in
his view of Theology Proper?
Karl Barth saw that the theology of the 19th century was committed to Anthropocentricism. Rather than try to apply his own wishful thinking to God, Karl Bath sought to find the truth, writing much on Theology Proper.
6.How is Process Theism a solution to the problem of Theology Proper in the
Twentieth century?
Process theism is one large Anthropomorphism whereby people have simplified God down to a divine being of love that neither has control of our future nor knows it.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST
Lesson #10
1.What does the phrase “logos-sarx” (i.e., word-flesh) mean in the discussion of
Christology?
Logos-sarx is the paradoxical idea that Christ is both word and flesh, that is that he is both human and deity
2.Concerning Christ’s person, what did the church universally assert and what did they have trouble explaining?
The Church universally asserted that Christ was God. They had trouble explaining how he was also man.
3.What is Apollinarianism?
The belief that Christ was both God and man in one person: basically he was united in body and soul (human) and reason (God). This meant that God died for three days and was raised from the dead, as well as that the human aspect of Jesus was/is eternal and he had it before coming down to earth as a baby
4.What approach did the Cappadocians employ in refuting Apollinarianism?
Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 395 A.D.) and the other Cappadocians followed in the track of Athanasius putting stress on the union as a transformation of the human into the divine
5.What does the similarity of approach to the resolution of both the trinitarian
debate and Apollinarianism suggest about the central focus of the church?
That salvation: the fact that it needs to be both a human sacrifice as well as one worthy of God (whom can only be God) is the central doctrine and the others must fit it.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST
Lesson #11
1.How did the approach and method of the catechetical schools at Antioch and Alexandria fundamentally differ? What are the practical ramifications?
The school at Antioch approached the scriptures with a literal hermeneutic and emphasis in the Gospels, and the school at Alexandria approached the scriptures with a speculative hermeneutic and emphasis in soteriology. The practical ramifications were that the Antioch approach stressed the humanity of Christ and the Alexandrian approach stressed the deity of Christ
2.What is Nestorianism? How does it represent a positive advance over Apollinarianism? What are its shortcomings?
Basically, he believed in two separate Christs. They split Christ into two people that were Morally connected not Ontologically
3.What is Eutychianism? How does it represent a positive advance over Apollinarianism and Nestorianism? What are its shortcomings?
Eutychus (d. 454) in argued the Unity of the two natures of Christ. He dissolved them into one new and separate thing. Jesus was really neither man nor God, he was a whole separate category.
4.What are the findings of the Council of Chalcedon?
Jesus is 100 percent God and 100 percent man, one person with two natures.
5.What effect did these controversies have upon the prestige of the major bishoprics in the empire?
Rome was not involved in any heresies (from the bishop) therefore they adopted the status of traditional orthodox.
5
THE PERSON OF CHRIST
Lesson #12
1.How does Monophysitism differ from Eutychianism?
Monophysitism is against the “two natures of Christ” as the terminology used, as they equated that with the two persons of Christ, but Eutychianism was actually against the two natures of Christ, and claimed to have two natures but merged into one.
2.What is Monothelitism? Why did this heresy ever emerge in the church?
Monothelitism is a controversy related to Christ's person in relation to His will. They believed that Christ had a divine will, not a human one. It was an attempt to alter the findings of the Council of Chalcedon in 451.
3.How did Servetus differ from established Orthodoxy in Christology?
He denied both the true humanity and deity of Christ. He thought it was absurd that God could take on flesh or flesh could take on God.
4.Who is the Unitarian Christ?
The Unitarian Christ is Jesus as one mind, one soul, one being just as we are and yet distinct from the one God.
THE PERSON OF CHRIST
Lesson #13
1.Who is the Christ of Schleiermacher? Is his view a logical, necessary consequent of his view of religion?
He stressed that he was the “ideal of humanity” in that He possessed true god-consciousness. This view is a logical view considering his view that nothing can be revealed externally. Therefore, Christ cannot be both God and man.
2.Who is the Ritschlian Christ?
How does he differ from Schleiermacher’s Christ?
Ritschlian believes that Christ was a ethical ambassador, here to work for God. Jesus was only divine in that he understood God’s desire for an ethical revolution. Christ was not deity. He is divine because he understood God’s purposes and acted to impose them.
3.What are the common assumptions of the 19th century quest for the historical
Christ?
The common assumption is that we can only know what we see externally and the truth of that is found in how we process it internally. Therefore, it is rational to believe that Christ is a human, however, irrational to believe that he is God. Christ being God, cannot be objectively true.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
4.How does Barth’s conception of Christ differ from his German predecessors?
He considered Christ both God and man, which was different from his predecessors in that they saw Christ as man who did the will of God.
5.What is the Christ of Process Theism?
Christ is the best human who has ever lived.
THE WORK OF CHRIST
Lesson #14
1.When approaching the meaning of Christ’s death what questions must frame the
discussion?
Was the atonement rooted in love or justice? Was the atonement necessary when God is just and a right to judge? From man’s perspective was the atonement as response to man’s guilt or to man’s sins? Was the purpose of the atonement a corrective measure or punishment?
2.What is the Early Fathers’ understanding of Christ’s death?
Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures. They used scriptural language to describe Christ’s work, his death in place of ours.
3.Why was the ransom-to-Satan theory popular in the church? Who dominated in
the propagation of this theory?
This theory comes from Origen. The view is that we were in bondage to Satan. That Jesus was the payment and now we are released. The problem with this theory is that the payment was made to Satan. The truth is that our payment and guilt was not before the devil. We sinned against God. Therefore, our owed payment was to God.
4.What is Irenaeus’ Recapitulation Theory?
The emphasis of recapitulation (Christus Victor) is that Christ has accomplished our victory: In Adam, the law was broken but in Christ, the law is obeyed. The eternally lost were regained. Life was lost for man by Adam. Christ regained life for us. These are consequences: what the atonement achieved. However, this does not express how the atonement was achieved and therefore is NOT an atonement theology
5.What is the theory of restitutionalism?
What we lost in Adam we gained in Christ, really not a theory of the atonement but the accomplishments of the atonement.
6
THE WORK OF CHRIST
Lesson #15
1.What was Gregory the Great’s view of the death of Christ?
Guilt is our problem, not our sins, and “guilt can only be abolished by a penal offering to justice.” He viewed the death of Christ as a necessary offering for payment of sin to God.
2.What is Anselm’s theory of atonement and what is his logic?
Substitutionary atonement. He rationalizes the atonement through the lens of theanthropic Christ.
3.What is Abelardianism and what are its assumptions relative to anthropology?
Pierre Abelard (1079-1142) was a scholastic teacher. He believed the atonement rested on compassion. He believed that the Lord’s action of the cross was to elicit love. It is called the “Moral Encouragement.” This is examplism (we should look at the way Christ displayed love and follow him).
4.Was Thomas Aquinas a Romanist or cryto-calvinist?
A Romanist because he viewed the atonement as satisfactory yet baptism was required to procure it, plus after baptism penances and sufferings must be made for sin and supplemented with good works and character
5.What is the Romish view of the atonement? What is the dividing issue in the
Reformation? Have we come upon it yet?
Roman Catholics view the atonement as a substitutionary atonement, but one can only receive this grace through the seven sacraments. The atonement secures a possibility of redemption. This was the dividing issue in the Reformation: did the atonement secure a possibility of redemption or the reality of redemption?
THE WORK OF CHRIST
Lesson #16
1.What is Calvin’s logic for the necessity of a penal atonement?
Satisfaction of the righteousness of God requires a penal atonement.
2.What is the Socinian View of atonement and how is it related to anthropological
assumptions?
The Socinians explained the atonement as a persuasive theory. They said that the innocent Jesus suffered “unjustly.” They recommend that we look at this and be persuaded that we should not go in the direction of evil, non-love. Ultimately, we should be melted by his example and continue in the same way. The assumption behind this example theory is that we are all capable of being like Jesus – love triumphs. They don’t believe in original sin because it is not fair, therefore they don’t believe that we need a substitution to atone for us.
Examplists don’t believe that it is fair that we could be born guilty because of the sin of one man (Adam). Therefore, that Christ would atone for our guilt, does not make sense and is not fair to the Socinians
3.What is Grotianism? How is it a response to the emergent Enlightenment?
Hugo Grotius was a lawyer in Holland in the mid 1500’s that argued that Christ died on the cross to demonstrate the consequences of disobedience. The cross is an example of the punishment for what happens when we break God’s universal moral law. The problem with this theory is very simple, Jesus never broke the law.
4.How does a classic Arminian view of the atonement differ from a Lutheran or
Calvinist understanding?
Arminius (1560-1609) was a student of Calvin’s. Arminius is responding to the Enlightenment that is attacking human depravity. Arminius believed that if he modified the human dilemma a little bit, you have a more convincing argument for the time.
He argued that Christ did not die in our place, he died for all sin. In other words, God has rendered everyone on this earth access to salvation. However, Arminians believe that Christ offered Salvation if people 1) had faith, and 2) kept their faith. In conclusion they surrendered security for freedom. The idea is that God looked ahead through time and saw who chose him and then chose them first. However, “foreknowledge” means a before-time love (original language), meaning God had to have loved us before we chose him.
5.What are the questions to ask when approaching the meaning of Christ’s death?
Was the atonement rooted in love or justice? Was the atonement necessary when God is just and a right to judge? From man’s perspective was the atonement as response to man’s guilt or to man’s sins? Was the purpose of the atonement a corrective measure or punishment?
THE WORK OF CHRIST
Lesson #17
1.How does Schleiermacher interpret the atonement?
He doesn’t have much of an atonement, Christ is an example of the way we should live in dependence on God. The cross is the place where Jesus revealed his complete dependence on God
2.How did the Ritchlians approach atonement?
The Ritchlians approached atonement as an example of Christ’s love that we should follow. Abelardianism. The purpose of Christ’s example was to make people morally good.
3.How does Barth’s formulation of atonement differ from the theologians of the
previous century?
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
History is not a safe guide to conclusions so he places the Bible outside of history, therefore he places the atonement outside of history as well. Whereas his predecessors placed Christ only in history and therefore made him a moral example of man.
4.What is Barth’s view of atonement?
Barth’s view of atonement is that it’s purpose was to reveal to us humans that God has already forgiven us and reconciled himself to us. The Son submitted to the Father’s will to be the one who procured redemption and that it happened outside of time. So we don’t become saved, we are saved and we recognize his victory on the cross as when he revealed it to us
5.What is Jonathan EdwardsJr’s formulation of atonement?
How has his view influenced Finney and nineteenth century evangelism?
Jonathan Edwards Jr saw the atonement as an example of moral judgement for disobedience. The reasoning is similar to Grotianism, as he argued that grace is not free if it had to be paid for, but free pardon cannot change a person to become moral. His view influenced Finny and nineteenth century evangelism to take a similar view of the atonement as a warning of punishment for wrong behavior.
7
THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION (Sin and Grace)
Lesson #18
1.
Was there a recognization in the Early Fathers of Adamic solidarity or of the fall? How
did they define man’s plight? How would they define grace?
Their concerns were more pastoral and their ideas vague. When it came to grace, they would say that we are saved by the mercy of God, but they wouldn’t explain what that meant.
2.How did the apologists represent progress in the critical understanding from the
fathers? What is their conception of sin?
The apologists dealt with heresy and bad ideas outside the Church. They began to form more theologies, but they did not really establish much on the doctrine of salvation or sin anyways. At this time the church is under attack, being called “fatalist” because of their doctrines of salvation. Therefore, there are many writings of the freedom of will during this time but not much of salvation.
3.What is Origen’s Pre-existence theory of the soul?
Tertullian’s traducianism?
Origen’s Pre-existence theory of the soul is crazy. He said that souls have always existed and that at one point they disobeyed God but not enough to become demons and so he punished them by sending them to earth in bodies. Therefore our will includes both good and bad tendencies.
Tertullian’s traducianism is that humans have one nature (includes physical and spiritual) and that everyone born through Adam inherited the stained/fallen nature of Adam
4.How do Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa show progress in critical
development? What is still their shortcoming and how do you account for this?
Gregory of Nazianzus (329/389) believed that we most participate in our salvation. He said that when we hear ‘to whom it is given’ we must also add, “and to who incline that way.” This is an understandable reaction to the criticism of the philosophers of the time who thought it ridiculous that humans would not have free will to choose.
THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION
Lesson #19
1.What do we know about Pelagius’ life and career?
Pelagius (354-418) was a British monk who came into Rome to teach, establish a school. He spent a lot of time in the Monastery but not in the outside world. During this time Rome was in anarchy. Pelagius offered a moral solution.
2.Does culture and social experience effect belief? Did Augustine’s experience before redemption contribute to his formulation of theology?
Augustine, in contrast to Pelagius, lived a life of pursing lustful pleasures before becoming ill, and then coming to Christ. He became a priest and the Bishop of Hippo a little while later, writing a lot. Culture and social experience does effect belief, because Pelagius’s life in contrast to Augustine’s both seemed to affect their formulation of theology. Augustine’s experience in particular led him to understand the depths of humanity’s depravity.
3.What were Pelagius’ theological assumptions that underlaced his doctrinal beliefs?
That man is capable of becoming/working out his own righteousness. Pelagius denied original sin, Adamic fall, and unmerited grace.
4.Where did Augustine begin his theology? How did it differ from Pelagius’?
Augustine began his theology with Adam’s sin, which he said all men participated in, and that all men inherit a human nature that is physically and morally corrupted to the point that he is only free to sin. This was the complete opposite of Pelagius who said all men start with an uncorrupted nature and we do not inherit or partake in Adam’s sin. DOCTRINE OF SALVATION
Lesson #20
1.What is Cassian theology? How does it differ from Pelagianism and Augustinianism?
If Pelagianism and Augustinianism were two ends of a spectrum, Cassian appears between them. He taught that sin hinders man’s mind mention, will, and because of this we need help. They deny total corruption. He believes we are not totally depraved. Therefore, with cooperation between Man, the
Church, and God, one can become righteous again. Of course, this is the Roman Catholic view of salvation, not the Protestant view.
2.What were the findings of the Synod of Orange?
In this Synod, 529, they discussed Augustinianism, they condemned Cassianism and Pelagianism. However, they adopted some Cassian ideas. In the following medieval period, believers gave up predestination, they gave up inherited guilt (original guilt – connection to Adam), and they gave up grace. The Roman Catholicism we have today adopts many Cassian ideas
3.Why do you think in the Medieval Period that the teachings concerning
salvation gradually shifted from the findings of Orange to Cassianism, a view
condemned at Orange?
It gave up predestination, this led to giving up inherited guilt, which leads to man having the ability to choose/start to be righteous, which leads to not needing grace.
4.When did the Roman Catholic Church begin? What is the relevancy of this question at this point in the course?
Around 1215, this is when the Church claimed that the Eucharist gives grace
8
THE DOCTRINES OF SALVATION
Lesson #21
1.What does it mean that Luther and Calvin were Augustinian or that they sought to return the church to the findings of Orange?
It means that they returned to the inability of man to do anything to earn salvation: salvation was all God’s work and his alone. They returned to the original sin of Adam and human inability.
2.What is the Socinian concept of original sin, predestination, and will?
Socinians believe that there is no original sin: men did not inherit guilt nor a sin nature from Adam. Humanities issues are a result of personal decisions to follow bad examples.Hypothetically it is possible that people could in fact follow a perfect moral life. However, to do so, they would need some “moral stimulus” to overcome bad habits.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
3.How did the Arminians in Holland differ from the Socinians and the Reformers in their explanation of sin, will, and grace?
They teach Spiritual ability to choose God but a Moral inability to choose God. This is contrasted with the Calvinist who believes that we are neither Spiritually nor Morally able to choose God. Arminians believe that people have responsibility. Therefore, they reject sovereignty. Redeeming grace is unlimited – it is for everyone if they choose it. However, after choosing it, it can be lost.
4.How did the Wesleyans differ from the Arminians on these issues? Are
Wesleyans Calvinists, Arminians, or a hybrid?
The Wesleyans are on the same page as the Calvinists for original sin through Adam, and also held to cooperative grace and that humans have cooperative ability like Arminians. He was a hybrid, believing in both inability and ability: God’s grace works in the hearts of unbelievers to draw them to him, whereupon repentance leads to a saving grace.
5.What is Amyrauldianism? What doctrines are at issue? Is it correct to label DTS as an Amyraldian institution?
Amyrauldianism is a slightly modified form of Calvinism that emphasizes justification over predestination and says that Christ died for all of humanity, not just the elect. Yes Dts is rightly labelled Amyrauldianism.
THE DOCTRINES OF SALVATION
Lesson #22
1.What was Schleiermacher’s understanding of the doctrines of sin and grace?
Can you be orthodox in the doctrine of justification yet denigrate Christ’s deity?
Schleiermacher’s understanding of the doctrine of sin was that sin was simply incomplete morals, there was no original sin and man did not need a remedy, however salvation was a work of God that brought the person to dependence on God. In other words, God helps us become better, moral people. No, you cannot be orthodox in the doctrine of justification yet denigrate Christ’s deity because once you denigrate his deity, a lesser cannot fulfill a greater, therefore get rid of the need for a greater.
2.What was Ritschl’s view of sin and salvation?
Ritschl’s believes that justification is an act of morals that reflects one’s good moral standing with God. Jesus was not God but was God’s moral ambassador on earth. Therefore, to follow Christ’s model of morals on earth, is one’s own justification.
3.How does Barth stand in contrast to the nineteenth-century German theologians’ understanding of sin and grace?
Barth removed Christianity from time. He embraced an idea of atonement in eternity passed. He believed that it was at the cross that God announced his victory, not where he attained it. Barth did believe that justification was by grace, not works. In believing that salvation was through grace by faith not on account of faith, he was keeping with the reformers.
4.How did nineteenth century American theologians alter Calvinism in the interpretation of sin and grace?
They denied divine wrath and human inability and believed in the possibility of human progress. One can perfect his own righteousness through morals.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
Lesson #23
1.How did the early churchmen define the church?
They defined the church as an “elect portion”, wherever Jesus is, that is where the universal church is, “the new people”, “children of Abraham, people of God”, “the new race”. The church is viewed as the sole depository of truth, because it has a monopoly on the apostolic writings, oral tradition, and faith.
2.How did Origen’s platonic thinking provide insight for a clearer definition of the
church?
Origen saw all those who are believers as the church, since the body of Christ is made up of all who are in Christ.
3.Why did the church quickly move towards a hierarchial view of ecclesiastical office?
When the Church stopped being persecuted it grew largely. This happened early on, in the second century. The singular Bishop idea made it to Rome in 170. This happened because people needed a safety and defense against heresy.
4.What are the specific contributions to hierarchical ecclesiology of Ignatius,Irenaeus, and Cyprian?
Cyprian said there was no salvation outside of one’s Bishop. What he meant was there is no salvation outside the Gospel, which had been passed down through the Apostles to the Bishops. In Against Heresies, Irenaeus listed the Apostles and their successors to state that people needed a single leader. Ignatius wrote a letter to the Ephesians in which he stated that any person who acts outside of the leadership of their presbyter and deacon does not have a clean conscience.
5.Did the early church view the sacraments as purveyors of sanctifying grace, saving grace, or both? How were the sacraments defined?
The early church viewed the sacraments (baptism and the eucharist) as ambivalent: they were inseparable from each other. The eucharist was seen as a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but nonmeritorious. It adds no grace to us, but Jesus is present somehow. Baptism was seen as conveying the washing accompanied with the forgiveness of sins, however prior faith was required for baptism. They were seen as outward signs of the inward presence of spiritual life.
6.Is there any hint of a distinction between Israel and the Church or of the superiority of a single bishop over the bishops in the earliest Fathers?
No, There isn’t any hint
9
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
Lesson #24
1.How did Augustine advance the authority of bishops in the churches?
He held to apostolic authority in succession through the bishops like Cyprian, and advanced that authority to say that the belief of the individual follower of Christ is dependent on the authority of the church. Salvation is only in the church because that is where the truth is.
2.How can it be said that Gregory was the first pope by Protestants? Though the first pope, and increasingly ritualistic, was he Cassian in his theology? Was he Roman Catholic?
While he would not accept the title of pope, he assumes primacy over the church. Not Roman Catholic, but the beginning of the new Catholic Church. Christ’s death provided the grace to redeem, he was not Cassian but he emphasized ritual and the moved from the memorial of the Eucharist to the literal body, and because of that the Eucharist started to become the means of grace.
3.How did Origen’s platonic framework provide a set of assumptions that brought him to perceive the Lord’s Table as having spiritual significance?
The words Jesus spoke about the bread and the wine as relating to the spiritual reality, not the physical, and that to us the elements then are a symbol of the reality of the word of Christ.
4.What kind of grace was conveyed in Cyril of Jerusalem’s trans-substantial view of the Lord’s Table?
Sanctifying grace
5.How does Gregory of Nyssa differ from Cyril?
Gregory of Nyssa (330-395) agreed with Cyril and the others of the eastern Churches that in taking the Eucharist, we are assimilated into Christ and deified. He said that by this union Christ also becomes “a sharer in corruption” and gives gifts of virtue by benediction by “trans-elements” the natural.
6.Why is the nature of grace delineated in the Councils of Trent?
It changed from two sacraments that show grace to seven sacraments that give grace, and so the Council of Trent was needed to explain this, the seven sacraments and how they worked/how grace worked.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
Lesson #25
1.What was Calvin’s view of the church: its definition, beginnings and distinguishing marks?
Gen 12 - The Abrahamic covenant. The church is the one, universal catholic church which includes all the saints of God from all time periods. It started in the promises of God to Abraham and first formed in the Exodus from Egypt with the people of Israel. The distinguishing marks are the Word of God proclaimed and the sacraments observed according to the pattern set out in the Bible.
2.How did Anabaptist ecclesiology differ from both Luther’s and Calvin’s?
They rejected the idea of state in religious change. They fought for more separation of Church and state. The state, to antibaptists was seen as the domain of the devil. They believed that believers shouldn’t be forced into affirmation of Church or state. They believed that Baptism is for those who walk in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and wish to be buried with him in death. Eucharist was a reminder of Christs sacrifice.
3.How does the Lutheran and Calvinist view of baptism differ? Does infant baptism save or symbolize?
Both felt that the efficacy of the action was due to the heart of the partaker. Calvin believed that Baptism was a sign of initiation in the Church, the process included, and attesting of forgiveness, death to sin, and assurance that we are partakers in Christs blessings. Luther believed that Baptism worked together forgiveness, delivery from death and everlasting life. However, we was aware that water did not do this but rather it was done by the Word of God and faith which were with and in the water
4.How does the Anabaptist interpretation of the Lord’s Table differ from Luther’s and Calvin’s?
They are followers of Zwingli, so the Eucharist was a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, whereas Luther said Christ was really present in the Lord’s Table and therefore it strengthens faith and Calvin said that the Lord’s Table was a spiritual union with Christ, lifting one spiritually heavenward where the believer fellowships spiritually with Christ.
5.What are the various options of ecclesiastical government presented in the Reformation? How do they differ and who formulated each embryonically?
Hierarchical – Anglican, No Church Government – Anabaptist, Modest presbyterial government – Calvinist,
Hierarchical by civil magistrates – Lutheran
THE DOCTRINE OF “LAST THINGS”
Lesson #26
1.How did the early Church Fathers understand futuristic events?
Jesus would return to earth and reign physically before the final judgement. They believed in the physical future resurrection of the dead believers
2.Did the Church Fathers argue for the oneness of Israel and the church?
They believed that the Church was the new Israel. This is because there was so much division between the Jews and the Gentile believers at that time. Therefore, the belief of Israel actually being a physical nation was not understood.
3.What is monumentally important about Justin Martyr in understanding the
distinction between Israel and the Church?
Justin identified the Church as the new Israel. This is because the false prophet Bar Cova claimed to be the Messiah and the Romans rebelled and killed roughly 700,000 Jews, scattering the rest. Therefore, the apologists believe that Israel cannot possibly be regathered, rather the Church is the new Israel. He believed that from 70AD to 160 AD the Church and Judaism was separated, and now the Church is the continuation of Israel.
4.How did platonic thought mitigate against earthly millennialism?
It introduced the separation of the spiritual from the physical and “spiritualized” the end times.
5.What other factors caused millennialism to decline in the church?
The Montanists adopted premillennialism, and in an effort to not be associated with them the church distanced itself from premillennialism as well.
6.What influence did Augustine exert?
Augustine established a theory of nations. The theory is that there are two loves in the world, the love of God and the love of man. God creates nations for his purpose, and as long as they do that purpose, they will prevail. When they stop doing what he needs them to do, he will destroy them. Augustine and Origen created Amillennialism. They departed from a literal interpretation of Scripture and moved toward allegory.
10
THE DOCTRINE OF “LAST THINGS”
Lesson #27
1.Describe Luther’s eschatology. What was the “Rosetta Stone” of his understanding of Daniel and Revelation?
Luther thought that the history of the world was in 1000 year increments, and therefore the current church age was the 1000 year reign of Christ described in Revelation and that they were somewhere in the great tribulation before the return of Christ. He symbolized both Daniel and Revelation to fit into his own times, such as taking the Pope as the little horn and willful king in Daniel and Rome as Babylon in Revelation.
2.How does one account for the rebirth of Chiliasm over thirteen centuries after Augustine?
A renewed interest and study of the Hebrew language/exegesis, and the context of the Thirty Years War in Germany and the persecution of the Puritans by the church of England led to a reconsideration of amillennialism as the best way to interpret the end times/Revelation (amillennialism said that the church was currently reigning, but with the devastation of war/
persecution this made that idea seem less likely).
3.What are the important contributions of Johann Alsted and Joseph Mede?
Both adopted and advocated for chiliasm/ancient premillennialism, which had not been a viable view in the church since the early Fathers.
4.How does one account for the dominance of Amillennialism in Calvin’s followers?
Calvin himself was Amillennialist.
THE DOCTRINE OF “LAST THINGS”
Lesson #28
1.What is postmillennialism and who was Daniel Whitby?
He was an English Anglican Unitarian who is claimed to be the father of postmillennialism. However, Jonathan Owen is a better example. Postmillennialism is the belief that the believers will usher in a reign of peace. According to their belief, Christ is already ruling. After we bring the whole world into understanding of the gospel, peace will follow and then Jesus will come back after the millennial reign.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
2.What has been the lineal history of Postmillennialism in America? How do you account for the impressive emergence of it in recent days?
Owen/Whitby passed it on to the Puritans, and Jonathan Edwards passed it on to the Presbyterians, specifically Charles Hodge.
3.What are the origins of Modern Premillennialism? How does Historic Premillennialism differ from Modern Premillennialism?
Modern Premillennialism was born in the 1830s from the context of the disillusionment following the French Revolution which crushed the hope of the Postmillennial framework. It was born in Scotland and Ireland and England. Historic Premillennialism says that Israel is the same as the Church, whereas Modern Premillennialism distinguishes them.
4.What is the origin of rapturism?
John Nelson Darby embraces dispensationalism which develops over time and leads to the secret rapture doctrine.
5.How did Modern Premillennialism emerge in America between 1875–1925?
People tried to predict the exact time of Christs coming. This turned some people away from premillennialism. Others, who kept faith in the theology were taught by J. N. Darby and events in the post-Civil War era provided a basis for the renewal of studies in premillennialis
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help