HistoryofDoctrine_Questions_MichaelBanks

docx

School

University Of Georgia *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

49026902

Subject

Religion

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CoachMorning13132

History of Doctrine: Questions Michael Banks, ID: 1009672 Lesson #28 THE DOCTRINE OF “LAST THINGS”—Part III: The Modern Church 1. Daniel Whitby was a major popularizes of the postmillennial views in the 17 th and 18 th centuries. He encouraged a spiritualizing of the resurrection prior to the millennium which is to be understood as individualized, spiritual resurrection at the new birth. Postmillenialism in Whitby’s eyes is not a “reign of persons raised form the dead, but of the church flourishing gloriously for a thousand years after the conversion of the Jews” and peoples of all nations to the Christian faith. 2. The Eschatological teachings of Owen and Whitby were heavily influential upon both England and American theology. Owen’s teachings were embraced by Puritans, then strengthened by Jonathan Edwards, and later Presbyterian’s such as Charles Hodge. Theologians such as Hodge are adamant about a literal resurrection prior to the millennium. 3. The failure of the “Benevolent Empire” and the Civil War led to a decline of nineteenth century postmillennialism, and induced a 19 th and 20 th century era of modern premillennialism which was often rooted in pessimism. The French Revolution led to the increased revival for prophetic concern. In this time there also was a renewed interest in the state of the Jews. 4. Modern Premillennial views as opposed to ancient premillennial views were not as focused on immediacy, but came about more from a sense of pessimism and failure of postmillennial assumptions. 5. Rapturism originates John Nelson Darby’s interpretation of scripture, though it was not a doctrine that he frequently or clearly referenced. Darby himself seemed to express some doubts about this view. 6. Modern Premillennialism emerges in America between 1875 and 1925 largely under the frequent travels and influence of Irving and Darby in England and America. The popularity of the bible conference movement also strengthened its appeal through voices like C.I. Scofield, Moody and Adonriam Judson of Boston. Lesson #27 THE DOCTRINE OF “LAST THINGS”—Part II: The Reformation Church 1. Luther was usually subjective and contemporary in his interpretation of prophecy. Luther’s stress was soteriological. His perception of eschatological events was immediatist, and presentist. Luther viewed his eschatological thoughts through the lens of the present viewing the Little Horn in Daniel first as the papacy and then as the Turks. He was confused by the symbolism of revelation, and believed in the division of world history into six ages of circa 1,000 years each which would come to an end in “eternal sabbath rest”. 2. The Birth of Hebrew studies at Protestant universities lead to the rebirth as Chiliasm (beginning at Cambridge in 1549). In addition, were the influences of optimistic eschatology of Reformationist triumph, the rise of eschatological revisionists and biblical commentators (such as Thomas Brightman, and John Owen’s triumphant speech to the House of Commons about Zion’s coming glory, and the coming reign of the Church.

3. Johann Alsted was the first major Calvinist scholar to advance a premillennial eschatology. For Alsted, the horrors of the 30 Years War led him to shift from an Augustinian to premillennial stance. Joseph Mede was the first English Purtian millenarian to profess his views in 1627. Some call him the father of premillennialism. 4. It could perhaps be attributed to Augustine’s push for Amillennialistic stances in City of God, or Calvin’s personal criticism of millennialism as “fiction or error”, mainly denigrating the idea of a punishment for sin that only lasts 1,000 years. Lesson #26 THE DOCTRINE OF “LAST THINGS”—Part I: The Ancient Church 1. The early Church fathers never systematized their eschatology in a technical sense. They were ancient premillennialists, believing in an end of the world, final consummation, resurrection of the dead and everlasting life. Immediacy is a theme that dominated their thought. The Fathers associated the advent of Christ with the establishment of the Kingdom. 2. Peter Richardson argues that “Israel is nowhere seen as synonymous with the Church until 160 AD” under the teaching of Justin Martyr to a Jewish correspondent Trypho. Barnabas even makes a clear distinction between Israel and the Church. 3. In discussion with a Jewish correspondent, Trypho, Justin Martyr seems to indicate that Israel is synonymous with the Church and Emphasizes that the Kingdom will be inaugurated by the Second Advent, and be centered in Jerusalem. He applies the word Israel to the Church for the first time in 160 AD providing a fixed starting point for this relationship. 4. The Alexandrian school, focused on idealism, shifted from realism and literalism of a visible reign of Christ on Earth to a non-millennial position which used Platonism and allegory. Origen argued that the concept of a post-resurrection millennium with physical bodies wasn’t scriptural. Origen goes as far to “spiritualize the future kingdom as a present reign of Christ in the hearts of men.” Men like Dionysius of Alexandria sought to discredit Chiliasm by denigrating the authorship of the book of Revelation. 5. In the West Augustine’s anti-chiliastic influence caused the decline of millennialism in the Church as did Origen’s dominance in the East. Because of these theologians, the Church spiritualized eschatological truth. Augustine painted an image of two cities or societies, one dominated by God and one dominated by Satan, and wicked men. 6. As stated above Augustine’s influence was toward an allegorical, millennial, future kingdom which was spiritualized to mean the present church age from Adam (aka Amillennialism). Lesson #25 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH—Part III: The Reformation and Modern Church 1. Calvin defined the Church as that both visible and invisible. Calvin indicates that the church was initiated in the Abrahamic Covenant, but formed as a body in the exodus. The coming of Christ then marks a completion of the covenant, but also a “second redemption” which is the birth of the church. Calvin sees one covenant that has been renewed, not two. The Church is then defined by the marks of God’s word being preached, and observance of the sacraments.

2. The Anabaptist tradition differed from the major reformers in stressing a regenerate church membership via believer’s baptism and congregational independency. This tradition, unlike the others has no political assistance. 3. Luther’s view of baptism is as an outward sign of inward reality which convey the outward symbol of grace, while true grace is conferred only by the means of the Word of God. Luther argues for the validity of baptism through faith only. Infants must not be baptized on behalf of a sponsor’s faith. Calvin argued for Baptism as an action which attested forgiveness, taught death to sin, and revealed us as partakers of God’s blessing. It was an initiatory sign in Calvin’s eyes. Calvin supported infant baptism as a replacement for the rite of circumcision. 4. Anabaptists viewed the Lord’s table in light of the teaching of Zwingli, as a non- corporeal, non-real spiritual presence unlike Calvin and Luther. To anabaptists it was. Remembrance of the sacrifice, not a sacrifice itself. Moreover, it’s purpose was to give assurance. 5. The various options of ecclesiastical government are Episcopal Hierarchy (without a pope), modified congregationalism (developed by Luther), presbyterial form (embryonically by Calvin), and full-blown congregational (from the Anabaptist tradition). Lesson #24 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH—Part II: The Ancient and Medieval Church 1. Augustine reacted to the Donatist schism to protect the Church from their separatism. He argued that the true Church is the Church universal because of its geographic distribution throughout the world. He also affirmed the idea that the authority or apostolicity of the church is based on the apostolic succession whose successors are the bishops. Augustine didn’t stress the divine right of the episcopate as much as Cyprian, but nonetheless, asserted the belief of the individual Christian depend upon the authority of the Catholic (universal) Church. 2. Gregory’s dwarfing of Augustine’s concepts concerning Christianity led to the protestant view that of Gregory as the first pope. He can be said to be the first pope because Gregory extended the ecclesiastical power and prestige of Rome in His gifting as an administrator and structural prowess. Moreover, Gregory was one of the first to stress the Mass as a literal sacrifice, wherein the elements go through an actual alteration. In a period of political and intellectual decline, Gregory pulled from Cyprian and Augustine, while diluting and delineating from their concepts. While Gregory rejects the title of pope, in him is observed a shift away from a federation of Bishoprics. Functionally, Gregory was a Roman Catholic. 3. While many fathers emphasized “realism” in order to refute Docetism, and Gnosticism, Origen was a fan of allegory—and under the influence of the Alexandrian school, he set forth to establish a purely symbolic view of the Eucharist. It led Origen to view the elements (bread and wine) as symbolic with the word of Christ being the effectual, actual thing at hand. Origen’s Apollonarianism was eventually discredited. 4. Cyril of Jerusalem maintained a view of transubstantiation (although it wasn’t meritorious), where he considered the Eucharist to be the very body and blood of Christ

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

upon the invocation of the priest. It was a literal, spiritual sacrifice of propitiation in his eyes. 5. Gregory of Nyssa’s view is not so different from Cyril’s opinions, however, He believe that salvation is obtained via the elements in their transformed state. 6. In light of the reformation, the Canon of the Council of Trent are clear that in the Eucharist is a meritorious notion of the real presence of Christ. It further informed what was taught by Peter Lombard: seven sacraments, which the reformer John Huss refuted. Lesson #23 THE DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH—Part I: The Ancient Church 1. The early churchmen defined the church as “the new people”, both invisible and universal. Clement refers to the Church as the “elect portion”. Ignatius furthers Paul’s head-body analogy. It draws people from all nations into one body, and forms what the apologist Justin Martyr defines as a “collected brethren”. Aristides calls the church “a third race” or a “new race” (not Jew, gentile or other). And ultimately the Church is viewed as a “sole depository of truth”. 2. Origen defined the church in both the universal and particular sense. In this way each individual member belongs to the body and does nothing apart from the Word of God. 3. The shift from plurality toward a hierarchical view (especially in light of Ignatius’s influence) was necessarily done to preserve the truth of the Gospel from heresies, gnostic groups, and “isms” of the day. 4. Irenaeus aided the development of the bishop’s office by attributing a special gift for the custody of truth. Tertullian mentions the shift towards hierarchy of a monarchial bishop which wasn’t recognized in Rome until after 140 AD mentioning the heresy of Marcion in light of St. John’s leadership (Tertullian and Irenaeus both were advocating for apostolic succession as the guardian of truth). Cyprian of Carthage helped develop the doctrine of the Church as well, emphasizing the unity of the Church in the episcopate. 5. Cyprian argues for also for limitations—there should be a federation of bishops, and although salvation is in the Church in truth, salvation is not in the Church in sacraments. The Ancient Church viewed these sacraments as conveying unseen, sanctifying grace. They were external rites and signs. Baptism was a form of admission into the Church for the remission of sins, closely tied with the work of Christ Himself, but not meant to be confused with the work. Baptism held no power in itself. To many like Tertullian and Irenaeus, the Eucharist was “real, yet symbolic; memorial, yet spiritual”. 6. Irenaeus was one of the first and few in the Ancient Church to define this body as the “new Israel”. The Church was eventually viewed as a continuation of Israel. Hierarchical rule was rejected by many such as Cyprian, but rather a federation of bishoprics was vied for as the set structure. Lesson #22 THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION (SIN AND GRACE)—Part V: The Modern Church 1. Schleiermacher viewed sin as the lack of God-consciousness and the atonement as Abelardian impulse toward God-consciousness. Christ was an example which could increase our religious fervor, and strength our religious impulse. Though Schleiermacher denigrated Christ’s deity, His view of justification was quite high. Schleiermacher understood that conversion and justification happened at the same time—that we were

instantaneously forgiven and adopted by God through Christ. In a weird tumult of differing theologies, He somehow found an orthodox position in the sense of justification. To Schleiermacher justification was still holding on to belief in Christ, through a declaration of faith. 2. Ritschl denies inherited sin and sin nature, and places sin in an incredibly subjective light as compared to “good”. Instead of original sin, Ritschl observes universal moral law (man has broken the kingdom law and it is the vocation of Christ, to re-establish the kingdom of God). Faith to Ritschl is a value judgement and justification is being reconciled to God—encountering Jesus is finding out “what Jesus means to me” in Ritschl’s views. 3. While the nineteenth century theologians fail to define sin biblically, Barth does not! His views are not Ritschlian, but Barth holds to corruption through Adam. Our hearts are corrupt and curved in upon themselves. In Barth’s view of grace, he was supralapsarian, which meant that the eternal decision of grace preceded the fall. Nonetheless, in Barth’s eyes, pardon and forgiveness was through faith alone—and not by works! 4. Unitarianism and Deism were a result of the Enlightenment’s rationalism! New England theology replaced necessitated sin with sinful (immoral vs. moral) actions. American religious liberalism led to the focus on the ability of man to save himself and the 1960s “fad theologies”. Man was unfortunately viewed as having all the faculties needed to save Himself! Lesson #21 THE DOCTRINES OF SALVATION (SIN AND GRACE)—Part IV: The Reformation Church 1. As opposed to Romish views of sin, and grace, the reformers aligned in their doctrines of sin and regeneration in the same light as Augustine and Anselm (both Luther and Calvin). All these parties (as opposed to Rome) inherently denied Pelagianism and lessened the idea of one’s own ability to be justified before God by merits. As Luther writes in Bondage, it’s not man’s “own powers [that] can commence his conversion”. 2. Socinianism in its essence is a precursor of Unitarianism. Faustus rejected Adamic unity, and an innate propensity to sin. Socinians rejected the traditional concepts of predestination and election as well (implying foresight, not foreknowledge). Jesus is only a moral exemplar, and faith is a moral instrument by which both trust and moral rectitude are built. 3. Arminians accept Adamic unity, but explain it differently as a misfortune (evil, not guilt). The Arminian view of grace and regeneration is cooperative and synergistic, not monergistic—and having free will, man partakes in the regeneration procured by Christ and is capable of “thinking, willing and doing.” 4. Wesley held to the imputation of sin from Adam and is Calvinistic in this regard. His doctrine places Wesleyanism somewhere in between Dutch Arminians and English Calvinists. Wesley like Arminians deposits the will with ability (free will system). In Wesley’s eyes, man is self-determined and through preparing grace, man shows repentance which leads to saving grace. 5. Amyraldianism is a form of Calvinism, closer to Calvinism than Wesleyanism. Under this teaching, justification takes precedence over predestination, and there is a shift to

Christocentrism. It is not classic Calvinism and rears an influence in New England theology! Lesson #20 THE DOCTRINES OF SALVATION (SIN AND GRACE)—Part III: The Medieval Church 1. Cassian’s opinions were a mediating position between Pelagianism and Augustinianism. He redefined grace and free will, and envisioned God’s actions as a response to the initial action/works/deeds of man. The Massilians, led by Cassian, denied both complete moral ability and Augustine’s complete moral inability. Vincent of Lerins was surprisingly a Massilian. 2. The Synod of Orange (529) moved closer to Augustinian beliefs, but still found itself in a mediating position. Prosper of Aquitaine and Hilary of Arles supported Augustine, however, others like Faustus of Rhegium opposed him. The Synod opposed Pelagianism, but did not go as far to support Augustinian predestination. Orange was not Augustinian, Pelagian, or Cassian, but somewhere in the middle of the spectrum. Grace was necessary and divine, but not irresistible and in the view of the synod that grace was still given through the vehicle of baptism. 3. By focusing and emphasizing on that “grace which is given at baptism”, it provided the slippery slope of semi-Augustinianism which would devolve towards semi-pelagianism as the Romish Church (Cassian) talked more and more about the notions of infusion and gracious ability in cooperation with the atonement of Jesus. 4. The Roman Church began, or at the least was conceived of via the writings and assertions of Aquinas in the thirteenth century. Aquinas more fully developed the seeking of God’s grace through sacramental forms that God supplies grace through by participation in. These ideas were largely published in Summa Theologica . Lesson #19 (THE DOCTRINES OF SALVATION (SIN AND GRACE)—Part II: The Theologians (Augustine) 1. Little is known about Pelagius’s early life—He is of British origins, and lived silently under monastic asceticism. He studied under Antiochene learning and was well-versed in Greek and Latin. Between 409-412 he attempted to have a meeting with Augustine, who ignored him, and he later was banished by Pope Innocent I in 417. Pelagius was condemned twice in Carthage (461,417) and later at the third Ecumenical council in Ephesus. 2. Having come from a life that involved the lustful pursuit of the flesh, and discovering only dissatisfaction, Augustine came to Christ in 387. After rejecting the gospel, He was capture by what he refers to as the irresistible grace of God. The soul of Augustine’s thought is divine grace. I would argue that culture and social experience can deeply affect belief, and in the case of Augustine, his experienced of be captured by that irresistible grace led to a natural outworking of thought in his theology. 3. Pelagius’s theological assumptions, underlying His doctrinal belief were the image of a natural man working his way up. His system emerged from the idea of the liberty of choice which resulted in legalism and works. In Pelagius’s view, human virtue could be strengthened and improved.

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. Augustine contrarily began his doctrine in the insufficiency of man, which is completely dependent upon the creative, wonderous grace of God. Augustine viewed man in light of humiliation and despair, but rather Pelagianism gives man too much credit under the propositions of a rational system. Lesson #18 (THE DOCTRINE OF SALVATION (SIN AND GRACE)—Part I: The Church Fathers and Apologists) 1. Evidence suggests to us that the Fathers did not understand the extent and nature of sin in any full way. They were vague. They are non-speculative in their doctrines of sin and grace and take for granted certain ideas, such as the sinfulness of man as obvious and ignorant in need of God’s forgiveness. 2. The Apologists progressed their critical understanding by discussing the extent of man’s ability to do good and how that ability is diminished by sin, and by examining the workings of the Holy Spirit in the process of regeneration. Essentially, they examined free will and stressed it to refute Gnosticism. Gnostics were those who stressed fatalism and that man was created sinful by God, entirely lacking free will. Though linking their sin back to Adamic unity was not common among the apologists, Tertullian was the first to assert that sin was transferred from Adam as a unit with the body. Tertullian made room for free will, but that Adam passed down to His progeny an inclination to sin. Irenaeus also fleshed out this idea—that man should be viewed as a debtor in Adam’s actions. 3. Origen’s pre-existence of the soul was the idea that the soul was eternal both before and after life on earth, and that men have fallen from splendor to be united with earthly, temporal bodies. Tertullian rejected this idea, and rather asserted the idea of “traducianism” which was the idea of transferrable sin from Adam that we possess as a unit with the body. 4. Both Gregory of Nazianzus and Gregory of Nyssa stress our Adamic unity. The former stresses both sovereignty and free will—asserting that the will is weak. The later also understands that we share in Adam’s fall. However, the shortcoming in these Eastern theologians is the idea of a synergistic view of the human will (cooperative effort with God for salvation), which creates an unhealthy concept of soteriology. A.k.a. too much power and ability are placed upon man that mankind does not actually have (i.e. assisting-cooperative grace). This shortcoming was due in response to the Gnosticism that they faced. Lesson #17 (THE WORK OF CHRIST—Part V: The Modern Church) 1. Schleiermacher’s view of the atonement is that the passive obedience of Christ sufferings for us should fill us with love, God-consciousness. However, in his sense of justification Schleiermacher was ironically, quite Orthodox. The idea of penal substitution is rejected in Schleiermacher, and rather, He believes that the personality of Christ had a strengthening and beautifying influence on men’s religious consciousness. Abelard is seen heavily in Schleiermacher’s thought as well as all German liberal thought of the 19 th century.

2. Albrecht Ritschl sees God and Christ as value judgments—they are extensions of one’s own self-concept. Ritschl rejects satisfaction, and infers that the atonement’s purpose is reconciliation from a broken fellowship with God. His focus is redirected to Christ’s vocation as the one who brings back the moral, exemplary community of the kingdom of God. Overall Ritschl’s views are one of the concept of moral influence. 3. Barth’s emphasis is different in expressing the meaning of the atonement. He speaks of Christ as a substitute taking the place of men which saves us from impending loss and destruction. Barth emphasizes God’s wrath as means of both grace and judgement. Barth states clearly that God’s wrath demands a sacrifice and an offering that is fulfilled in Christ. 4. However, Barth does create a vagueness in His views through more subjectivity. Barth becomes vague in the work of Christ by placing the atonement outside of objective, discernable history. He places the sacrifice of the atonement in the realm of sacred or inner history. So in Barth’s view the atonement on the cross and in Christ’s resurrection confirmed what has already taken place in eternity past. 5. Edward Jr.’s view of the atonement rejects penal substitution and replaces it with a Grotian, “do-good”, view of governmental nature. Disobedience to moral government brings punishment, harm, and destruction. Finney was similar to this view—rejecting Anselmic thought, however, does see penal substitution in scripture. The atonement in Finney’s view is not a payment of debt, but for society at large—Christ’s public death is laid down for the support of divine government. Therefore humanity is still morally responsible for eternal life. Lesson #16 (THE WORK OF CHRIST—Part IV: The Reformation Church (cont.) 1. Calvin saw the atonement in light of Christ’s active obedience. Calvin saw Christ providing the atonement through His life and death. By living in holiness, Christ’s life qualified Him to die the death He died, although the life in and of itself was not propitious. Calvin’s logic saw the necessity of a penal atonement (similar to Anselm’s honor of God), but further too, because the righteousness of God had to be satisfied and could not go unaddressed. 2. A moderate response to Biblical rationalism of the enlightenment was Grotius’s view of the atonement. He moved the necessity of the atonement to the creature instead of God Himself, and reduced God’s arbitrary will to a moral influence instead of a penal substitution. God was willing to forgive, but humanity had transgressed against God’s government and law in the Grotian view. In the Grotian view, there is no necessary atonement, but rather a “relaxation” and the punishment is more like a slap on the arm, than any concept of one death for all who have sinned! The moral emphasis is placed upon man. 3. Arminians found themselves between the Grotians and the reformers. They believed that the atonement was purposed to demonstrate God’s government and save the creature—rather than being optional, like in the Grotian view, the atonement was absolutely necessary. The atonement was still necessary, but emphasis is still placed upon man’s ability to not sin in the future (i.e., “Christ’s sacrifice was not a substitute penalty, but a substitute for a penalty”).

4. When discussing Christ’s death, the questions that must frame the discussion are: was it necessary or optional in God’s plan? Is the atonement grounded in God’s love or justice? Is the atonement a response to man’s guilt or sins? And finally, was the atonement a corrective measure or a punishment (substitute)? Other questions surrounding Christ’s death may include the: purpose, fact, focus and result . Lesson #15 (THE WORK OF CHRIST—Part IV: The Reformation Church (cont.) 1. Gregory the great viewed Atonement in this way: Guilt could only be extinguished by a penal offering to justice. He did not favor a satisfaction rendered to Satan, but rather favored a penal substitutionary sacrifice to God for of sinners. 2. Anselm focuses on God’s satisfaction so that we may not face His wrath (we are not indebted to Satan, but to God). His work Cur Deus Homo affirms that God’s honor has been offended. He stressed that the goal of the incarnation is atonement and that God is due a ransom and a we need a substitution. 3. In the Abelardian view Christ’s atonement provides a good example by which we may more fully live out the teaching of the love of God. It is the benevolence of god that allows us in His view to be free from sin and allows us the “true liberty as sons of God”. The Abelardian weakens our view of sin and of grace while placing a moral emphasis on salvation. 4. Aquinas more heavily influenced Romanism than cryto-calvinism, but found Himself confused and thereby confused others. He confounds Christ’s atonement by grounding the atonement both in Christ’s satisfaction and the sacrament of baptism. He speaks confusingly of the atonement as satisfactory and also producing an accumulation of merit (by both active and passive obedience). 5. The Romish view of the atonement is that Christ’s atonement is not sufficient alone and by itself—good, moral meritous character is required on top of it in addition to penances and sacraments of the Church. The dividing issue of the reformation is the view of how we are justified. In the eyes of protestants: by grace through faith, not by external acts of obedience to moral ecclesial law, but by an inward, spiritual act of faith. In the Romish view justification was a renewing, sanctifying act on the part of God (not a complete pardon, but a partial one). In the Romish view, justification and progressive sanctification are infused, blended and confused. Lesson #14 (THE WORK OF CHRIST—Part I: The Ancient Church) 1. When discussing Christ’s death, the questions that must frame the discussion are: was it necessary or optional in God’s plan? Is the atonement grounded in God’s love or justice? Is the atonement a response to man’s guilt or sins? And finally, was the atonement a corrective measure or a punishment (substitute)? 2. The early Church Fathers viewed Crhist’s death with simplicity and vagueness in an unspeculative manner. There was repetition of scripture, but little theological reflection. Ignatius simply wrote that by believing on His death we might escape death. For example, the Didache and Hermas never connect redemption with the death of Christ. 3. The Eastern apologist Origen championed a fully developed Ransom-to-Satan theory of Christ’s death and atonement. In Origen’s view a sacrifice was offered to God, but set man free from Satan and gave a recognizable victory over demons.

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. In Irenaeus’s recapulation theory, the manifestation of the love of God takes on a passive as well as an active form and bears the penalty of guilt in place of the criminal. It showed synthetic development around understanding of Christ’s atonement for us. 5. The theory of restitutionalism is a development of Irenaeus’s theory of recapulation by Athanasius. Christ not only participates in Penal substitution, but also takes on our humanity to give us what is lost (aka, God’s image). Lesson #13 (The Person of Christ—Part IV: The Modern Church) 1. Schleiermacher’s view of God was interrelated to his view of religion. His understanding that religion was the “feeling of absolute dependence upon God” caused Schleiermacher to stress human-consciousness which is why regarding the person of Christ, he stated that Jesus was the “ideal of humanity” in that He possessed true god- consciousness (whatever that means). His beliefs were essentially a brand of dynamic Monarchianism. 2. The Christ of Albrecht Ritschl is a man with marvelous insight into the ways of God— making Him the “elevated one”. He does not see a unity of being, but a unity of purpose in Christ. Jesus is a conscious founder of an earthly kingdom working toward man’s self- end by the way of solidaric unity with God. To Ritschl, Jesus and his “disciples of progress” was an ethical, moral kingdom. To Ritschl unlike Schleiermacher, God was not just a feeling, but rather Jesus had achieved the best hopes for a struggling humanity. 3. The quest for the historical Christ faced a paradigm shift in the 19 th century. The underlying philosophical shift produced by Descartes, Hobbes, Locke and Kant sent theologians of that era on an inward quest for truth. The truth had to be discovered by what was known (phenomena = known/natural) rather than what could not be known (nomena = unknown/spiritual), and established a leaning toward mind or intuition for answers. 4. Barth’s positions, unlike theologians of his age, were well-found in the Chalcedonian creed. He caused the liberal tendency of German theology to swing back towards conservative views, yet let us questioning in terms to his understanding of Christ on earth. Barth viewed Christ as the God-man, yet believed that the sin-atonement had occurred outside of time rather than in time (leaving us with some hesitation), nonetheless still allows man to be reconciled to God by a traditional view of justification in Christ. 5. Process theology viewed Christ as a man merely who was given a “subjective aim” to realize himself. Whitehead stated that “realty is creativity becoming.” Whitehead loses the Christ of the Bible by making the goals and accomplishments of Christ the subjective goals of a mere man. Lesson #12 (The Person of Christ—Part III: The Medieval and Reformation Church) 1. Monophysitism is a continuation in principle of the Eutychian controversy. The Monophysites affirmed the truth of Chalcedon in rejecting both Nestorianism and Eutychianism, but reacted to “two natures” as implying “two persons”. So, while the two natures commingled in Eutychianism, they resulted in the concept of two persons (this is verbal Monophysitism). Monophysites articulated in simple statement that Christ only had one nature, not two.

2. Monothelitism was a second attempt to alter to the findings of Chalcedon. Monothelitism proposed a single will in Christ. This movement was created by the attempt to secure Monophysite military aid against Islamic forces. Honorius of Rome taught “one will in our Lord Jesus Christ.” 3. Ultimately Servetus denied both true humanity and deity, which was his downfall. He destroyed the distinction of the two natures that Christ maintains and calls Christ the “idea and pattern of all things” rather than Lord. 4. Unitarians like William Ellery Channing were simply Monarchians in a new garb. They present a moral Christ, that is an outstanding example of intimate connection with “God” built upon a “rationalistic hermeneutic” which denies the trinity within theology proper. They maintained that trinitarian thinking would be to make Christ two beings. Lesson #11 (The Person of Christ—Part II: The Ancient Church(cont.)) 1. The Antiochian scholars, stressed a literal hermeneutic and a biblical exegesis particularly in the gospel accounts thus placing a large emphasis on the true humanity of Christ. Contrarily the Alexandrian school of Theology continued in the views of Athanasius which tended to be Apollinarian Christology (greatly subordinating the human to the divine). The Antiochians clashed with Apollonarius because the Athanasian position on “homoousia” was thought to destroy the humanity—just as the Antiochene views seemed to destroy his deity (making him too human). Antiochians stressed humanity, while obscuring deity, while Alexandrians did the opposite. Practically this played out as different hermeneutics (literal versus speculative), different starting points (Alexandria = soteriology; Antioch = in the gospels), and different stressed on Christ’s person. 2. Nestorius communicated the belief that the belief that the Holy Ghost did not create God the Word, but that a temple which God the Word should inhabit was created by Mary. Thus, Mary was not in Nestorius’s eyes the “mother of God” (theo-tokos; God- birth), but could only be referred to as Christokos—Nestorius did this to try to clear away any confusion in the divine and the human in Christ. Thus, the word dwelled in the temple of a body created by Mary, but was not the body itself—and yet the temple was inseparably united with God the word, which came of Mary. In summary, Nestorius believed in two persons, not one that were closely connected. Ultimately “theotokos” was valid as the woman was the mother of the whole child…Nestorius’s passion was unholy and his claim was not valid, although His distancing from non-Antiochene theologians was helpful, as well as His elevation of Christ’s deity. The failure of Nestorius’s was his view that two natures, a divine and a human (having a close moral union). This meant that the logos inhabited in the humanity (with a personality of its own), like a resident in a house. He affirmed duality, but denied unity. 3. Eutychianism is a teaching by Eutyches, a monk of Constantinople that Christ had only one nature, two natures being consubstantial, a mixture of both. This view appeals to the Alexandrians because of their historic stress on “homoousia”, yet did not completely denigrate either humanity or deity. Unlike Nestorianism, this solution maintained unity, but the problem was he did not choose—which ultimately led to both the humanity and

deity being depreciated (“of two natures, not in two natures”). The commingling of the two into one was ultimately destructive. 4. The council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) was the 4 th ecumenical council, a gathering of 250 bishops, which witnessed the condemnation of Dioscursus and the affirmation of Leo’s Tome as Orthodox Christianity (one person, two perfect natures, without confusion). Rome supported Constantinople, not Alexandria. 5. Leo the 1 st experienced a remarkable victory and was vindicated from the “robber’s synod” led by Dioscursus. Constantinople had been discredited over Nestorianism, Alexandria over Eutychianism. Lesson #10 (The Person of Christ—Part I: The Ancient Church) 1. The phrase “logos-sarx” (i.e. word-flesh) is deeply tied to the Arian controversy. As Arians believed that Christ was created by God—this controversy was handled and carried by Athanasius. Although orthodox believers knew they disagreed with Arian, they weren’t quite sure what do with the humanity of Christ, for it was necessary to believe in an “actual incarnation of the Logos”. Up until the time of the apologist, among the church fathers there was no clear doctrine of two natures in a technical sense apart from the idea that Jesus Christ had a “God-manhood” (aka Logos-Sarx). 2. The Church would often site Irenaeus’s trailblazing phrase “Christ, one and the same”, which concerns the incarnation. It appears seven times in the Chalcedon Creed. In the West, many theologians adopted Tertullian’s pioneering view of one person in two substances. 3. Apollonarianism is rooted in a tri-chotomist presupposition. Apollonarius believed that the humanity of Christ was His “inferior nature” and simply became God by being united to God and that the higher nature of the Divine prevailed. The deity supplanted the human Spirit in His view so that in on person a human body and soul was joined to divine reason. So, Christ was only human (in Apollonarius’s view) because his body and soul were human. He considered dualism disastrous and so he mutilated the human nature of Christ—everything was compounded into a single, living entity. 4. To refute Apollonarianism, the Cappadocians (Nyssa, Basil, Gregory) employed a discussion of salvation. They recognized the hidden danger of Apollonarius’s thinking, stating that by denying the realty of Christ’s human nature, we also deny the Christian doctrine of salvation. If Christ is a man without a human mind, he is really bereft of mind and quite unworthy of salvation. If Christ is not truly man with every functioning faculty of a true human, then He is incapable of being the perfect substitute to bring us to into salvation. 5. In trinitarianism debate, the deity of Christ is denied as the liberal view of theology proper becomes improperly obsessed with the “humanization of God as a personification of man’s needs”. Similarly in the debate concerning Apollonarianism, the humanity of Christ is degraded. Therefore, a proper understanding and central focus of the church, must be a proper view of God. Lesson #9 (The Doctrine of God—Part V the German and the American Rationalist)

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

1. The “Scientific Method” is inadequate in the study of theology because rationalists misapplied it’s use. This method does not account in the sphere of the supernatural. Baconian empiricism requires hard, concrete data, something that cannot always be grasped or obtained in the realm of spirituality and supernatural revelation. Rationalism is only fully applied to nature, and ultimate. Ultimately the rationalistic world is still faith in a system, that as Thomas Kuhn explains has constantly shifting paradigms (i.e., there is no normal science). Science has not buried religion by any stretch. 2. Schleiermacher reversed the order of traditional thought. He promoted the idea that instead of religion beginning in God (traditional approach), it rather began in man. He elevated humanity. Schleiermacher opposed both the rationalists and the supernaturalists. The stress is not on God, but rather Schleiermacher placed it upon human-consciousness and a “feeling of absolute dependence” on God. There was God- conciousness. 3. Feuerbachianism is rooted in the idea that God is merely an extension of man. His theology proper placed man at the center, dethroning theism and crowning anthrotheism. “That he exists at all he has to thank nature, that he is man, he has to thank man.” 4. Ritschl taught that God has an objective existence (unlike Feuerbach), however, this existence is still a value judgement, a conception valuable for the attainment of goods. He was heavily influenced by Kantianism (God being knowable by reason). He taught that God should only be thought of as love but also that there is an ‘intrinsic purpose of God’. As Barth stated, Ritschl like the others was a “monologue of the soul with its own divinity”. 5. Barth combated the indifferent century’s trend toward the “humanization of God as a personification of man’s needs” in his own theology proper by stating that God was transcendent and ‘Wholly Other!’. He spoke contrarily to the rationalists of “oneness in threeness” of God and uplifted many traditionally orthodox views. In His view of God’s one essence is still an arrangement of three persons. Barth all the while acknowledge that the discussion of the trinity went beyond the Bible itself. 6. Process theology evolved from Hegel’s idea of the historical evolvement of God (a forward movement) and was broken in by Whitehead. Grappling with the 20 th century, process theology attempts to re-envision God under a dipolar model, as abstract and transcendent, while also being concrete and relative. His attributes are also redefined. He is related to everything, but not ontologically. God is everlasting in duration, can be actualized by love, cannot change and does not know the future, but only the actual. To process theology, scriptures are just myth and symbol. Lesson #8 (The Doctrine of God—Part IV the Medieval and Reformation Church) 1. Although few developments in regard to thought around the Trinity were made, the Medieval scholastics did add to the discussion through the clarification within changing cultural-religious viewpoints. They helped rationalize the Trinity in the context of scholasticism. Thomas Aquinas, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Augustine and Anslem helped weaponize the Aristolian approach of Islam against their adversary in the realm of apologetics.

2. The protestant and Roman Catholic Church did not differ in regard to their views on trinitarianism—they agreed on the doctrine of God and simply reaffirmed their convictions in creedal fashion. Authority and theism were more of an issue in the 19 th century as compared to trinitarianism (not an area of disagreement). The Decrees of Vatican II (1963-65) are even silent on the topic of the trinity. 3. The non-protestant traditions refer to heretical opinions and groups based on a judgement of scripture due to finite reasoning. Such groups include Socinianism born by the thought of Michael Servetus and the factions that resulted from his line of thinking —Monarchianism (Sabellian or Modalistic), the deists of England, and the Unitarians in America. 4. Socinians have a theology proper that resulted from the idea of an “enlightenment hermeneutic”. The “academic skeptics” of Socinianism paved the way for the “age of reason” and declared that there is but one God, not in kind, but in number. Fundamentally it denied plurality of persons, and claimed that God was one individual intelligent essence. 5. Not all unitarians were deists, but all deists had a unitarian concept of God. 17 th century England saw a revival of argument concerning the trinity which can be traced back to Socinianism and Arianism. Many Unitarians were not deists, but all deists had a Unitarian conception of God and were sympathetic with the Unitarians against the trinitarians. Lesson #7 (The Doctrine of God—Part III the Ancient Church (The Holy Spirit)) 1. The Church Fathers faced confusion on the Spirit’s Person and on the Spirit’s work. The deity of the Holy Spirit was taken up because of the implications relative to the full deity of Christ. The Fathers confused the Spirit and the son, and the personality of the Spirit is recognized, but is confused with that of the Logos (i.e. Christ). 2. The Spirit has a beginning in the sense of the Augustinian phrase in the Constantinopolitan Creed, “proceeds from the Father” and “proceeds from the Son” which the Eastern church greatly disliked because it appears as if there is subordinationism (filioque = from the son). 3. Athanasius contributed the delineation of full consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and Son in a singular essence. This was stated in his famous letters to Serapion, bishop of Thumir. Arianism could not be fully rejected if the Homoousion principle was not ascribed to the Holy Spirit. They viewed the Son and Spirit as inferior to the Father. 4. The Macedonians are those lead by Macedonius, a Semi-Arian bishop of Constantinople. Gregory of Nazianzus explains that they did not accord to the Spirit divine adoration or refuse it to him, but rather took a middle road, which was a bad path indeed. 5. As I stated above, the Spirit in Augustinian phrase from the Constantinopolitan Creed, “proceeds from the Father” and “proceeds from the Son”. In the West this idea was probable without subordination because the trinitarian starting point was a single “ousia”. So although the Spirit proceeded from the Father and Son, He was of a single essence.

Lesson #6 (THE DOCTRINE OF GOD—Part II: The Theologians) 1. Athanasius’s approach to the issue to the trinitarian issue was helpful and insightful in that he discarded the weights of philosophy and the academy to peer into issues at the heart of the Christian life: namely he viewed the trinitarian issue through the lens of monotheism and soteriology. The successes of the Savior, and the Savior’s ability to re- create everything could only be brought about by both His eternality and Incarnation. 2. The council of Nicaea was a failure because the Eastern and Western church were not in agreement with terminology to describe the Trinity. There was a misperception with the terms of “essence” and “person”. The East believed the west to be modalists. Though the words “similar” and “same” appear very alike, they provided a great deal of confusion. 3. The Cappadocians (Gregory of Nyssa, Basil of Caesarea) were essential in their function because they unified the Eastern and Western church by clarifying misconceptions allowing the groups of homoousians (“same) and homoiousians (“similar) to be brough back together and make proper defense against Arianism. 4. The Council of Constantinople was a success because previous misconceptions between the Eastern and Western church had been properly clarified. There was now a united front against the Arian sect, and terminology was carefully agreed upon that distinguished the roles, diversity, and function of the persons of the Trinity without compromising their essence. 5. The orthodox statement of tri-Unitarianism is that God is one singular entity. In Arius’s position for example, Jesus was not a manifestation of the essence of the Father. Essential their position was one of “one God with different modes.” 6. We know God by the power of God the Father, the Sacrifice of God the Son and by conviction of the Holy Spirit. One can possess knowledge of God and His nature, without intimately knowing Him, but we truly know God when we experience the Savior, thought the mystery of God can still exceed our capacity for words. 7. The issue has been clarified in both diversity of persons and singularity of essence. Though God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit are distinct persons, they function with unique roles and responsibilities. Lesson #5 (THE DOCTRINE OF GOD—Part I: The Fathers and Apologists) 1. The Dynamic Monarchians were a late 2 nd century sect which denied the Logos doctrine. Theodotus of Byzantium was their leader and brought the teachings of this sect to Rome. Under their system of belief, the divinity of Jesus came as a power of influence upon Him, rather than an essence which was already innate. They defined Christ as a mere man and were in major opposition to the bishop Victor of Rome as well as Hippolytus who both wrote against this group. Dynamic Modalism was disseminated by Praxes that doesn’t distinguish between the persons of Father, Son and Holy spirit. Rather influencers like Noetus proposed that the Father is called the Son according to events at different times (so the deity is divided by name, not by substance). 2. Sabellianism represents a final form of modal doctrine which says the Father and Son are the same and thereby does away with both. Sabellians are Judaistic teachers under the guise of Christianity. Praxeans taught that the Father came to earth and suffered as

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 Son, making no distinction of persons and promoted antimontanism (Praxeas destroyed a proper view of Christology). Noetians were Modalists who taught that the father and Son were One God—and that the names were only according to events at different times. Samosotianism resulted as a form of Dynamic Monarchians which taught adoptionism and that progressively Jesus was a mere man with the Logos (Christ) dwelling in Him, making Him God as a man. Finally, Lucanists are a heretical sect that claimed the Father had always existed as the Father, but begot the Son as a product of generation. 3. The fathers clearly advanced the doctrine of trinitarianism, however, did not manage to shake off all the complexities that caused Christians to fall into teaching subordinationism. 4. The line between tri-theism and tri-Unitarianism is thin, but essential. Tri-theists make certain to defend the unique persons of the trinity, for without this distinction, the members of the trinity lose their distinctions, though they are all equal in divinity and eternality. 5. Unlike the School of Asia Minor, the Alexandrian School (of which Origen was a part) promulgated the homoousia doctrine of Athanasius and resisted making the Spirit or Son Subservient to the Father. This was done through the adoption of Platonistic thinking and logic. Persons and essence cannot be separated. Lesson #4 (THE DOCTRINE OF THE SCRIPTURES—Part III: The Modern Church) 1. The philosophical enlightenment was based upon the development of epistemology in the post-reformation era. There was a shift among scholars from the platonic to the Aristotelian worldview. The philosophical enlightenment was a quest for knowledge and posed the question: how do we know what we know?/what can be known? These thinkers were left in a closed system in a quest for truth without revelation. Knowledge was sought by what can be empirically known. 2. The other day in class Dr. Hannah said, "Christianity doesn't create phantoms to attack —someone comes up behind us and clubs us...we are reactionary, never anticipatory." I believe that the shift in theological discovery came after philosophical discourse simply because theological discourse is often reactionary. A shift in thinking had to come so that Christians had a phantom to react to. A shift in the worldview from revelation to rationalism at the base pushed theologians to react to save the faith. Unfortunately, liberal theologians made an attempt to maintain Protestantism by redefining it, and it failed. 3. To Friedrich Schleiermacher, Scripture was not authoritative in and of itself—rather Christ belief in Christ comes before belief in Scriptures. So then faith, in His view, comes from an experience outside of the Bible. Only later do we believe the word. Scripture in Schleiermacher’s view was imperfect by itself. 4. For Barth the Bible becomes the Word of God as one reads it by the word of the Spirit. Barth believed that the authors of scripture—in words spoken and written were errant. The Bible is only a witness to revelation made alive by the Spirit.

5. The Spirit witnesses to the Christ event in Barth’s view. This is a moment of a Theology of Crisis. The Spirit witnesses to a moment of crisis with the Wholly Other , or transcendent God. Lesson #3 (THE DOCTRINE OF THE SCRIPTURE—Part II: The Medieval and Reformation Church) 1. Augustine by his very description of scripture believed in verbal, plenary inspiration. He simply believed the bible was divinely inspired, but there were not the same distinctions as modern evangelical writers may sometimes suggest. As Polman stated Augustine “did not theorize”. 2. At the Council of Trent (1545) the Roman Catholic Church elevated the authority of tradition equaling it with that of the Scriptures (assuming that its ecclesiology was the only one that could make a true claim to apostolic succession). It neglected the witness of the Holy Spirit to inspired scripture, and ignored Jerome’s distinction of inspired books vs. those used for edification. 3. Any indecision regarding canon was resolved by reformers such as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli in the 16 th century. As these theologians and pastors split from the Roman Catholic Church, it was necessary that they face the issue presented by canon. Many like Calvin argued for the witness of the Spirit in determining which books were holy Scripture and slightly later theologians like William Ames of Cambridge looked for what apocryphal books might show signs of contradicting more readily established books. 4. Ultimately the criteria and difference lay in this: while the Roman Catholic Church crystalize and dogmatize its authority base in roots of supposed tradition, reformers argued for scripture non-contradiction and inspiration by the Holy Spirit. They look for ways which false books, proclaimed to be Scripture might be at odds with the prophets, apostles or Christ Himself. Lesson #2 (THE DOCTRINES OF THE SCRIPTURES—PART I: THE ANCIENT CHURCH) 1. In a more simplistic fashion than today, the Apostolic fathers believed books now designated as the “canonical Scriptures” to be true. Inspiration of the books was assumed, the nature of the canon was beginning to be explored by those such as Irenaeus, Origen, Athanasius and Augustine. Origen for example was an advocate of the error-lessness of scripture, but didn’t necessarily have a word like “inspired” to evidence that belief. In the earliest days of Christianity, authority was deposited in the bishop’s office and apostolic succession, but as times changed and heresies arose, a need also arose to systematize the standards of authority. 2. The early church believed the Old Testament Scriptures to be authoritative, and elevated the letters and circular writings of Paul without distinction. However, in the 1 st century there was not a clear canon. As heresies (external and internal pressures) arose in the second and third century, Church fathers such as Athanasius had to systematize and define standards of authority to defend against sects such as Gnosticism,

Marcionism, and Montanism. So therefore, by the middle of the second century there was a clear consensus on a collection of sacred writings. This “canon” was finalized during the reformation. 3. Early church fathers agreed that Scripture was inspired and breathed out by the Holy Spirit, but how so was not always agreed upon. Specific words and phrases that we have today were not used then. Some claimed inspiration to completely exclude human action and agency. Others recognized the human attributes present. Justin and Athenagoras believed in verbal plenary inspiration even without using the exact terminology or jargon. Augustine showed that the scriptures are truthful even when a demonstration of that truth isn’t easy to make clear. Augustine believed in accommodation to error. 4. Alexandrian hermeneutics utilize Philo’s thought of allegorical interpretation. The church was heavily influenced and dominated by Greek philosophical thought and logic, perhaps to an error, and caused allegorical methods to be widely used. 5. Early church fathers like Clement of Alexandria refer to the “Rule of Faith” as being authoritative. The oral traditions of telling the gospel were not yet distinguished from Scripture because of clear Apostolic tradition and history. There was not a “traditio humana” which contradicted “traditio apostolica”. Tradition mirrored what happened in the Text and was recognized equally alongside it. Lesson #1 (Introduction) 1. Dogma is a “decree, a decision or a command.” Dogma is an expression of truth held by the church at large—widely believed by the majority of its members. It is crystallized and clear statements on which there is no variation; it technically refers to creedal and confessional statements. Doctrine is a word that can be translated as teaching. It’s promoted by a school, teacher or leader (i.e. Baptists, non-confessional churches)—it’s what is taught and held. 2. While some methods may be better than others, the History of Doctrine can be studied through the Historical-Analytical method (segments of church history periods of time: Ancient, Medieval, Reformation, and Modern). This method can be disjointed, unhistorical (reading anachronistically back into things) and use unnecessary repetition. The second method is Synthetic-Historical Method. It traces and follows each branch of systematic theology through history and the developments occurring along the way. These developments reflect both positive and negative outcomes. 3. The enlightenment desired a rational system to explain away faith’s most questionable experiences. The inability to easily prove miracles through rational systems lead thinkers like Hume to claim that we have a “determination to believe what is most contrary to custom and experience.” However, even Tertullian believed that which is absurd. Kierkegaard followed the type of skepticism promoted by Bayle and Hume, who sought deeply for a rational element of faith, but found it wanting—and therefore developed the idea that faith is contrary to reason, custom and experience.

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. The reformation produced a number of Lutheran, German ministers whose children and generational grandchildren found themselves wanting with the onset of the enlightenment. Writers like Neaner, Harnack, and Loofs were born and, in an attempt, to preserve the Christian faith ended up destroying it. Because of the wide religious reforms that had already occurred in Germany during the reformation, these theological and philosophical minds were already ahead of the curve.

HistoryofDoctrine_Questions_MichaelBanks

Related Documents