Rahner states that the God is an incomprehensible mystery. He says that the truth of theology is derived from the ontology and anthropology. He also says that the people experience the mystery of God in everyday activities and this experience forms the basis of their faith. Barth rejects this because he thinks that our understanding of the truth of theology comes from the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. This idea of Barth is more persuasive because deriving the truth of theology from ontology or anthropology would mean that our knowledge of theology comes from human experience and not from the God himself.
For Paul, Faith and salvation began in the cross and the resurrection of Christ; it also concerns justice, and reconciliation granted to men by God. The word conviction in the passage exudes the idea of bringing forth evidence that demonstrates an idea, outstandingly an idea that is contrary to what the case is. The core of this paper is to analyze the relationship between Faith and salvation, as well as to contrast Paul’s doctrine with Jesus’. Over the past years, a paradigm shift in the New Testament has led researchers to question whether the church understood accurately firs-century Judaism and the apostle Paul. These allegations cannot be easily put aside, for they strike directly at our understanding of salvation.
Aquinas goes on to answer that challenge that, if philosophy based on Christianity is a science, it is a lesser science because it is less certain of its conclusions, having accepted them on faith. Aquinas responds to this argument in two parts. First, he argues that God’s revelation is more certain then what seems self-evident to humans because God, unlike humans, is omniscient. The only reason it seems less certain is because fully comprehending God’s level of certainty is beyond human abilities. Aquinas’s second response is that Sacred Doctrine deals with more important subject matter then other sciences and is therefore more important.
In orthodox Christianity, myth in scripture makes objectifying claims on the real universe. With the prevalence of scientific reasoning in modern time, however, many theologians, including Earnest Wright, have seen a need to demythologize our understanding of historical biblical events in order to allow them to rationally fit into our understanding of the laws of nature. In so attempting to demythologize, as Langdon Gilkey points out, many theologians have rendered the scriptural language meaningless because, for example, saying, “The Hebrews saw God as acting,” does not make any claim as to what God actually did. Rudolf Bultmann’s approach to interpreting scripture uniquely preserves the meaning of God as acting while effectively eliminating the problem of biblical incompatibility with the natural universe by repositioning God’s action into a personal frame of reference. Bultmann, who was heavily influenced by existentialist philosophy, notes that the realm of existential faith is much different than the realm of science and history, and he proposes an analogical alternative for scripture that is within this faith realm.
Hugo Meynell and the Christian Doctrine Hugo Meynell's book is a clear example of the growing interest in apologetics. Meynell considers four common objections to Christian doctrine, the belief in God is morally irrelevant; that there is no reason to believe in the special claims of Christianity over those of non-Christian religions. Meynell, also says no sense can be made of the doctrines of Incarnation, Atonement, and the Trinity and that Christian doctrine about life after death is based upon an indefensible view of the nature of human persons-and shows to his own views that these remarks can be met. It should be noted that Meynell on the prior assumption that God exists. This is not because Meynell takes that assumption to be indefensible or incapable of demonstration; it is rather that the existence of God is not his topic in this book.
Introduction Theologian Vern S. Poythress wrote, “Theological systems, whether dispensationalist, covenantal, Calvinist, Arminian, or even modernist, have a profound influence on the way we approach a given [biblical] text.” There is no portion of scripture that is more influenced by the theological system of dispensationalist than that of biblical prophecy, particularly in the area of God’s redemptive plan from for humanity. The purpose of this essay is to establish that an appropriate understanding of biblical eschatology can best be achieved through a dispensational theological perspective. Covenantalism To gain a clearer understanding of the tenets of dispensational eschatology, it is necessary to investigate the main non-dispensational perspective, covenantalism. In discussing the foundational differences between dispensational and non-dispensational eschatological system, Dr. Dan Mitchell suggests the main contrast lies in the hermeneutical methodologies each maintains. Covenantalism views prophetic revelation deductively by first regarding the fulfillment of the prophecy and then retroactively constructing how the prophecy was fulfilled.
Christianity has at its center a pivotal moment in history upon with all of its theology and practice hinges. To undertake a Christology is to consider what it is in God's nature and character that would necessitate and facilitate the cross. While classical theology has often disdained any idea of a God who has feelings and emotions, Jürgen Moltmann rejects this by showing that God suffers empathically and experiences humiliation alongside humanity in the person of Jesus. This paper will set out to investigate Moltmann's concept of a God who suffers, particularly in contrast to the classical notion of the impassibility of God. It will then explore how his claim might influence theology and worship.
The inherent complexity of Soren Kierkegaard’s philosophical writing leaves much room for interpretive issues regarding its content. For example, one of the most common criticisms of his work in Concluding Unscientific Postscript is the interpretation that, fundamentally, Kierkegaard is an irrationalist. In Concluding Unscientific Postscript, he argues that objective truth may only be grasped and appropriated subjectively, focusing specifically on the relationship between man and God in Christianity. Critics- noting Kierkegaard’s emphasis on the foundational paradox within Christianity- assert that Kierkegaard denies that that reality operates according to objective, rational principles. For many, this signifies an apparent destruction of reason in favor of arbitrary, irrationalist faith.
The world is not perfect so it seems that God must not be all-loving or He must not be all-powerful. Rejecting the existence of evil, immediately rejects too much of the Judeo-Christian tradition to be considered, though some philosophers have considered it. The traditional Christian answer to why God allowed the death of Christ is for the absolution of humanity’s sin. However, this begs the question, as an omnipotent God why was it necess... ... middle of paper ... ...owardice or evil (2) must then work to minimize good (1) and maximize evil (1). This process can continue ad infinitum It also follows that God, not as benevolent as could be hoped, prefers the maximization of good (2) as opposed to the minimization of evil (1).
The cosmological and the teleological arguments are only argument, thus they do not completely prove that there is a God as Dr. Foreman says, “that these argument give us a best explanation” (Foreman). McCloskey is wrong in saying that the arguments should be abandoned for the reason that, even though that they do not completely prove that there is a God, they are “starting blocks” that need to be better refined to make a more complete argument for a necessary being, such as the God of Christianity. If you were to abandon these arguments that do not completely prove what they were trying to, you would have abandoned many other augments such as evolution. There must be a neces... ... middle of paper ... ...’s article he wants some much to disprove there is a God that he commits many errors in his arguments. McCloskey fails to prove his points against the cosmological argument, teleological argument, and the problem of evil as has could not present strong enough argument against them.