Home  About us  Contact
 

Theological Argument (theological + argument)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Humanities and Social Sciences100%

Selected Abstracts

More Haste, Less Speed in Theology,

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, Issue 3 2007
JEAN-YVES LACOSTE
Theological language lives urgently, under kerygmatic constraints, and yet is allowed delay for its tasks of interpretation. It searches for its words, forging a third language, which ,fulfils' the language of Jew and Greek and yet is a ,hard' language, tying the future of mankind to the fate of a single crucified man. It awakens a capacity for experience that is latent in us, yet violates our expectations. Hermeneutic demands take a new turn when speech becomes text. Languages age and die, but the meaning of their words does not. The world of past languages can be understood. The theologian is a translator, allowing the text to speak. Reading is preliminary to kerygmatic speech, and theology moves between the words of scripture and the words of immediate experience. The successful interpretation does not substitute itself for what it interprets, but makes us at home in the words and experience of the text. We learn it not as a mother-tongue but as a foreign language, and we discover that it is habitable. In introducing us to a universal reality mediated by that particular world, theology reveals us to ourselves, showing us that our continuity with it is stronger than any discontinuity. Theology must have its ,method', which is to acquire its own language by way of a detour through another language. Theological arguments are displacements. The speech that speaks the truth about essential things comes to meet us from its housing in particular languages and times. Which does not mean that the text may be re-written. What we understand in our own language is another language; what is made accessible to our world is another relation to the world. [source]

Laying the Moral Foundations: Writer, Religion and Late Eighteenth-Century Society , The Case of J.M.R Lenz

GERMAN LIFE AND LETTERS, Issue 2 2001
J.M. Gibbons
Although Lenz himself calls Meinungen eines Laien, and by implication its complement Stimmen des Laien, ,der Grundstein meiner ganzen Poesie', until recently these moral-philosophical texts have attracted little critical attention and as yet no detailed analysis. An examination of the involved theological argument developed in the latter work seeks to demonstrate that they do indeed amount to a watershed in Lenz's career. It also opens up an intriguing perspective into the changing role of the writer in later eighteenth-century society. In engaging seriously in a number of debates critical to the ,Aufklärung', Lenz also distinguishes himself from the ,Sturm und Drang' movement with which he has traditionally been associated. By laying a ,Grundstein' of faith Lenz brings his notion of the individual's duty and purpose in society, his ,Bestimmung' as explored in earlier texts, to a firm conclusion. He also articulates his own sense of , to extend the term ,,Selbstbestim-mung', in which his own role as a writer undergoes a shift away from the spheres of philosophy, theology and literature towards more concrete social and political concerns. [source]

NOT EXPLANATION BUT SALVATION: SCIENTIFIC THEOLOGY, CHRISTOLOGY, AND SUFFERING

MODERN THEOLOGY, Issue 1 2006
ANDREW MOORE
The view that Christian belief is explanatory is widespread in contemporary theology, apologetics, and philosophy of religion and it has received particular impetus from attempts to correlate science and Christianity. This article proposes an account of explanatory thinking in theology based on the principle that theological explanations should be disciplined by the internal logic of Scripture. Arthur Peacocke's biologically construed Christology and Alister McGrath's argument that suffering is an anomaly in the Christian explanatory scheme are shown to yield theological results which are inconsistent with this principle. This article's theological argument complements philosophical criticisms of the view that religious belief is explanatory. [source]

WHAT SIN IS: A DIFFERENTIAL ANALYSIS

MODERN THEOLOGY, Issue 4 2009
JESSE COUENHOVEN
Sin is clearly evil, but what differentiates sin from evil? The idea that sin is moral evil is widely held, but important theological arguments have been posed against it. Theologians who reject sin moralism have, however, found it hard to distinguish sin from evil,partially because they share hidden assumptions with sin moralists. Helped by a philosophical theology of deep responsibility, I propound sin responsibilism: sin is culpable evil. This analysis of sin is open to multiple accounts of sin's relation to morality or theories of responsibility, and thus of sin's scope,but I defend a non-moralistic, compatibilist sin responsibilism. [source]