Theological-Historical
https://dspace.aiias.edu/xmlui/handle/20.500.12977/21
2024-03-28T12:53:01ZThe role of dual anthropology in theistic evolutionist systems : an analysis and assessment
https://dspace.aiias.edu/xmlui/handle/3442/537
The role of dual anthropology in theistic evolutionist systems : an analysis and assessment
Razmerita, Gheorghe
Triggered by the insistence of some theistic
evolutionist models on the indispensability for their
systems of an anthropogenesis containing the idea of the
infusion of an immortal soul into an evolved pre-human body,
this research focused on identifying and assessing the role
of such appeal to dual anthropology. The study employs both
historical-theological and systematic-theological
methodologies and is sectioned in three major chapters.
After the introduction, which distinguishes between
theistic evolutionist systems appealing to dual anthropology
and those not appealing, chapter 2 analyzes and describes
the former and chapter 3 reviews the latter groups. These
chapters reveal that theistic evolutionist systems both
appealing and rejecting dual anthropology spread across all
Christian confessions and include remarkable Christian
theologians and scientists.
The theistic evolutionist systems that appeal to
dual anthropology do so from both philosophical and
theological considerations. The former represents the
dualistic ontology established by the Greek philosophy and
historically adopted in the Christian Church. The latter is
an attempt to salvage the core biblical narrative of the
salvation history by upholding its foundational doctrines of
the creation of a perfectly moral and conditionally immortal
man, and of the Fall from that status. Dual anthropology
accomplishes the role of "lifting" the pre-humans to that
absolute status by the idea of the infusion of the soul.
The device of appealing to dual anthropology appears
the best theological hope among the theistic evolutionist
systems. It rejects both the alteration of the foundational
'- Christian theology and such threatening concepts as
polygenism, unavoidable in the theistic evolutionist systems
not appealing to dual anthropology.
Beyond appearance, however, the appeal to dual
anthropology does not actually serve its purpose. On the
one hand, critiques notice that dual anthropology itself is
biblically and theologically unfounded. On the other hand,
the appeal to dual anthropology, while offering a sense of a
pre-Fall absolute moral stand of man, does not solve the
problem of death as a consequence of the Fall. This is
assessed in chapter 4.
This study, then, concludes in chapter 5 that
theistic evolutionism suffers an irremediable internal
incoherence: it faces the choice between keeping a biblical
anthropology but abandoning the essential Christian theology
and appealing to a non-biblical anthropology and claiming to
preserve the core biblical theology, but actually failing to
do so. Such a state leads one to conclude that theistic
evolutionism must be definitively re3ected as a viable model
of reconciliation between the scientific evolutionary
worldview and the biblical doctrine of creation.
Unpublished Dissertation (PhD Religion)
Shelf Location: BL200 .R39 2006 ATDC
2006-03-01T00:00:00ZThe doctrine of the human nature of Christ : developments of the views regarding the human nature of Jesus Christ within the Seventh-day Adventist Church between 1957 and 1988
https://dspace.aiias.edu/xmlui/handle/3442/497
The doctrine of the human nature of Christ : developments of the views regarding the human nature of Jesus Christ within the Seventh-day Adventist Church between 1957 and 1988
Jee, Sang-hoon
The main purpose of this study is to trace and
describe the historical developments of the (three major)
views regarding the human nature of Jesus Christ with the
Seventh-day Adventist Church between 1957 and 1988. The
subsequent purposes, which this study tries to pursue, are
to identify major views, to define their main theological
points, and to classify their respective proponents or
advocates.
This study is structured to accomplish the purposes
outlined above. Chapter 1 is devoted to an introduction to
the dissertation.
Chapter 2 traces the developments of the views of
the human nature of Jesus Christ prior to 1957. The “New
Theology” View, which taught the sinless human nature of
Jesus Christ, developed through certain preliminary,
expansive, and decisive developments and events between 1949
and the release of Questions on Doctrine in November 1957.
This period can be identified as the era of the debate
between the sinful and sinless human nature views.
Chapter 3 focuses on the developments of the views
from 1957 (after the publication of Questions on Doctrine)
to 1971 (the year of the release of Movement of Destiny).
This period can be identified as the era of the debate
between the Traditional (“Post-Fall”) View, as thesis, and
the “New Theology” (“Pre-Fall”) View, as antithesis.
Chapter 4 is devoted to the period from 1971 (after
the publication of Movement of Destiny) to 1988 (the year of
the publication of Seventh-day Adventists Believe . . .).
This period can be identified as the era of the debate
between the Alternative (“Uniqueness”) View, as thesis, and
the Traditional (“Identical”) View, as antithesis.
Chapter 5 summarizes the development of the views
regarding the human nature of Jesus Christ and provides
clarification of the three major views. This chapter
presents the conclusions of the study and close with
suggestions for further study.
Unpublished Dissertation (PhD Religion)
Shelf Location: BT701.3 .J44 2010 ATDC
2010-02-01T00:00:00ZPredestination according to the views of James Arminius and John Wesley
https://dspace.aiias.edu/xmlui/handle/3442/496
Predestination according to the views of James Arminius and John Wesley
Domocmat, Lowel J.
This study employed the historical and theological
method of investigation, which is geared to ascertain the
predestination views of James Arminius and John Wesley and
their similarities and differences toward postulating an
Arminian-Wesleyan doctrine of predestination.
Wesley scholars asserted that the Arminianism of
Wesley did not come from Arminius; it was mainly the result
of his readings of Anglican divines. However, in the course
of this investigation, it became plain that Wesley had
striking similarities with Arminius on predestination. They
both held predestination as Christ-centered, based on divine
foreknowledge, founded on grace, and consistent with free
will.
The theological developments of Arminius and Wesley
were presented in Chapters 2 and 3, with particular emphases
on the circumstances that ushered in the formulation of
their understandings on predestination. Arminius and Wesley
lived during two different periods, places, and situations
in history. But they had commonly formed their doctrines of
predestination as the outcome of their intense study of the
Scriptures and contests against their foes.
Arminius and Wesley both argued that the
predestination doctrine must be in harmony with all the
attributes of God manifested in the Scriptures. The mistake
of the Calvinists, according to them, was their insistence
on the sovereignty of God at the expense of His moral
attributes of love, justice, and mercy.
In Chapter 4, the similarities and differences of
Arminius and Wesley were examined. In spite of their
apparent similarities they had disagreements, particularly
on their views of unconditional election and irresistible
grace. Wesley reasoned that unconditional election is also
evident in the choosing of some men for distinct functions
in the world and that prevenient grace works irresistibly at
some point in the awakening and empowering of the human
will. Arminius did not adopt these views.
There are several conclusions stipulated as the
result of the examination of the views of Arminius and
Wesley on predestination. (1) Arminius and Wesley held
apparently identical doctrines of predestination.
(2) Predestination is the conditional election of classes of
people—the believers and unbelievers. (3) Christ is the
cause and not the result of predestination. (4) The act of
predestination is based on God’s foreknowledge of the belief
and unbelief of people. (5) The doctrine of unconditional
election and unconditional damnation is contrary to God’s
moral attributes of love, justice, and mercy. (6) The
predestination views of Arminius and Wesley are consistent
with the exercise of free will. And (7) there is an aspect
of grace that is irresistible; it is wrought by prevenient
grace in awakening and empowering one’s sensitivity and will
to be able to respond to God’s salvation.
Unpublished Thesis (MA Relgion)
Shelf Location: BT810.24 .D65 2010 ATDC
2010-09-01T00:00:00ZA historical-theological evaluation of John Wesley's understanding of human free-will and the prevenient grace of God : an Adventist perspective
https://dspace.aiias.edu/xmlui/handle/3442/494
A historical-theological evaluation of John Wesley's understanding of human free-will and the prevenient grace of God : an Adventist perspective
Mamarimbing, Ronell Ike
Some people assume that the Adventists’ understanding of free-will and
prevenient grace originated from John Wesley’s soteriology. This study is to evaluate
John Wesley’s concept of the issue based on the perspective of Ellen G. White.
This research traces the development of free-will and divine (prevenient) grace
doctrines in some prominent theologians since the early church to the Reformation
periods as its background. It also portrays the observation, identification, and description
of Wesley’s understanding of human free-will and the prevenient grace of God. The
evaluation of Wesley’s views from Ellen G. White’s perspective is presented after the
issues are described. The summary, conclusion, and some theological implications follow
the evaluation.
The primer sources of this research focuses only on the writings of John Wesley
and Ellen G. White. Both Wesley’s and White’s concepts on human free-will and
prevenient grace have been gathered from their published and unpublished works as well
as from the Internet. Other authors who have also written about Wesley’s and White’s
understandings on those issues have been considered. The evaluation is based on the
materials collected.
Since the beginning of the church, Christianity has adopted the teachings of
Augustinianism, Pelagianism, and semi-Pelagianism. Meanwhile, Wesley’s view of freewill
and prevenient grace are not in the line of Augustinian/Calvinistic or semi-Pelagian,
but Arminian. Furthermore, an evaluation proves that even though Ellen G. White was an
ex-Methodist, and in some extent she was influenced by Wesley’s teaching, all of her
teachings were confirmed by God through the work of the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, White affirms Wesley’s view that salvation is a co-operative work between
God and man. The role of a human being in salvation is not only to refuse the prevenient
grace, which is worked by the Holy Spirit. However, both Wesley’s and White’s views
on free-will and prevenient grace may fall between Augustinian’s or Calvin’s soteriology
or anthropology. Both Wesley’s and White’s teachings stand somewhere between
Calvin’s divine-monergism and semi-Pelagian human-monergism. Their views promote
divine-human synergism. White’s view critiques and disagrees with Wesley’s views on
free-will and prevenient grace when those issues are linked to Wesley’s understanding of
grace before and after the fall of humanity, his dualism anthropology, and dualism
hamartiology. White’s view approves some and disapproves other parts of Wesley’s
concept of the free-will and prevenient grace. Therefore, Wesley’s teachings seem close
yet so far from White’s view.
Unpublished Dissertation (PhD Religion)
Shelf Location: BT810.3 .M35 2012 ATDC
2012-10-01T00:00:00Z