Comments for Systematic Theology 1

Comment on Journal Assignment 8 by Trent Ekblad

Trent Ekblad — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:57:24 +0000

Gunton definitely identifies the gospels as theological books rather than historical. He acknowledges the fact that each book is written by a different author and that because of this each book may have a different theological purpose. He also acknowledges that a reasonable amount of “history” in these books but does not lean heavily on this. Above all he believes the gospels to be theological rather than historical. Gunton addresses differences in the gospels as being critical to the depiction of Jesus. A variety of sources provides a different set of eyes in which we can see Jesus.
Williams seems to be along the same line of thought when it comes to the harmonization of the Gospels. He believes that the distinctions found between the gospels are one of their strengths. Williams goes so far as to say that the contradictions found in the Gospels are not contradictions at all. I believe the both of them are reading the gospels correctly.

Comment on Journal Assignment 7 by Cory Murashige

Cory Murashige — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 01:15:46 +0000

Both Aquinas and Calvin argue that God has an active role within Creation, hence the notion of Providence. They argue quite strongly that God did not just create all of Creation and than leave it alone to its own devices. They differ in their views as to how He interacts with Creation. Aquinas tends to present the providence of God in a view of divine ordering, as if He sets things up to go in certain of events. God in sense creates everything in a way that will have them behave in a certain way, thus leading them to do things according to His will. Calvin on the other hand believes that God has an active hand within Creation, directly affecting various individuals according to His own will. If I understand each person’s view correctly, I would have to agree with Calvin’s view of providence in that God does have an active hand in Creation. To think of God as the One Who only sets things up to occur a certain way seems to override the factor of human will whereas Calvin’s seem to accommodate for that.

Comment on Journal Assignment 6 by Cory Murashige

Cory Murashige — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 00:30:15 +0000

Comment on Journal Assignment 11 by Cory Murashige

Cory Murashige — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 00:55:26 +0000

Though they agree that the Last Judgment should be seen as something that should invoke hope, both Wright and Moltmann criticize Benedict XVI for his lack of mentioning the kingdom of God and the resurrection of Christ. They argue that these two points are vital, even indispensable, to the Christian hope. Benedict’s view on the Last Judgment focuses primarily on humans and makes no mentioning of the total and complete redemption and renewal of creation. To his credit, I do believe that Benedict was right in his implication that those who have encountered Christ should thus have a desire for the truth and to act in love. How can a person who encounters Christ not change the way he behaves? His definition of Hell is something that I find to be very interesting, a view of Hell that I was not familiar with until I came here. I would, however, have to agree with Moltmann and Wright in that for discussion of the Last Judgment, the Kingdom of God and the resurrection of Christ must be included since these are essential factors to the Christian hope. Moltmann goes to criticize the Pope in his criticism of Marxism, the ideas of progress, etc., believing them to be dead issues that should not have to be dealt with. I would not be as quick to judge the Pope in his choice of topic as it still provides, in my opinion, a means as to which one can understand where the he is coming from with his view on the Last Judgment. In spite of this, Moltmann provides a good point that to limit the hope of Christianity and the Last Judgment to only the blessedness of eternal life for the individual souls is to draw extremely, if not dangerously, close to Gnosticism.

Comment on Journal Assignment 7 by Trent Ekblad

Trent Ekblad — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:14:37 +0000

Today we think of the word messiah in a very different light then people did in Jesus’ day. N. T. Wright defines Messiah as “The one through whom YHWH would restore the fortunes of His people.” To us when we read such a statement we take the phrase “His people” to mean all of humanity. But in Jesus’ circle this would be limited to only jews, excluding all gentiles. The people then had a very different expectation for how the Messiah would “restore the fortunes”. First century jews were naturally expecting God to establish his kingdom the way any other kingdom is established. They would expect the Messiah to establish his rule and reign by physical force. This is the only example they had to go by. When Jesus is killed by the government they believe He is supposed to over through, this is a problem for his followers. Messiah’s aren’t supposed to die. Messiah’s don’t give there lives for there enemies. This shows how differently God operates than we expect.

Comment on Journal Assignment 6 by Trent Ekblad

Trent Ekblad — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 15:13:40 +0000

John Calvin and Thomas Aquinas have some what overlapping views of providence. however there are a few things in which they differ. They both believe God to be actively involved in our world. John calvin believes God to be the one who determines and overrules all events. Nothing happens with out God letting it happen. I feel this has potential to mis-portray God. This places the blame on God for all things that are bad. But I can also see it in a light where it makes perfect sense. As a child I’m know of times my parents allowed me to get hurt but in the long run I know that it was for the better. As a child, who thinks i know everything, I think that my parents are doing me a great injustice. I am of the thinking that there is a great deal that we don’t understand, but I believe that god does. This connects to Thomas Aquinas’ view of providence. his view says that all things that God orchestrates have the end in mind. Aquinas doesn’t seem to think that God is in control to the degree that Calvin does. Aquinas allows room for what he calls worldly providence. I believe the world to be imperfect and I think that this alines more closely with Aquinas’ view. I feel that if God was in complete control over everything, including the minds of men, then that would have to mean that this world is perfect. Which means if I believe in Calvin’s view of providence, I believe in an imperfect God.

Comment on Journal Assignment 7 by Micah Fry

Micah Fry — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:01:39 +0000

Wright explains the Messiah was foretold by the prophets as someone who was going to come as a conquer and deliver Israel out of bondage much like Moses done in Egypt. Jesus contemporaries were looking for a Messiah who was going to over throw the Roman Empire and take them out of bondage. They wanted someone like a military leader who would lead a revolt against Rome. A suffering servant was far from what they were looking for. When Jesus did not come as a conquer He was viewed as another prophet and was discredited as the Messiah. Being Christians of our time we can look back and see that Jesus was indeed the Messiah. Since we get the whole story our view should not be tainted like the Israelites. Our understanding should be that Jesus did come to deliver and set free but not from the hands of the Romans. Jesus came to set the Israelites free from sin and the bondage created by them selves which was greater than any bondage that the Romans could inflict. We as Christians today should hold this same view. There are still those in our time who see Jesus as a conquer and think once they except Jesus in their lives that every bad thing of life will be eradicated. We should see Christ for who He truly is now that we have the whole story but that is not always the case.

Comment on Journal Assignment 6 by Micah Fry

Micah Fry — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:08:11 +0000

Aquinas and Calvin have a similar view on providence but they do differ. Both would agree that God does have and participates in providence over the world and His creation. They do not believe that a good God would create humans and then not take care of them.
The views of Aquinas and Calvin tend to drift apart when you define just how God interacts in His providence. Calvin would say that God is in control of everything. If anything happens with creation it is because God has set it into motion. Calvin holds the idea that an all powerful god could not have all power without complete control. This would also include the the will of man. This would mean that man does not have free will and God chooses those who will come to know Him. Aquinas holds a more open view on the control of Gods providence. He states Gods providence is directing creation to the end when all will be reconciled back to God. This would mean that God does not have as much control as Calvin would say but still have the ability to direct creation so that it all works out in the end. Aquinas explains this with universal and particular providence. Universally we are being guided to the end that God desires and particular providence would include the guiding of mans will to reach the end.

Comment on Journal Assignment 11 by Tara Charlson

Tara Charlson — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:05:19 +0000

N.T. Wright expresses his concerns about the vagueness of answering, or explaining “the final destination” of Christian believers and also of the world. Write points out that the encyclical does not mention the “early Christian hope for the renewal of all creation, for the new heavens and new earth, for God to sum up all things in Christ (Eph 1:10).” Write concludes one of his critiques by stating that while Benedict speaks beautifully about the “true encounter with God” which is expressed in communion with Jesus, Write states that it seems to him that “this document lack[s] [its] grounding in the creational and new-creational hope offered precisely by this God and this Jesus, and thus to be always in danger, despite his warnings, of collapsing back, despite what Benedict intends, into a Christian individualism or even existentialism.”
It is my understanding that Moltmann’s largest critic of the Spe Salvi is the wording, and phrasing that is being used. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what Moltmann is truly trying to say. However what I gather from this article is that, while Moltmann may agree with the theology behind the statements, he finds that the statements themselves are written in such away that there is room for misguiding interpretations. One quote that Moltmann gives I find worth repeating. Moltmann states that in conclusion he agrees with the statement made by the encyclical which states that judgment helps us learn and practice hope. However, Moltmann wishes to caution us to “direct the view of the end toward the beginning. The origin of hope is birth, not death. The birth of a new life is an occasion for hope. The rebirth of lived life is an occasion for even greater hope. And when the dead are raised, they enter into the fulfilled hope of life. The setting for learning hope in life, therefore, is the possibility of starting anew and a new beginning, the true freedom.”
(321)

Comment on Journal Assignment 11 by Yelisey Kuts

Yelisey Kuts — Fri, 27 Nov 2009 20:39:26 +0000

Wright commends Benedict for reminding us that the Christian message is ‘not only “informative” but also, “performative.” He admires Benedicts rejection of the mediaeval idea of purgatory as a chronologically extended period of time. However, Wright criticizes the encyclical’s failure to address the issue of life after death. There is no mention of Christian hope for the renewal of all creation. He is very vague in illustrating our hope in God as creator and redeemer. We must hope for and anticipate the time when God will renew and restore all things. Wright argues, we need a genuine vision for the renewal of life in this world.

In regards to “Spe Salvi,” Moltmann argues “It limits Christian hope to the faithful and separates them from those in the world who have not hope.” He is displeased with Benedicts treatment of the poor and afflicted. Moltmann contends that their grief and anguish must be the grief and anguish of the followers of Christ. In addition, he seems frustrated with the portrayal of hope. Particularly, the idea that hope is synonymous with faith. He warns that this encyclical is missing the gospel that Jesus proclaimed. Moltmann, suggests that the authors neglect to mention the “salvation of the groaning creation and the hope of a new earth” takes away from “the hope of the all-encompassing promise of the God who is coming.”

This coincides with our class discussion regarding God’s plan to reconcile all of creation to Himself. In the end, we can have hope that God will make things right.