Department of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology

Permanent URI for this community

https://scholar.sun.ac.za/handle/10019.1/125

Browse

Browsing Department of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology by browse.metadata.advisor "Brand, Gerrit V. W."

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Christians and religious diversity? : a theological evaluation of the meaning of an ethic of embrace in a context of religious diversity
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2012-03) Heilbron, Hirschel Lothar; Brand, Gerrit V. W.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Theology. Dept. of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Due to the consciousness of religious pluralism and the need for peace amongst the religious communities of the world, the researcher considered, and herewith presents, the arguments for and against each of three traditional theological models for evaluating the relation between Christianity and other religions. Although this theological debate about the truth and salvific value of non- Christian views of life is important, and although the three approaches discussed each brings out important aspects that have to be considered in this debate, they were found to be limited in an important respect, namely, that they do not suggest practical strategic solutions for how Christians should relate to people who hold beliefs that differ from their own. With reference to the notion of an “ethic of embrace,” drawing on a number of New Testament texts as interpreted by theologians like Hans Küng, Miroslav Volf, Harold Nethland, Sam Storms, and Robert H. Stein, to name but a few, a strong case could be made for the necessity of such an ethic as a guideline for how the churches should interact with those who do not share their faith. It could be concluded that each of the three theoretical models, Particularism, Inclusivism and Pluralism, needs to be reconsidered from the perspective of an ethic of embrace. The researcher therefore inquired into the extent to which each of the theoretical models can be reconciled, and can indeed support and undergird, an ethic of embrace. Since, at least at face value, Particularism seems to raise most questions in this regard, it received particular attention. It was concluded that, also when applied in the context of the Particularist model, the ethics of embrace is the missing link that can help influence religiously motivated conflicts in a positive way. This allows for a more peaceable praxis as it not only addresses religious conflict in the world, but can also enable the Particularistic model to foster peace among religions and therefore, indirectly, peace among the nations of the world. The themes of reconciliation, tolerance, forgiveness and hospitality, which are interconnected with an ethic of embrace form an important part of chapter 5, with its focus on the truth and salvific significance of Jesus Christ reflected in his life as portrayed by Biblical witnesses. It is argued that He is not only the truth, or the one who spoke about the truth and his salvific significance, which is of central importance to the Particularistic model, but was able to demonstrate its practical application through the life He lived among humans. He demonstrated practically how the neighbour can be embraced in accordance with a particular understanding of the will of God.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Personal or impersonal? : an analysis of Karl Barth and Merrill Unger's perspectives on the personhood of the demonic
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2013-03) MacDonald, Scott Douglas; Brand, Gerrit V. W.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Theology. Dept. of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Is the demonic personal or impersonal? The question is rarely treated in depth. This thesis initially delves into the demonological offerings of a pair of twentieth century theologians, Karl Barth and Merrill Unger, in order to discern their particular positions upon the subject. Personhood itself is a divisive issue between the two theologians. Barth’s perspective on personhood is not intrinsically linked to the physical nature. Persons are who they are because of their relationship with the divine. In reference to the demonic, Unger briefly assesses personhood by inseparably correlating it with ontological reality. Their disagreement continues into the definition of “demon.” Barth prefers to see the demonic as uncreated yet derived from God as a byproduct of His creative decree, and Unger opts for a famous classical construction that they are created beings who rebelled against their Maker. Yet, Barth and Unger are both found to not only adhere to personal language concerning the demonic but also to posit demons as personal beings. According to Barth and Unger, demons are real, personal, and malevolent. This unusual unity, even with their distinct theological backgrounds, can only be properly understood as the result of their mutual profession to reflect the biblical material. Considering the dated nature of Barth and Unger’s writings, recent biblical scholarship is examined in order to determine whether or not their attestation of a demonic personhood is borne out by current studies. While a few exceptions are noted, the majority of scholars indicate that the biblical material portrays personal intermediary players besides God and humanity, with the category of “demon” becoming progressively prevalent as one chronologically journeys through the divine revelation. Spurning a Bultmann-inspired demythologization, Barth and Unger simply attempt to reflect the biblical material. But how does Barth and Unger’s idea of demonic personhood hold up in light of the multicultural context? As the globe hurriedly shrinks during our technologically connected age, the boundaries between cultures have fallen, resulting in numerous contexts which contain two or more cultures sharing the same space. How can Christianity navigate such turbulent times, except by emphasizing the centrality of the God’s Word! It coheres God’s people, while convicting and transforming every contacted culture. In the multicultural context, specifically through the Western and African worldviews, Barth and Unger’s personhood of the demonic speaks admonition and affirmation to the Christian masses. Unhealthy superstition is challenged,and dismissive skepticism is chastised. Caution is upheld, and the openness of the African worldview is vindicated. Thus, in light of the multicultural context, a biblical personhood of the demonic realm is plausible, and as a revelation-centric position, it surpasses current ethnocentric expressions of the topic. As we turned toward constructing some conclusions, Barth and Unger’s strengths and weaknesses were assessed. Karl Barth claims that conveying the biblical testimony is his first concern, but on the subject of the demonic, he entertains a confusing philosophy which unpredictably maintains personhood. Merrill Unger paints with broad brush strokes, failing to discuss or respond to the progressive way in which the demonic is unveiled throughout the biblical text. One of the strengths of Barth’s demonological presentation, which includes demonic personhood, is that he highlights the activity of the demonic before the ontology of the demonic. Though interacting with scholars and theologians, Unger’s clear emphasis and strength is on recapitulating the biblical text, linking nearly every point to numerous texts. Finally, if we accept the reality of a personal demonic, our response to the demonic should reflect it. Theologically, it should spur us onward toward a truly personal view of redemption. Practically, it means that we should critically analyze and carefully consider the constructive works of counselors, pastors, and deliverance practitioners that we may cautiously adapt our ecclesiological practices to reflect biblical realities.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Revelation as divine testimony : a philosophical-theological inquiry
    (Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University, 2014-04) Wahlberg, Mats Anders; Smit, D. J.; Brand, Gerrit V. W.; Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Theology. Department of Systematic Theology and Ecclesiology.
    ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The dissertation examines, on the basis of insights from contemporary analytic philosophy of testimony, the intellectual viability of the traditional Christian conception of revelation as divine testimony. This conception entails that God reveals by speaking, and that people can acquire knowledge of God and divine things by believing what God says. In academic theology of recent decades, this view is often dismissed – under the label of “propositional revelation” – as authoritarian and intellectually problematic. Recent developments within the analytic philosophy of testimony, however, provide grounds for a re-evaluation. The dissertation has two purposes. One is to clarify the concept of propositional revelation and to examine what the consequences are, for Christian theology, of rejecting this idea. The second purpose is to investigate whether there is a way of explicating the divine testimonymodel of revelation (traditionally the most prominent version of propositional revelation) so as to render it intellectually credible today. Chapter 1 introduces the topic and describes the dissertation’s purposes, methods and sources. Chapters 2 and 3 address the first purpose by distinguishing, following Nicholas Wolterstorff, between manifestational and propositional conceptions of revelation, and by arguing that unless theologians posit some form of propositional revelation (e.g. revelation as divine testimony), theology will be threatened by incoherence. On the basis of a survey of a number of manifestational theories of revelation, selected from different categories in Avery Dulles’s classificatory scheme, the author argues that manifestational theories in general suffer from certain systematic limitations and therefore provide an insufficient basis for theology. This means that theologians have strong reason to take a second look at the idea of revelation as divine testimony. To evaluate this model is the second and main purpose of the dissertation, and it is addressed by the method of hypothesis construction and testing. In the present context, this means to construct a version of the divine testimony-model with the help of the best philosophical and theological tools available, and to examine whether internal coherence and coherence with established knowledge can be achieved. In chapters 4 and 5, the author describes the philosophical tools that will be used, viz. Nicholas Wolterstorff’s analysis of the idea of divine speech, and insights from recent analytic philosophy of testimony, especially John McDowell’s anti-reductionist theory of testimonial knowledge. In chapters 6-8, the divine testimony-model is elaborated using these tools and tested for internal coherence, coherence with external knowledge such as contemporary biblical scholarship, and coherence with traditional views of the nature of Christian faith. The model’s ability to withstand philosophical objections of various kinds is also scrutinized. The tentative conclusion of the dissertation is that the model is intellectually viable in light of current knowledge, but that further testing in the context of a wider scholarly debate is needed.