Confronting Confucian Understandings of the Christian Doctrine of Salvation : A systematic theological analysis of the basic problems in the Confucian-Christian dialogue

The aim of the present study is to analyze Confucian understandings of the Christian doctrine of salvation in order to find the basic problems in the Confucian-Christian dialogue. I will approach the task via a systematic theological analysis of four issues in order to limit the thesis to an appropriate size. They are analyzed in three chapters as follows: 1. The Confucian concept concerning the existence of God. Here I discuss mainly the issue of assimilation of the Christian concept of God to the concepts of Sovereign on High (Shangdi) and Heaven (Tian) in Confucianism. 2. The Confucian understanding of the object of salvation and its status in Christianity. 3. The Confucian understanding of the means of salvation in Christianity. Before beginning this analysis it is necessary to clarify the vast variety of controversies, arguments, ideas, opinions and comments expressed in the name of Confucianism; thus, clear distinctions among different schools of Confucianism are given in chapter 2. In the last chapter I will discuss the results of my research in this study by pointing out the basic problems that will appear in the analysis. The results of the present study provide conclusions in three related areas: the tacit differences in the ways of thinking between Confucians and Christians, the basic problems of the Confucian-Christian dialogue, and the affirmative elements in the dialogue. In addition to a summary, a bibliography and an index, there are also eight appendices, where I have introduced important background information for readers to understand the present study.

The Mediated Immediacy : João Batista Libanio and the Question of Latin American Liberation Theology

This study is a systematic analysis of mediated immediacy in the production of the Brazilian professor of theology João Batista Libanio. He stresses both ethical mediation and the immediate character of the faith. Libanio has sought an answer to the problem of science and faith. He makes use of the neo-scholastic distinction between matter and form. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, God cannot be known as a scientific object, but it is possible to predicate a formal theological content of other subject matter with the help of revelation. This viewpoint was emphasized in neo-Thomism and supported by the liberation theologians. For them, the material starting point was social science. It becomes a theologizable or revealable (revelabile) reality. This social science has its roots in Latin American Marxism which was influenced by the school of Louis Althusser and considered Marxism a science of history . The synthesis of Thomism and Marxism is a challenge Libanio faced, especially in his Teologia da libertação from 1987. He emphasized the need for a genuinely spiritual and ethical discernment, and was particularly critical of the ethical implications of class struggle. Libanio s thinking has a strong hermeneutic flavor. It is more important to understand than to explain. He does not deny the need for social scientific data, but that they cannot be the exclusive starting point of theology. There are different readings of the world, both scientific and theological. A holistic understanding of the nature of religious experience is needed. Libanio follows the interpretation given by H. C. de Lima Vaz, according to whom the Hegelian dialectic is a rational circulation between the totality and its parts. He also recalls Oscar Cullmann s idea of God s Kingdom that is already and not yet . In other words, there is a continuous mediation of grace into the natural world. This dialectic is reflected in ethics. Faith must be verified in good works. Libanio uses the Thomist fides caritate formata principle and the modern orthopraxis thinking represented by Edward Schillebeeckx. One needs both the ortho of good faith and the praxis of the right action. The mediation of praxis is the mediation of human and divine love. Libanio s theology has strong roots in the Jesuit spirituality that places the emphasis on contemplation in action.

Vedestä vai Hengestä? : Uuras Saarnivaaran kasteteologia

Of water or the Spirit? Uuras Saarnivaara s theology of baptism The aim of the study was to investigate PhD and ThD Uuras Saarnivaara s views on baptism as well as their possible changes and the reasons for them. Dr Saarnivaara said himself that he searched for the truth about the relationship between baptism and faith for decades, and had faltered in his views. The method of this research is systematic analysis. A close study of the source material shows that Dr Saarnivaara s views on baptism have most likely changed several times. Therefore, special attention was paid to the time periods defined by when his literary works were published. This resulted in revealing the different perspectives he had on baptism. The fact that Dr Saarnivaara worked on two continents Europe and North America added a challenge to the research process. At the beginning of the research, I described Dr Saarnivaara s phases of life and mapped out his vast literary production as well as presented his theological basis. Saarnivaara s theological view on the means of grace and their interrelation in the church was influenced by the Laestadian movement, which caused him to adopt the view that the Holy Spirit does not dwell in the means of grace, but in the believers. Thus the real presence of Christ in the means of grace is denied. God s word is divided into Biblical revelation and proclamation by believers through the means of grace. Also, the sacraments are overshadowed by the preached word. Because grace is received through the word of the gospel preached publicly or privately by a believer, the preacher s status gains importance at the expense of the actual means of grace. Saarnivaara was intrigued by the content of baptism from the time he was a student until the end of his life. As a young theologian, he would adopt the opinions of his teachers as well as the view of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, which at the time was dominated by the pietistic movement and the teachings of J. T. Beck. After Saarnivaara had converted to the Laestadian movement, moved to the United States and started his Luther research, he adopted a view on baptism which was to a great extent in accordance with Luther and the Lutheran Symbolical Books. Saarnivaara considered his former views on baptism unbiblical and publicly apologised for them. In the 1950s, after starting his ministry within the Finnish neopietistic movements, Saarnivaara adopted a Laestadian-neopietistic doctrine of baptism. During his Beckian-pietistic era, Saarnivaara based his baptism theology on the event of the disciples of Jesus being baptised by John the Baptist, the revival of Samaria in the Book of Acts and the conversion of Cornelius and his family, all cases where the receiving of the Holy Spirit and the baptism were two separate events in time. In order to defend the theological unity of the Bible, Saarnivaara had to interpret Jesus teachings on baptism in the Gospels and the teachings of the Apostles in the New Testament letters from a viewpoint based on the three events mentioned above. During his Beckian-pietistic era, the abovementioned basic hermeneutic choice caused Saarnivaara to separate baptism by water and baptism by the Holy Spirit in his salvation theology. Simultaneously, the faith of a small child is denied, and rebirth is divided into two parts, the objective and the subjective, the latter being moved from the moment of baptism to a possible spiritual break-through at an age when the person possesses a more mature understanding. During his Laestadian-Lutheran era, Saarnivaara s theology of baptism was biblically consistent and the same for all people regardless of the person s age. Small children receive faith in baptism through the presence of Christ. The task of other people s faith is limited to the act of bringing the child to the baptism so that the child may receive his/her own faith from Christ and be born again as a child of God. The doctrine of baptism during Saarnivaara s Laestadian-neopietistic era represents in many aspects the emphases he presented during his first era, although they were now partly more radical. Baptism offers grace; it is not a means of grace. Justification, rebirth and salvation would take place later on when a person had reached an age with a more mature understanding through the word of God. A small child cannot be born again in baptism because being born again requires personal faith, which is received through hearing and understanding the law and the gospel. Saarnivaara s views on baptism during his first and third era are, unlike during his second era, quite controversial. The question of the salvation of a small child goes unanswered, or it is even denied. The central question during both eras is the demand of conversion and personal faith at a mature age. The background for this demand is in Saarnivaara s anthropology, which accentuates man s relationship to God as an intellectual and mental matter requiring understanding, and which needs no material instruments. The two first theological eras regarding Saarnivaara s doctrine of baptism lasted around ten years. The third era lasted over 40 years until his death.

Theological Exegesis in the Canonical Context : Brevard S. Childs' Methodology of Biblical Theology

Modern Christian theology has been at pain with the schism between the Bible and theology, and between biblical studies and systematic theology. Brevard Springs Childs is one of biblical scholars who attempt to dismiss this “iron curtain” separating the two disciplines. The present thesis aims at analyzing Childs’ concept of theological exegesis in the canonical context. In the present study I employ the method of systematic analysis. The thesis consists of seven chapters. Introduction is the first chapter. The second chapter attempts to find out the most important elements which exercise influence on Childs’ methodology of biblical theology by sketching his academic development during his career. The third chapter attempts to deal with the crucial question why and how the concept of the canon is so important for Childs’ methodology of biblical theology. In chapter four I analyze why and how Childs is dissatisfied with historical-critical scholarship and I point out the differences and similarities between his canonical approach and historical criticism. The fifth chapter attempts at discussing Childs’ central concepts of theological exegesis by investigating whether a Christocentric approach is an appropriate way of creating a unified biblical theology. In the sixth chapter I present a critical evaluation and methodological reflection of Childs’ theological exegesis in the canonical context. The final chapter sums up the key points of Childs’ methodology of biblical theology. The basic results of this thesis are as follows: First, the fundamental elements of Childs’ theological thinking are rooted in Reformed theological tradition and in modern theological neo-orthodoxy and in its most prominent theologian, Karl Barth. The American Biblical Theological Movement and the controversy between Protestant liberalism and conservatism in the modern American context cultivate his theological sensitivity and position. Second, Childs attempts to dismiss negative influences of the historical-critical method by establishing canon-based theological exegesis leading into confessional biblical theology. Childs employs terminology such as canonical intentionality, the wholeness of the canon, the canon as the most appropriate context for doing a biblical theology, and the continuity of the two Testaments, in order to put into effect his canonical program. Childs demonstrates forcefully the inadequacies of the historical-critical method in creating biblical theology in biblical hermeneutics, doctrinal theology, and pastoral practice. His canonical approach endeavors to establish and create post-critical Christian biblical theology, and works within the traditional framework of faith seeking understanding. Third, Childs’ biblical theology has a double task: descriptive and constructive, the former connects biblical theology with exegesis, the later with dogmatic theology. He attempts to use a comprehensive model, which combines a thematic investigation of the essential theological contents of the Bible with a systematic analysis of the contents of the Christian faith. Childs also attempts to unite Old Testament theology and New Testament theology into one unified biblical theology. Fourth, some problematic points of Childs’ thinking need to be mentioned. For instance, his emphasis on the final form of the text of the biblical canon is highly controversial, yet Childs firmly believes in it, he even regards it as the corner stone of his biblical theology. The relationship between the canon and the doctrine of biblical inspiration is weak. He does not clearly define whether Scripture is God’s word or whether it only “witnesses” to it. Childs’ concepts of “the word of God” and “divine revelation” remain unclear, and their ontological status is ambiguous. Childs’ theological exegesis in the canonical context is a new attempt in the modern history of Christian theology. It expresses his sincere effort to create a path for doing biblical theology. Certainly, it was just a modest beginning of a long process.

Constructing Ethical Patterns in Times of Globalization : Hans Küng's Global Ethic Project and Beyond

The purpose of this study is to evaluate contemporary philosophical models for global ethics in light of the Catholic theologian Hans Küng s Global Ethic Project (Projekt Weltethos). Küng s project starts with the motto, No survival without world ethos. No global peace without peace between religions. I will use the philosophically multidimensional potential of Projekt Weltethos in terms of its possible philosophical interpretations to evaluate the general discussion of global ethics within political philosophy today. This is important in its own right, but also because through it, opportunities will emerge to articulate Küng s relatively general argument in a way that leaves less room for mutually contradictory concretizations of what global ethics ultimately should be like. The most important question in this study is the problem of religious and ideological exclusivism and its relation to the ethically consistent articulation of global ethics. I will first explore the question of the role of religion as the basis for ethics in general and what Küng may mean by his claim that only the unconditional can oblige unconditionally. I will reconstruct two different overall philosophical interpretations of the relationship between religious faith and human rationality, each having two different sub-divisions: a liberal interpretation amounts to either a Kantian-Scheiermacherian or a Jaspersian view, whereas what I call postliberal interpretation amounts to either an Aristotelian-Thomistic or an Augustinian view. Thereafter, I will further clarify how Küng views the nature of ethics beyond the question of its principal foundation in religious faith: Küng searches for a middle way between consequentialist and non-consequentialist ethics, a way in which the latter dimension has the final stake. I will then set out to concretize further this more or less general notion of the theoretical potential of Projekt Weltethos in terms of certain precise philosophico-political models. I categorize these models according to their liberal or postliberal orientation. The liberal concretization leads me to consider a wide spectrum of post-Kantian and post-Hegelian models from Rawls to Derrida, while the alternative concretization opens up my ultimate argument in favor of a postliberal type of modus vivendi. I will suggest that the only theoretically and practically plausible way to promote global ethics, in itself a major imperative today, is the recognition of a fundamental and necessary contest between mutually exclusive ideologies in the public sphere. On this basis I will proceed to my postliberal proposal, namely, that a constructive and peaceful encountering of exclusive difference as an ethical vantage point for an intercultural and inter-religious peace dialogue is the most acute challenge for global ethics today.

Eru Ilúvatar : Jumala J.R.R. Tolkienin legendariumissa

The purpose of my research is to inquire into the essence and activity of God in the legendarium of the English philologist and writer J.R.R. Tolkien (1892-1973). The legendarium, composed of Tolkien’s writings related to Middle-earth, was begun when he created two Elvish languages, Quenya based on Finnish, Sindarin based on Welsh. Tolkien developed his mythology inspired by Germanic myths and The Kalevala. It is a fictional ancient history set in our world. The legendarium is monotheistic: God is called Eru ‘The One’ and Ilúvatar ‘Father of All’. Eru is the same as the Christian God, for Tolkien wanted to keep his tales consistent with his faith. He said his works were Christian by nature, with the religious element absorbed into the story and the symbolism. In The Silmarillion, set in the primeval ages of Middle-earth, the theological aspects are more conspicuous, while in The Lord of the Rings, which brings the stories to an end, they are mostly limited to symbolic references. The legendarium is unified by its realistic outlook on creaturely abilities and hope expressing itself as humbly defiant resistance. ”The possibility of complexity or of distinctions in the nature of Eru” is a part of the legendarium. Eru Ilúvatar is Trinitarian, as per Tolkien’s faith. Without contextual qualifiers, Eru seems to refer to God the Father, like God in the Bible. Being the creator who dwells outside the world is attributed to Him. The Holy Spirit is the only Person of the Trinity bestown with names: the Flame Imperishable and the Secret Fire. When Eru creates the material world with His word, He sends the Flame Imperishable to burn at the heart of the world. The Secret Fire signifies the Creative Power that belongs to God alone, and is a part of Him. The Son, the Word, is not directly mentioned, but according to one writing Eru must step inside the world in order to save it from corruption, yet remain outside it at the same time. The inner structure of the legendarium refers to the need for a future salvation. The creative word of Eru, “Eä! Let these things Be!”, probably has a connection with the Logos in Christianity. Thus we can find three “distinctions” in Eru: a Creator who dwells outside the world, a Sustainer who dwells inside it and a Redeemer who shall step inside it. Some studies of Tolkien have claimed that Eru is distant and remote. This seems to hold water only partially. Ilúvatar, the Father of All, has a special relation with the Eruhíni, His Children, the immortal Elves and the mortal Men. He communicates with them directly only through the Valar, who resemble archangels. Nevertheless, only the Children of Eru can fight against evil, because their tragic fortunes turn evil into good. Even though religious activities are scarce among them, the fundamental faith and ultimate hope of the “Free Peoples” is directed towards Eru. He is present in the drama of history as the “Author of the Story”, who at times also interferes with its course through catastrophes and eucatastrophes, ‘good catastrophes’. Eru brings about a catastrophe when evil would otherwise bring good to an end, and He brings about a eucatasrophe when creaturely strength is not sufficent for victory. Victory over corruption is especially connected with mortal Men, of whom the most (or least) insignificant people are the Hobbits. However, because of the “primeval disaster” (that is, fall) of Mankind, ultimate salvation can only remain open, a hope for the far future.

Luonnollisen lain sisältö Herbert Olssonin Luther-tulkinnassa

Tutkielmassa selvitetään Herbert Olssonin käsitystä luonnollisen lain sisällöstä, sen suhteesta rakkauden vaatimukseen ja kultaiseen sääntöön. Lähteinä ovat Olssonin kaikki Lutheria käsittelevät tekstit, keskeisimpinä hänen väitöskirjansa Grundproblemet i Luthers socialetik sekä pääteoksensa Schöpfung, Vernunft und Gesetz in Luthers Theologie . Tutkielma jakaantuu johdannon jälkeen taustalukuun, kolmeen analyysilukuun ja loppukatsaukseen, jossa esitellään tutkimuksen tulokset. Taustaluvussa tehdään katsaus luonnollisen lain tulkintahistoriaan aikaisemmassa Luther-tutkimuksessa. Luvussa tulevat ilmi erot pohjoismaisen ja mannereurooppalaisen Luther-tutkimuksen välillä, edellisen painottaessa vahvasti luonnollista lakia, sen identtisyyttä ilmoitetun lain ja rakkauden lain kanssa sekä sen universaalisuutta kaiken moraalisen toiminnan ohjaajana. Tämän jälkeen, luvussa kolme tutkitaan systemaattisen analyysin avulla Olssonin tulkintaa Lutherin luonnonoikeuskäsityksistä sekä luonnollisen käsitteestä ja luodaan pohjaa seuraaville tutkimusluvuille. Luvuissa neljä ja viisi käsitellään luonnollista lakia sinällään, ensin Olssonin väitöskirjasta ja sen jälkeen hänen myöhemmästä tuotannostaan välittyvän kuvan kautta. Jo alusta asti Olssonin tulkintaa leimaa käsitys siitä, että luonnollinen laki kuuluu kaikille ihmisille, se on sisällöltään identtinen dekalogin ja muun ilmoitetun lain kanssa, ja että sen vaatimus voidaan tiivistää rakkauden vaatimukseksi, ts. kultaiseksi säännöksi. Kultainen sääntö koskee Olssonilla sekä suhdetta lähimmäiseen että Jumalaan, kun sen aiemmin ajateltiin liittyvän vain lähimmäissuhteeseen. Olsson ei kuitenkaan vedä kovin monia johtopäätöksiä siitä, kuinka kultainen sääntö suhteessa Jumalaan pitäisi ymmärtää. Ensisijaisesti luonnollisen lain mukaan eläminen vaikuttaa olevan Olssonin tulkinnassa samaa kuin Jumalan tahdon mukaan eläminen. Tästä seuraa kysymys, millainen on Jumalan tahto ja sitä kautta Jumalan luonto, johon luonnollisen lain oletetaan viittaavan. Tutkimuksessa tullaan siihen tulokseen, että Olsson ei oleta Jumalan luonnon olevan lahjoittava rakkaus. Myöskään luonnollinen laki ei vaadi ihmistä luopumaan hyvän tavoittelusta, vaan se juuri vaatii suuntautumista kohti hyvää. Näin ollen Olssonin tulkinnan taustalla ei ole lahjoittavan rakkauden malli luomakunnan järjestyksenä, vaan Augustinukselta ja skolastikoilta tuttu ordo caritatis -malli. Ihmisessä reaalisesti läsnä oleva, pyyteettömästi palveleva Kristus ei tästä syystä sovi Olssonin tulkintaan lainkaan, ja näin ollen hänen käsityksensä vanhurskaudesta on oltava lähinnä forenssinen, ei efektiivinen. Ylipäätään Jumalan ja ihmisen suhteessa on hänellä kyse tahdon suhteesta, ei ontologisesta Kristuksen ja ihmisen yhdistymisestä. Lahjoittavan rakkauden ja Jumala-suhteen ontologisen ulottuvuuden puuttumisen takia siis Olssonin Luther-kuva muodostuu voluntaristiseksi, Jumalan absoluuttista tahtoa korostavaksi. Toisaalta hänen tulkintansa saa myös skolastisia painotuksia, johtuen juuri hyvään suuntautuvan rakkauden korostamisesta. Kultainen sääntö vaikuttaa olevan enemmän vastavuoroisuuden sääntö kuin pyyteettömän rakkauden sääntö. Summa summarum: mainituista syistä johtuen luonnollisen lain, rakkauden vaatimuksen ja kultaisen säännön sisällöllinen ykseys jää Olssonilla hänen tavoitteistaan huolimatta saavuttamatta.

Clemens Aleksandrialaisen kristillinen filosofia Paedagogus-teoksessa

Clemens Aleksandrialainen oli sivistynyt varhaiskristillinen kirjoittaja. Tämän tutkielman päälähteenä on hänen Paedagogus-teoksensa, jota analysoimalla vastataan kysymykseen,millainen kristillisen elämän opas se on, ja mitä kirjoittaja opettaa siinä kristillisestä elämästä. Metodina on systemaattinen analyysi. Koska Clemens-tutkimuksessa on usein keskitytty hänen oletettuun pääteokseensa Stromateis, avaa Paedagogus-teoksen opetukseen tutustuminen sekä Clemensin ajattelusta että varhaiskristillisestä elämästä uusia puolia. Kirjoittajan opetusta kristillisestä käytännön elämästä (kr. praksis) on tutkittu hyvin vähän. Clemens on tärkeä varhaisen kirkon opettaja, joka kehitti ratkaisevalla tavalla ihmisen jumalallistumiseen (kr. theosis) liittyvää terminologiaa. Tutkielmassa keskitytään näiden kahden osa-alueen suhteeseen, jossa Clemensin tunneteorialla on keskeinen merkitys.