Articles

Early Christian Liturgy: A Reconstruction of All Known Liturgical Components and Their Respective Order by Andrew Messmer

Early Christian Liturgy: A Reconstruction of All Known Liturgical Components and Their Respective Order Andrew Messmer Andrew Messmer (Ph.D.) is Associate Professor at Facultad Internacional de Teología IBSTE (Spain) and Affiliated Researcher at Evangelical Theological Faculty (Belgium) Abstract: Recent studies on early Christian gatherings have demonstrated convincingly that the Greco-Roman banquet was the context in which Christians gathered for their meetings. What has not been provided, however, is a comprehensive discussion of what Christians did during said gatherings, and in what order they did it. This article attempts to discuss all known components of early Christian gatherings and to arrange them in their relative order. Key terms: liturgy, early Christian gatherings, Greco-Roman banquet, meals Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

“If Christ be not Raised”; If Peter was not the First Pope: Parallel Cases of Indispensable Doctrinal Foundations by Jerry L. Walls
Articles , Featured , Theology / December 2, 2019

“If Christ be not Raised”; If Peter was not the First Pope: Parallel Cases of Indispensable Doctrinal Foundations Jerry L. Walls Jerry L. Walls is Scholar in Residence/Professor of Philosophy at Houston Baptist University Abstract: The papacy is to Roman Catholicism what the resurrection of Jesus is to orthodox creedal Christianity. If the bodily resurrection of Christ did not really happen, there is no good reason to believe the doctrines that flow from it, such as incarnation and Trinity. Similarly, Roman Catholic claims about the ecclesial authority of the pope and the Church of Rome hinge on the historical claims about papacy, beginning with the claim that Christ appointed Peter the first pope, with a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church. Whereas there is excellent historical evidence in favor of the resurrection of Jesus, there is no comparable evidence in favor of traditional Roman claims about the papacy. To the contrary, the consensus of historians is that those claims are false. Roman claims that hinge on the unique authority of the papacy are accordingly undermined. Key Words: resurrection, papacy, infallibility, Lampe, Duffy, Plantinga. Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Idolatry: A Rhetorical-Critical Analysis of Deuteronomy 4:15-16, 23 by Joshua K. Smith
Articles , Featured , Old Testament / November 22, 2019

Idolatry: A Rhetorical-Critical Analysis of Deuteronomy 4:15–16, 23 Joshua K. Smith Joshua K. Smith is a Ph.D. student in theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary The biblical injunction against פסל (“graven images”) in the rhetoric of Deuteronomy 4 serves as a foundational text in framing the central idea of the second commandment for a further intertextual study of idolatry in the Scriptures. Exodus 20:4 provides a prohibition against idolatry; Deuteronomy 4 provides the theological rationale for such a prohibition. The formless image juxtaposed to the auditory revelation of the LORD at Horeb posits concern for fidelity to the covenant as Israel encounters Canaanite cultures whose static representations of deities were prevalent and authoritative. The polemics in the Bible against idolatry are rooted in two primary concerns: (1) fidelity to the covenant made at Horeb, and (2) the substitution and worship of creation instead of the Creator. In order to examine the nature and meaning of idolatry in Deuteronomy 4:15-16, 23, this study will employ a rhetorical-critical analysis of the specific framing structures, literary patterns, discourse, and logic in the text. Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Divine Simplicity: Response to Paul R. Hinlicky by Steven J. Duby
Articles , Featured , Theology / November 14, 2019

Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby Response to Paul R. Hinlicky Steven J. Duby This response by Steven J. Duby to Paul R. Hinlicky is the final part of a four part dialogue on divine simplicity. For the other articles please see: Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account by Paul R. Hinlicky Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics by Steven J. Duby Response to Steven J. Duby by Paul R. Hinlicky Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Divine Simplicity: Response to Steven J. Duby by Paul R. Hinlicky
Articles , Featured , Theology / November 13, 2019

Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby Response to Steven J. Duby Paul R. Hinlicky This response by Paul R. Hinlicky to Steven J. Duby is part 3 of 4 in a dialogue on divine simplicity. For the other articles please see: Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account by Paul R. Hinlicky Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics by Steven J. Duby Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics by Steven J. Duby
Articles , Featured , Theology / November 8, 2019

Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics Steven J. Duby Steven J. Duby is Associate Professor of Theology at Grand Canyon University Paul R. Hinlicky, Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016. Debates about the doctrine of divine simplicity have escalated in recent years and given rise to defenses, rejections and modifications of the doctrine. It is a teaching that is often unfamiliar to Christians living in the twenty-first century, but it has played a significant role in Christian accounts of the triune God from the very beginning of church history. At a general level, it can be described as the teaching that God is not composed of parts but is really identical with (the same “thing” as) his own essence, existence and attributes. The divine attributes (e.g., wisdom, love) are not qualities added to God’s essence but rather are descriptions of that essence viewed from different angles. The persons of the Trinity are not parts composing a greater divine whole. Rather, the whole divine essence exists in the Father, Son and Spirit, who are distinguished…

Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account by Paul R. Hinlicky
Articles , Featured , Theology / November 6, 2019

Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby Book Review Article of Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account Paul R. Hinlicky Paul R. Hinlicky is Tise Professor of Lutheran Studies, Roanoke College and Graduate Faculty, Institute of Lutheran Theology Steven J. Duby, Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account. London and New York: T & T Clark Studies in Systematic Theology, 2016. Steven J. Duby has written an excellent work of theological scholarship in support of what is, to my mind, a dubious cause. He writes as a restorationist of Reformed scholastic orthodoxy (pp. 3, 122), and in “dogmatics” he deploys a pre-critical method of garnering and systematizing propositions found in Scripture (Lindbeck’s “propositionalism”1). This restorationism hinges upon two special commitments which recur regularly throughout the work: first, the interpretation of Trinitarian persons as modalities of the single deity-person (pp. 24, 121, 155, 158, 218, 227-8), a move which, following Augustine, confounds the crucial distinction between ousia and hypostasis worked out by the Cappadocians between Nicea and Constantinople; and second, also following Augustine, the corresponding assignment of God taken “absolutely” to the category of “nature” or “essence,” treating, then, Father, Son and Holy Spirit as the same…

JBTS 4.2 A Brief Editorial Note-Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses
Articles , Featured , Theology / November 6, 2019

Divine Simplicity: Article Reviews and Responses By Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby A Brief Editorial Note The editors invited Paul R. Hinlicky and Steven J. Duby to review one another’s books on the topic of divine simplicity. The following presents their respective review articles and then their responses to one another’s review. The order is as follows: 1. Paul R. Hinlicky’s review article of Duby’s book, Divine Simplicity: A Dogmatic Account 2. Steven J. Duby’s review article of Hinlicky’s book, Divine Simplicity: Christ the Crisis of Metaphysics 3. Paul R. Hinlicky’s response to Duby 4. Steven J. Duby’s response to Hinlicky The editors would like to thank both Paul and Steve for participating in this friendly engagement. We believe that Christian scholarship is strengthen by dialogue across different Christian traditions. Paul and Steve exemplify this dialogue well between themselves. The editors would also like to thank Mark R. Kreitzer for initially suggesting that this dialogue take place in JBTS. Ryan A. Brandt Managing Editor Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

Individual versus Collective Retribution in the Chronicler’s Ideology of Exile by Gary Edward Schnittjer
Articles , Old Testament / July 12, 2019

Individual versus Collective Retribution in the Chronicler’s Ideology of Exile Gary Edward Schnittjer Gary Edward Schnittjer (PhD, Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of Old Testament at Cairn University. He is author of The Torah Story (Zondervan). Abstract: It has long been argued that exilic and postexilic biblical writers shift from a model of collective accountability to that of individual accountability. The most notable example of this interpretation of Chronicles, exemplified by the Chronicler’s ideology of exile, comes from Sara Japhet’s work. Did the Chronicler “democratize” identity and responsibility to redefine the justice of God? Did the Chronicler follow some of the prophets before him, like Jeremiah and Ezekiel, and reframe retribution in terms of individual responsibility? Who is being punished in the Chronicler’s version of the exile? This study evaluates the most important evidence for retributive culpability in 2 Chronicles 36. The evidence does not support an individualistic model of retribution but a complex view featuring deferred judgment and cumulative culpability. Key Words: 2 Chronicles 36, Leviticus 26, Jeremiah’s seventy years, exile, retribution Share this on: FacebookTwitterLinkedin

The Future David of Psalm 101: Davidic Hope Sustained in Book IV of the Psalter by David ‘Gunner’ Gundersen
Articles , Old Testament / July 9, 2019

The Future David of Psalm 101: Davidic Hope Sustained in Book IV of the Psalter David ‘Gunner’ Gundersen David ‘Gunner’ Gundersen (PhD, Southern Seminary) is Lead Pastor at BridgePoint Bible Church in Houston, Texas. Abstract: Since Gerald Wilson published The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, scholars have debated his proposal regarding the structure and message of the Psalter. Central to the debate is the role and status of the Davidic line in Books IV–V (Psalms 90–150). Many follow Wilson, arguing that the Davidic line and Davidic hope virtually disappear in these final two books. Others disagree, but they tend to emphasize royal and Davidic evidence within Book V. This paper explores the message and function of Psalm 101 within Book IV, arguing that its intra-book links, Davidic title, royal voice, lamenting tone, future orientation, inter-psalm allusions, and strategic placement make it a central psalm sustaining Davidic hope in Book IV. Therefore, the יהוה מלך psalms at the core of Book IV (93–100) do not elevate the reign of Yahweh only to castigate the line of David. The reign of Yahweh rather upholds the line of David, answering the suspicions of Psalm 89 where God was questioned because he had bound…