Theologist's definitions
Arminianism, which takes its name from Jacobus Arminius (Jakob Harmensen), is a moderate theological revision of Calvinism that limits the significance of Predestination. Arminius (1560 - 1609) was a Dutch Reformed theologian who studied at Leiden and Geneva. He became a professor at Leiden in 1603 and spent the rest of his life defending against strict Calvinists his position that God's sovereignty and human free will are compatible. He sought without success revision of the Dutch Reformed (Belgic) Confession; nevertheless, he was very influential in Dutch Protestantism.
A Remonstrance in 1610 gave the name Remonstrants to the Arminian party. They were condemned by the Synod of Dort (1618 - 19), but later received toleration. English revisionist theology of the 17th century was called Arminian, although possibly without direct influence from Holland. John Wesley accepted the term for his theological position and published The Arminian Magazine. The tension between the Arminian and Calvinist positions in theology became quiescent until Karl Barth sparked its revival in the 20th century.
by Theologist May 2, 2005
Get the arminianism mug.Something that is much underrated in our society. Friendship is actually a form of love (here I'm not talking exclusively about erotic love). It's not a lesser form of love than erotic love, only a different form of love. In fact, the ancient Greeks had a word, "phileos", more or less equating to fraternal/brotherly love (friendship). Friendship seems to have no observable biological necessity(unlike parental love, necessary for humans to grow, and erotic love, necessary for humans to reproduce), and not much of a marketable appeal (as opposed to the millions/billions of dollars worth of things sold to people trying to better their marriages or parenting skills), yet without such a form of love as friendship our societies would be unbearably dull and alienated from one another. One can love their friends as well as their "significant other", just not in the same way (the difference here is quality, not necessarily quantity).
Friendships are not monogamous by necessity. Two people in a friendship don't need to exclude other people from their relationship. A friendship can best be thought of as two people side by side looking forward toward a common goal. It's an odd form of love in which people develop a relationship without relationship as a goal. Scientific achievements have come out of tight-knit friendships (Watson and Crick), as have works of literary genius (J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis), as well as victories in wars (due to the tight camaraderie and mutual trust of soldiers).
by Theologist April 15, 2006
Get the friendship mug.A conscious, willful decision to act disinterestedly for the benefit of someone wholly other than oneself. In certain theological worldviews, especially Christianity, love takes the form of self-sacrifice and self-giving, even for those to whom one is not chemically, emotionally, nor genetically predisposed to care for(the non-family member, those to whom no sexual attraction is felt, the ugly, the outcast, the societal reject, the unloveable, even the undeserving of love). In Christian theology love occupies such a prominent place that Love is not simply conceived of as a powerful yet impersonal force, but a Person (or, rather, Relationship of Persons), as Christians assert that God Himself not only loves, but IS Love. This is powerfully expressed in the passage from Paul's first letter to the Corinthians, which attributes personal characteristics to Love (defined as "charity"), and in the Nicene doctrine of the Holy Trinity, envisioning the Holy Spirit as the Person that 'proceedeth' out of the love relationship between the Father and the Son.
Not to be confused with being "in love", which is purely a temporary neuro-chemical state triggered by the close physical proximity or thoughts of a particular person of the opposite, or same, sex, often linked, directly or indirectly, to the biological imperative to copulate. Such a state can be so powerful to the person experiencing it that it may lead one to actually believe that being "in love" is indeed magical or spiritually transcendent, when such a phenomenon requires no metaphysical explanations.
by Theologist February 25, 2007
Get the love mug.(Latin: "creation from nothing")
The Judeo-Christian doctrine which acknowledges ABSOLUTE creation. This dogma, which distinguishes Judaism and Christianity (and perhaps Islam) from all other religious cosmologies about the "beginnings", holds that a transcendent, eternal, uncreated, self-existent God created everything that is the natural universe(and every angelic spirit) out of nothing. It differs from the Hindu idea that God created the universe out of Him/Her/Itself and from the ancient quasi-pantheistic Greek idea that creation "emanated" from God/the gods. The concept of absolute creation is extremely difficult to grasp(perhaps impossible), since it assumes that God "invented" or "thought up" matter, time, and energy and set them in motion by His own will(that is, He had NOTHING with which to create, but really created entirely NEW things which were not already pre-existent). The Church has held to this dogma(NOT a particular VERSION of this dogma, i.e. young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution) which has never been directly challenged (and seems to even be supported) by modern science, since most physicists agree that the universe had a beginning.
The Judeo-Christian doctrine which acknowledges ABSOLUTE creation. This dogma, which distinguishes Judaism and Christianity (and perhaps Islam) from all other religious cosmologies about the "beginnings", holds that a transcendent, eternal, uncreated, self-existent God created everything that is the natural universe(and every angelic spirit) out of nothing. It differs from the Hindu idea that God created the universe out of Him/Her/Itself and from the ancient quasi-pantheistic Greek idea that creation "emanated" from God/the gods. The concept of absolute creation is extremely difficult to grasp(perhaps impossible), since it assumes that God "invented" or "thought up" matter, time, and energy and set them in motion by His own will(that is, He had NOTHING with which to create, but really created entirely NEW things which were not already pre-existent). The Church has held to this dogma(NOT a particular VERSION of this dogma, i.e. young earth creationism, old earth creationism, theistic evolution) which has never been directly challenged (and seems to even be supported) by modern science, since most physicists agree that the universe had a beginning.
Whether a Christian accepts a 15-billion-year-old universe or a 6,000-year-old universe as found in a historical/scientific interpretation of the first chapters of Genesis, ALL believers are agreed on the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo.
by Theologist May 4, 2005
Get the creatio ex nihilo mug.In Christian belief, one of the three Theological Virtues(Faith, Hope, and Love) bestowed by God's grace upon the believer.
And now these remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love. - 1 Corinthians 13:13
by Theologist May 2, 2005
Get the Hope mug.The term “soteriology” comes from two Greek terms, namely, so„ter meaning “savior” or “deliverer” and logos meaning “word,” “matter,” or “thing.” In Christian systematic theology it is used to refer to the study of the biblical doctrine of salvation. It often includes such topics as the nature and extent of the atonement as well as the entire process of salvation, conceived as an eternal, divine plan designed to rescue lost and erring sinners and bring them back into eternal fellowship with God. Many regard it as the primary theme in Scripture with the glory of God as its goal.
Throughout the history of the church a number of different views regarding the nature of the atonement (i.e., the theological significance of Christ’s death) have been advanced. The Recapitulation view was advanced by Irenaeus (ca. 120-ca. 200). In this view Christ sums up all humanity in himself in that he went through all the stages of human life, without succumbing to temptation in any way, died, and then rose from the dead. The benefits of his life, death, and resurrection are then available to all who participate in Him through faith.
The Example or Moral Influence (or “subjective”) view has been advanced by theologians such as Pelagius (ca. 400), Faustus and Laelius Socinus (sixteenth century), and Abelard (1079-114233). Though there are certainly different moral example views,34 their essential agreement consists in arguing that the cross demonstrates how much God loves us and this, then, awakens a response of love in our hearts; we then live as Jesus himself lived. While there is biblical support for this idea (e.g., Phil 2: 6-11; 1 Pet 2:21), it is incomplete as it stands and fails to recognize the more crucial aspects of scriptural teaching on the issue.
Another theory of the atonement advanced in the early church—and really maintained as the standard view in the early church until Anselm—is the Ransom to Satan view. Origen (185-254) was one of the chief proponents of this understanding which asserts that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to Satan to secure the release of his hostages, i.e., sinful men and women. While ransom language is used in Scripture to refer to the atonement (e.g., Mark 10:45), it is probably incorrect to include in this the idea that a “price” was paid to Satan, for nowhere in Scripture is such an idea suggested.
In his work Christus Victor, the Swedish theologian Gustav Aulén (1879-1977) argued for a Divine Triumph or Dramatic view of the atonement, similar to the ransom theories of Origen and the early church. In the dramatic view God overcame all the powers of hell and death through the cross and in doing so made visible his reconciling love to men. This too has some biblical support, but it is unlikely that it adequately summarizes all of scriptural revelation on this issue.
The Satisfaction or Commercial view of Anselm (1033-1109) argues that man has dishonored God by his sin and that through the death of the perfect, sinless God-man, Jesus Christ, that honor and more—including Satan’s defeat—has been restored to God. This theory also finds support in scripture, but more than God’s honor was restored through the death of his son.
The Governmental view of the atonement, advanced by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), places a high value on the justice of God and the demand of his holy law. In this view, the death of Christ upholds God’s moral government in that it demonstrates His utter commitment to His holy law. He could have forgiven men, however, without the death of Christ, but this would have left men without the true knowledge of His commitment to His Law. The death of Christ, then, is not as a substitute for us, but rather God’s statement about what he thinks about his moral government of the universe. This view has much to commend it, but as a global theory it simply cannot account for the tight connection between three important facts in Scripture: (1) the reconciliation of the believing sinner; (2) the forgiveness of sin; and (3) the death of Christ. Peter says that “Christ died for sins, once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18; cf. Rom 5:8).
The Penal Substitution view of the atonement35—the view most often associated with the Reformers, in particular, Calvin—argues that Christ died in the sinner’s place and appeased the wrath of God toward sin. Thus there are a cluster of ideas in this view including redemption (ransom), sacrifice, substitution, propitiation, and reconciliation, Though there are tensions in this view, and though the other views each contribute important insights to the idea of Christ’s atonement in the NT, this one perhaps rests on the best scriptural support, and brings together the holiness and love of God, the nature and sacrifice of Christ, and the sinfulness of man in a way that all are properly maintained. It is important, however, that the valid insights from the other views not be lost or eclipsed by this model.
The Example or Moral Influence (or “subjective”) view has been advanced by theologians such as Pelagius (ca. 400), Faustus and Laelius Socinus (sixteenth century), and Abelard (1079-114233). Though there are certainly different moral example views,34 their essential agreement consists in arguing that the cross demonstrates how much God loves us and this, then, awakens a response of love in our hearts; we then live as Jesus himself lived. While there is biblical support for this idea (e.g., Phil 2: 6-11; 1 Pet 2:21), it is incomplete as it stands and fails to recognize the more crucial aspects of scriptural teaching on the issue.
Another theory of the atonement advanced in the early church—and really maintained as the standard view in the early church until Anselm—is the Ransom to Satan view. Origen (185-254) was one of the chief proponents of this understanding which asserts that Christ’s death was a ransom paid to Satan to secure the release of his hostages, i.e., sinful men and women. While ransom language is used in Scripture to refer to the atonement (e.g., Mark 10:45), it is probably incorrect to include in this the idea that a “price” was paid to Satan, for nowhere in Scripture is such an idea suggested.
In his work Christus Victor, the Swedish theologian Gustav Aulén (1879-1977) argued for a Divine Triumph or Dramatic view of the atonement, similar to the ransom theories of Origen and the early church. In the dramatic view God overcame all the powers of hell and death through the cross and in doing so made visible his reconciling love to men. This too has some biblical support, but it is unlikely that it adequately summarizes all of scriptural revelation on this issue.
The Satisfaction or Commercial view of Anselm (1033-1109) argues that man has dishonored God by his sin and that through the death of the perfect, sinless God-man, Jesus Christ, that honor and more—including Satan’s defeat—has been restored to God. This theory also finds support in scripture, but more than God’s honor was restored through the death of his son.
The Governmental view of the atonement, advanced by Hugo Grotius (1583-1645), places a high value on the justice of God and the demand of his holy law. In this view, the death of Christ upholds God’s moral government in that it demonstrates His utter commitment to His holy law. He could have forgiven men, however, without the death of Christ, but this would have left men without the true knowledge of His commitment to His Law. The death of Christ, then, is not as a substitute for us, but rather God’s statement about what he thinks about his moral government of the universe. This view has much to commend it, but as a global theory it simply cannot account for the tight connection between three important facts in Scripture: (1) the reconciliation of the believing sinner; (2) the forgiveness of sin; and (3) the death of Christ. Peter says that “Christ died for sins, once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring us to God” (1 Peter 3:18; cf. Rom 5:8).
The Penal Substitution view of the atonement35—the view most often associated with the Reformers, in particular, Calvin—argues that Christ died in the sinner’s place and appeased the wrath of God toward sin. Thus there are a cluster of ideas in this view including redemption (ransom), sacrifice, substitution, propitiation, and reconciliation, Though there are tensions in this view, and though the other views each contribute important insights to the idea of Christ’s atonement in the NT, this one perhaps rests on the best scriptural support, and brings together the holiness and love of God, the nature and sacrifice of Christ, and the sinfulness of man in a way that all are properly maintained. It is important, however, that the valid insights from the other views not be lost or eclipsed by this model.
by Theologist May 2, 2005
Get the soteriology mug.In Christian belief, one of the three Theological Virtues (Faith, Hope, and Love) bestowed by God's grace upon the believer.
"And now these remain: faith, hope, and love. But the greatest of these is love." - I Corinthians 3:13
by Theologist February 25, 2007
Get the Love mug.