As
my research continues for an upcoming post concerning a defense of the
Johannine authorship and historical integrity of the Gospel of John, I
sometimes get a bit side-tracked by works that I discover online. The two
following doctoral dissertations are the most recent examples.
The
first is Leonardo De Chirico's, Evangelical theological perspectives on
post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism (LINK). From the abstract we
read:
The
Second Vatican Council and subsequent ecumenical developments within the Church
of Rome have forced Evangelical theology to rethink its own perception and
analysis of Roman Catholicism. Against this background, many Evangelical
theologians of varying tendencies and with different degrees of depth and
insight have attempted to grapple with the new Roman Catholic outlook and the
ecumenical challenges it brings. After describing the theological contours of
Evangelicalism, the present thesis critically surveys the works on Roman
Catholicism by Gerrit Berkouwer, Cornelius Van Til, David Wells, Donald
Bloesch, Herbert Carson, and John Stott.
The
second contribution is Sarah Timmer's, Receptive Ecumenism And
Justification: Roman Catholic and Reformed Doctrine In Contemporary Context (LINK).
This dissertation is an
excellent exploration into the doctrine of justification—common elements and
differences—as expounded by the Catholic and Reformed traditions. It also
includes some reflections on the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of
Justification document published by Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity and Lutheran World Federation in 1999.
Anyway, felt compelled to
bring these contributions to the attention of my readers. Back to work on my
upcoming apologia on the Gospel of John...
Grace and peace,
2 comments:
I am looking forward to your defense of the gospel of John.
How can you do that without having to sift through tons of liberal scholarship (like the ones that Paul Williams puts up on his Muslim blog, using E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, etc. against the Gospel of John) ?
That is going to be an amazing task, and I don't expect you to put anything up for a while (but I hope I am wrong; I would like to see your results before I die. smile)
You are amazing in your reading of church history and historical theology. I wish I could do the same with understanding and comprehension.
Did you see Perry Robinson's articles on Hank Hanegraaff and his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy? (at eternal processions) they are also linked to at Triablogue.
Hi Ken,
Busy weekend, with no time for the internet, so I just moments ago read your post. You wrote:
==I am looking forward to your defense of the gospel of John.
How can you do that without having to sift through tons of liberal scholarship (like the ones that Paul Williams puts up on his Muslim blog, using E. P. Sanders, James D. G. Dunn, etc. against the Gospel of John) ?==
The Gospel of John has been a focus of mine for decades now. I have already read most of what Sanders and Dunn have written, along with a number of other liberal scholars (e.g. Baur, Brown, Renan, Robinson, Sanday, Strauss, et al.). Rather than deal with what seems to be an endless and evolving set of variant theories, my upcoming post will emphasize works that have defended Johannine authorship and the historical integrity of John's Gospel—works that have been virtually ignored by the liberal camp and Muslim apologists. Paul Williams seems to think that solid defenses of John's Gospel are non-existent, he is in for big surprise...
As for, "Hank Hanegraaff and his conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy", I am aware of it, but have not spent much time looking into to it. I was not aware that Perry has weighed in, so thank much for the 'heads-up'; will check it out later today.
Grace and peace,
David
Post a Comment