R-3 Repository :: Browsing by Author "Nielsen, Niels C."

Browsing by Author "Nielsen, Niels C."

Now showing 1 - 8 of 8

Avatara and incarnation: A paradigm analysis and comparison of their respective meanings in the Bhagavadgita and in the Gospel of John
(1989) Crowe, James Ronald, Jr; Nielsen, Niels C.; Rayzor, J. Newton
This study attempts a critical comparison of avatara and incarnation in the Bhagavadgita and in the Fourth Gospel on the basis of Kuhnian paradigm analysis. From this perspective, we argue that substantial similarities exist between these notions of incarnation: they reflect a similar mythical pattern, and each portrays incarnation as realistic yet non-kenotic. In the Gita, avatara represents a parallel to the cosmic creation and shares in its reality. Nevertheless, Krsna's incarnations are no less an epiphany of his divine characteristics: freedom, omniscience, and omnipotence. Again, John portrays incarnation in non-kenotic terms. On his prophetic view, neither the act of incarnation nor the passion mark a change in the nature of the Christ; thus, incarnation is the earthly sojourn of the heavenly revealer who always maintains his unity with God. Despite these similarities, the assumptions that underlie the appropriations of the incarnation pattern vary considerably. Their fundamental differences derive from the fact that John conceives incarnation as a soteriological event. This assumption underlies the christocentric emphases of the Gospel and conditions the nature of the incarnate Christ. This incarnation paradigm introduces a dialectical quality into the comparative relationship of Krsna and Jesus. It can produce a model that is strikingly similar to the portrayal of Krsna or a kenotic model that is just as striking in its dissimilarities. In contrast, the Bhagavadgita conceives avatara as the manifestation of a general movement of grace, a cooperating grace that promises assistance on the path toward release. This assumption is reflected in its unique emphases. Within its cyclical cosmology, God's offer of divine assistance results in the notion of repeated incarnations. Again, this portrayal of avatara permits a more broadly conceived conception of God's activity: Krsna's incarnations not only mediate salvation, but they redeem the social order. Finally, the soteriological functions and incarnate nature of Krsna remain separate in the Gita, and his nature is correlated to metaphysical considerations. Thus, there is neither the need nor the possibility to elaborate a kenotic-type model of incarnation.
(De) Constructing the (Non)Being of God: A Trinitarian Critique of Postmodern A/Theology
(1995) Keith Putt, B.; Nielsen, Niels C.; Kelber, Werner H.; Crowell, Steven G.
Langdon Gilkey maintained in 1969 that theological language was in "ferment" over whether "God" could be expressed in language. He argued that "radical theology," specifically the kenotic christology in Altizer's "death of God" theology, best represented that ferment. Some twenty-five years later, in the postmodern context of the 199's, whether one can speak of God and, if so, how remain prominent issues for philosophers of religion and theologians. One of the most provocative contemporary approaches to these questions continues to focus on the "death of God." Mark Taylor's a/theology attempts to "do" theology after the divine demise by thinking the end of theology without ending theological thinking. Taylor's primary thesis, predicated upon his reading of Jacques Derrida's deconstructive philosophy, is that God gives way to the sacred and the sacred may be encountered only within the "divine milieu" of writing. God is dead, the self is dead, history has no structure, and language cannot be totalized in books; consequently, theology must be errant and textually disseminative. Unfortunately, Taylor's a/theology as a hermeneutic of the "death of God" fails to leave God's existence undecidable and also fails to address substantively the ethical implications of postmodernism. The radical hermeneutics of John Caputo offers a significant supplement to Taylor's thought and a critical reconstruction of alternative postmodern models for God. Caputo's "armed neutrality" concerning the being of God and his insistence on the inescapability of ethical obligation allow for a deconstruction of ontotheology and the reconstruction of a "biblical" paradigm of a suffering God. Caputo's focus on the ethico-religious dynamic of alterity and difference suggests a postmodern christology, since he believes that Jesus exemplifies the poetics of obligation that seeks to heal wounded flesh. Yet, scripture presents Jesus as the revelation of a suffering, heterophilic God. Contaminating Caputo's poetics of obligation with Jürgen Moltmann's theology of the crucified God results in the repetition of a "biblical" theopassional theology that accepts the undecidability inherent within history and language, but which, through fear and trembling, acknowledges that God loves alterity and difference and desires that human beings do also.
Mark's account of Peter's denial of Jesus: A representative history of interpretation of Mark 14:54, 66-72
(1989) Herron, Robert Wilburn, Jr; Nielsen, Niels C.
Historically, Mark's account of Peter's denial of Jesus has been variously interpreted; that variety continues today. The earliest commentary on the passage, Victor of Antioch, interpreted the passage "literally," drawing theological inferences about apostasy. Shortly afterwards the Venerable Bede, influenced by the "School of Alexandria" and Augustine, "allegorized" the passage for the benefit of the faithful. In general, Victor and the "Antiochene School" can be said to have influenced the Eastern Church as evidenced in Theophylact and Euthymius. Bede and the Alexandrian allegorical method, via the Glossa ordinaria, influenced the West. The excesses of the allegorical method may have contributed to the search for a new hermeneutic by the Reformers, insofar as Calvin and others seem to have preferred the "literalism" of the Antiochene method. Allegorical interpretations of the passage in general yielded to more sober pastoral applications, not only in the Reformed tradition, but also among Catholic scholars (e.g., Lapide and Quesnel) and Pietists (e.g., Bengel). The emergence of the theory of Markan priority in the nineteenth century fueled hopes that Mark's version of Peter's denial would be the most historically reliable. Though the recognition of Mark's priority remained, trust in his historicity eroded with twentieth century scholarship. The emergence of Formgeschichte discovered the influence of transmission of the tradition on the final form of the story. The emergence of Redaktionsgeschichte discovered the influence of the author's theology on the tradition, in particular, that the author of Mark must have possessed an anti-Petrine bias to have included this pericope in this way. More recently literary criticism's impact on Biblical studies has suggested that the intended overall impact of the pericope on a reader was to provide a negative example for discipleship formation; a character with whom one may identify, yet improve upon. This line of interpretation mirrors some of the earliest interpretations of the Church, including Victor and Bede. This may be due to literary criticism's "bracketing out" the question of historicity and focusing on the "story world" of the text, which the earliest exegetes did unwittingly by naively equating the text with the events they purported to portray.
Orality versus textuality in the Reformation: The origin and influence of textuality on theological perspectives in the sixteenth century
(1990) Freeman, James Atwood; Nielsen, Niels C.
The Reformation could not have occurred without the invention of printing. However, it is a mistake to identify the Reformation with textuality. Orality played a role in the movement. In the Reformation, there were controversies based on a tension between orality and textuality. This tension was not the result of printing but influences based on a tradition of textuality. This can be traced through nominalism, Augustine, and the Platonic-Aristotelean tradition. The tension between orality and textuality has roots in the Greek tradition. Platonic philosophy was made possible by the invention of writing which created a focus other than oral tradition. Such a shift established the individual as distinct from the synthesis of the oral community. However, this shift also resulted in alienation which inspired the development of mysticism to restore the synthesis of orality. Augustine is an example of the transition from orality to textuality. Augustine's educational and cultural situation shaped his oral perspective. Social and economic crises created a sense of alienation. Augustine retreated from the anxiety of alienation to the gnosticism of the Manichaeans. Later, his association with neo-Platonism deconstructed the oral theology of Manichaeanism in favor of a theology of differentiation characterized by the Christian concept of a Trinitarian God. A similar situation can be observed in the late Middle Ages. The breakdown of the oral synthesis of Medieval Catholicism resulted in alienation. The growth of mysticism can be linked to alienation. Luther's oral background suggests that the influence of mysticism must be taken seriously. Nevertheless, he remains an ambiguous, transitional figure, insofar as his Theology of the Cross appears to be a product of a textual theology. The implications of a textual perspective are not to be found in Luther but in the humanistic theologians of the Reformation. There we may observe the incorporation of textuality into theology. Zwingli, Bucer, Melanchthon, and Calvin serve as models for such a textual theology. There we see the emphasis on the separation of sign from signified, and the hermeneutical role of the Spirit, as the vehicle for reconciling the separation of sign from signified, while not abolishing their autonomy.
"The Building of the Wall": Historical and theological reflections on the American experiment in church and state
(1989) Temple, C. Chappell; Nielsen, Niels C.
Two centuries after its formulation, the American doctrine of the separation of Church and State yet remains a continuing source of controversy and confusion for many. For the interpretation of that idea--as embodied in the First Amendment to the Constitution--has been frequently beset by two historical myths or misunderstandings. From early in our history on, for example, there has been an attempt to cast our national beginnings in explicitly Christian terms, exemplified by such notions as "redeemer nation" and the belief in ours as a Christian republic. A clearer reading of the evidence suggests, however, that such an interpretation is not warranted by the facts, nor has it ever been. Yet likewise, neither true is the suggestion that has frequently been advanced by the other historical misunderstanding, namely, that the Founding Fathers set out to create an intentionally "secular" state, wishing to completely deny any significant role for religion within the affairs of public life. For the reality is that the First Amendment was the finely balanced product of compromise, reflecting not simply the more well-known elements of Jeffersonian rationalism and Enlightenment political theory, but an equally significant theological pedigree, as well. One may see within even its few words, in fact, the reflections of such Christian thinkers as Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and particularly perhaps, Roger Williams. Taken together with the insights of Locke, Jefferson, and Madison, American separationism thus emerged as a synthesis of sorts between those two visions, as well as a practical solution to the very real problem of vastly different religious experiences between the American states. As a compromise, therefore, the Amendment (and the subsequent American understanding of Church and State), should not be "pushed" too far in either direction. Rather, the key to understanding its continuing relevance for today is to both recognize the complex and varied context out of which the notion of separationism was adopted two hundred years ago, and the truly revolutionary changes which the American experiment was to represent.
The death and resurrection of reason: On Kierkegaard's view of philosophy
(1990) Khushf, George Peter; Nielsen, Niels C.
Kierkegaard identifies "philosophy" as the perspective which seeks to grasp Truth with thought. Thought is taken as a passion for ideality, immanence, and closure. But for Kierkegaard Truth involves reality transcendence, and openness. It thus transcends thought and can only be grasped by the whole person; i.e. Truth is known in "maximal subjectivity." Kierkegaard's affirmations about Truth rest on dogmatic assumptions. In contrast to the Socratic view, which takes Truth as immanent and attainable by way of remembrance, Kierkegaard views Truth as "coming" in a significant Moment called "the fullness of time." To the unregenerated self this Truth will appear as a paradox. If the self affirms itself, then the paradox is taken as "offence." But if the self gives up itself and embraces the paradox in faith, then there is a resurrection of reason such that the paradox is no longer contradiction.
The doctrine of sin in ecumenical perspective: A comparison of Karl Barth and Karl Rahner
(1988) Highfield, Ronald Curtis; Nielsen, Niels C.
According to Hans Kung, Roman Catholic and Protestant theologians have reached fundamental agreement on the doctrine of justification. If this is so, then we can also expect to find such agreement on the doctrine of sin, for these two doctrines are but different sides of the same coin. This study tests this hypothesis by comparing Karl Barth's and Karl Rahner's views of sin. Fruitful comparison of Barth and Rahner is made possible by the material overlap in their theologies resulting from Barth's move away from Protestant liberalism toward a more orthodox theology and Rahner's move away from Neo-Scholasticism to a more critical theology. Comparison is made difficult by (1) the traditionally different points of departure of the Roman Catholic and the Protestant theology of sin, and (2) the difference between Rahner's transcendental method and Barth's narrative strategy. While Rahner founds his theology of sin on the concept of human responsibility, Barth takes God's effective act of redemption as the basis for his thinking about sin. Proceeding from the concept of responsibility, Rahner seeks the transcendental conditions of its possibility, but Barth begins with the story of sin's conquest by Jesus Christ, interpreting all other biblical material in its light. Despite their differences, Barth and Rahner essentially agree in all five areas in which they were compared. (1) They both argue that sin can be known truly only from the revelation of God. (2) Surprisingly, we find agreement in the cluster of issues surrounding the concept of freedom, Barth and Rahner agreeing that human beings have no neutral position vis-a-vis God, and that the sinful act is not free in the same sense as the obedient act. (3) They both describe sin as a three-fold "no": to God, to true human nature and to the neighbor. (4) For both theologians, the subject of the sinful act is the good human creature who is elevated by the address of God or the supernatural existential. (5) According to Barth and Rahner, sin results intrinsically in slavery and condemnation; sin is Hell, and Hell is sin.
The irreducibility of guilt in Dostoevsky
(1980) Bridges, James Terrell.; Nielsen, Niels C.; Haugh, Richard; Kolenda, Konstantin
Dostoevsky views guilt as a qualitative determination of the person. Guilt's referent is man's personality, his ontological status, and not simply external or conventional judgments. Both the judgment and the chastisement for guilt are internalized in conscience. Dostoevsky placed guilt within a religio-theological context: the religious doctrine of the brotherhood of all men comes both before and after personal involvement in a community of guilt. The oneness of man in Christ is the precondition for communal guilt. The community of guilt presents the possibility for the realization of universal brotherhood. Within this religious context, guilt is taken up as a moment in the dialectic of redemption. Outside of the religious context, guilt is experienced as condemnation. Man becomes conscious of personal guilt and responsibility for evil not primarily through an analogy to the wickedness of others, but through the confrontation with a suffering world. This understanding of guilt is presented forcefully in Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov. Dostoevsky's approach to guilt proves to be inapplicable to both law and ethics because of its qualitative, communal, and internal nature. It can, however, have a therapeutic function in psychology because it integrates suffering into a meaningful scheme and summons man to his responsibility. In the last analysis, Dostoevsky's notion of guilt finds its distinctive characteristics within the Christian confession.

Browsing by Author "Nielsen, Niels C."

Results Per Page

Sort Options