Continuing the Conversation on King: My Really Final Response to Tony Moon?

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 170-179
Author(s):  
Tony Richie
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
World Religions ◽  
Theology Of Religions ◽  
Pentecostal Theology ◽  
Final Response ◽  
Per Se

AbstractTony Richie contends that Bishop J.H. King and a close circle of comrades and colleagues, influential in early Pentecostalism as leading administrators, educators, thinkers, and writers, and including G.F. Taylor and A.A. Boddy, exhibited various levels of (what today is known as) inclusivism regarding Christian theology of religions. He suggests this striking discovery has significant import for the developing field of Pentecostal theology of religions. However, as Tony Moon has rightly pointed out, King did not present non-Christian religions as direct divine instruments or agents of Christ's atonement benefits. Richie agrees with Moon that King primarily encourages hope for some of the humanly unevangelized. Yet Richie, in agreement with Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen, also argues that King's thought can be particularly complex. King's complexity especially shows in his perception of the trans-historical 'essential Christ' and 'religion of Christ'. Thus, Richie persistently suggests that at least King, but probably Taylor too, holds out a well-grounded but cautiously guarded optimism, not so much on world religions per se, as in the boundless Christ and an unbounded—but not boundary-less—religion firmly and forever rooted in the revelation of and redemption in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Getting Back to the Heart of the Matter: The Way Forward and a Final Response to Tony Moon

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-149
Author(s):  
Tony Richie
Keyword(s):  
Christian Theology ◽  
Theology Of Religions ◽  
The Core ◽  
Pentecostal Theology ◽  
Final Response ◽  
The Way

AbstractIn this last in a series of discussions between Tony Moon and the author regarding Pentecostal theology of religions in Bishop King, emphasis is on the core lesson of the conversation and its positive application. It gives brief attention to demonstrating the verity and viability of an optimistic approach contra supposed detractions and oppositions. It concludes that the example of King, and of others, such as Charles Parham and George Britt, indicates there is a historical and theological basis in Classical Pentecostalism for developing a contemporary inclusivist Christian theology of religions from a Pentecostal perspective.

A Reply to Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen’s Response

2007 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 269-275
Author(s):  
Tony Richie
Keyword(s):  
Religious Pluralism ◽  
World Religions ◽  
Theology Of Religions ◽  
Christian Mission ◽  
Early Stages ◽  
Pentecostal Theology ◽  
Interreligious Relations ◽  
Further Development

AbstractThis reply to Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen further affirms the importance of work in the theology of religions for Pentecostals and Charismatics today that first prompted the author’s original inquiry into the views of a major early Pentecostal leader, Bishop J.H. King, concerning interfaith encounter and understanding. This dialogue with Kärkkäinen supports suggestions that an overall program of rediscovering, reclaiming, restoring, and revisioning our Pentecostal theology of religions heritage seems advisable. King’s obviously optimistic theology of religions, however, must be carefully distinguished from pluralism and set in the context of its Wesleyan roots and Evangelical emphases. Further development of what King provides in embryonic form is demanded. King represents an optimistic but still Christocentric strain shared by other Pentecostals within early stages of the movement. Not at all amounting to an uncritical approbation of world religions, this revolutionary discovery does decidedly enlarge understandings of Christ’s lordship beyond the pale of any particular religion. Careful terminology in order to avoid misunderstanding is called for and conceded. Pentecostal hypersensitivity regarding theology of religions highlights the need for constant clarification of contrariness to liberal religious pluralism. King’s legacy invalidates any assumption that earlier (older) Pentecostal resources on religions are exclusively pessimistic. Implications are immense for Christian mission and interreligious relations.

John Hick's Theology of Religions and Inter-Religious Dialogue: a Critique

2001 ◽  
Vol 8 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 274-297
Author(s):  
John R. Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Immanuel Kant ◽  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Essential Element ◽  
Friedrich Schleiermacher ◽  
John Hick ◽  
World Religions ◽  
Theology Of Religions ◽  
Christian Doctrine ◽  
Religious Dialogue ◽  
Other World

AbstractWhile denying that belief in Jesus Christ is an essential element for personal salvation, John Hick presupposes Christian concepts of salvation. Even though he denies the universality of Christ vis-à-vis other world religions, the Christian doctrine of salvation is at the very heart of his project, albeit in a controversial form (as universal salvation or apocatastasis). I explore the influence of Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schleiermacher in Hick's thought and discuss how his theology of religions and his concept of inter-religious dialogue are related to Christianity and yet are divorced from some of its central tenets.

Does Copernicus Help? Reflections for a Christian Theology of Religions

1977 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Lipner
Keyword(s):  
Belief Systems ◽  
The Other ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
World Religions ◽  
Important Distinction ◽  
Theology Of Religions ◽  
Religious Traditions ◽  
Religious Perspectives ◽  
The One

I want to consider in this paper a question that is looming large in the theology of most world religions, not least in the Christian tradition. The following discussion will be confined to the Christian standpoint, though I hope mutatis mutandis the main points will be seen to apply to other religious perspectives as well. Specifically then, this question can be ex–pressed in two ways. We may ask, (i) in the context of the contemporary dialogue situation, how is the committed Christian to regard the adherents of non–Christian religions? and (ii) what status do these alien belief–systems have with respect to the Christian faith–response? Both forms of the issue are often discussed it seems to me without due attention being given to an important distinction between them. So, at the outset, it will be useful to make one or two observations about this. First of all, it is inevitable, I think, that an evaluational factor is implied by both formulations. We are pondering a basically Christian assessment of religious traditions that are non–Christian, and any solution suggested which eventually eliminates a one-sided overall perspective will apparently put us in a dilemma. For, on the one hand, a Christian theology of religions will be expected to produce a Christian (and therefore evaluational) result; on the other hand, a finally nonevaluational solution seems unable to be called a Christian view of things at all. In the event of such a ‘neutral theology’ as the latter resulting (by no means a purely speculative question as we shall see), is the dilemma that becomes apparent a genuine one, or can it be resolved by a more stringent analysis of the relevant issues?

Changing Roman Catholic Christologies

2001 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 17-50
Author(s):  
Mahmut Aydin
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Roman Catholic ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
Central Issue ◽  
Theology Of Religions ◽  
New Developments ◽  
The Status ◽  
Practical Implications ◽  
Christian Beliefs

The person of Jesus Christ does not only play a key role in the Christiandialogue with non-Christians, but it is also the central issue in thecurrent debate on the Christian theology of religions. Within thiscontext, after the 1970's, some individual theologians and thinkers haveattempted to study the status of Jesus by questioning seriously thetraditional Christian beliefs and doctrines that this study criticallyevaluates. A number of works which discuss the uniqueness of JesusChrist and the possibility of reinterpreting traditional doctrines in thelight of new developments and the practical implications of dialoguewith people of other faiths.

scholarly journals Ekskluzywizm ewangelikalny

2018 ◽  
pp. 251-284
Author(s):  
Zbigniew Kubacki
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Catholic Church ◽  
Explicit Knowledge ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
Theology Of Religions ◽  
Catholic Theology ◽  
The World ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Special Revelation ◽  
The One

Within the Christian theology of religions one distinguishes three basic paradigms: exclusivism, inclusivism and pluralism. Pluralism considers all religions as equal ways of salvation leading to God. It denies that Jesus Christ is the unique Savior of the world.  Inclusivism maintains the unicity and salvivic universality of Jesus Christ, but affirms that  explicit faith in Jesus Christ is not necessary for salvation for unevangelized people. Exclusivism is the view that Jesus Christ is the only Savior of the world and that one must believe God’s special revelation that culminates in the gospel of Christ in order to be saved. Evangelical theologians principally maintain this position. Interestingly enough, on the one hand they affirm that children who die in infancy (as well as people who are mentally incompetent) are included within the circle of God’s saving grace and will be saved; on the other hand, they say that since the first coming of Christ the only way of salvation is explicit faith in him.The article is divided into three parts. The first part examines the argument of those theologians about the fate of children who die in infancy and then compares it with the teaching of the Catholic Church expressed by the International Theological Commission in its document The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptized (2007). The second part examines the biblical and theological arguments advanced by evangelical theologians in favor of exclusivism. In the third part these arguments are discussed from the perspective of Catholic theology. For Catholics as much as for evangelicals, there is no doubt that Jesus Christ is the unique Savior of the world and that salvation has always been by grace through faith. The difference concerns the content of this saving faith. Must it have as its object an explicit knowledge of Jesus Christ, as is argued by the evangelical exclusivists?

scholarly journals ROH KUDUS BEKERJA DI AGAMA-AGAMA LAIN?

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Andreas HImawan
Keyword(s):  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Holy Spirit ◽  
Vatican Ii ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
Second Vatican Council ◽  
Theology Of Religions ◽  
Vatican Council

Abstract: Christian thinkers are trying to seek a new way to relate to other religions, a more contextual way compared to the ways that have been constructed before. One of the new ways is a reconstruction of Christian theology of religions by focusing not on Ecclesiology or Christology, but on Pneumatology. This writing highlights the phenomenon of this pneumatological approach by exploring two views in the pneumatological approach to religions., namely, the views of Second Vatican Council and Amos Yong. This article will show that these pneumatological views to some extend underestimate the particularity of Jesus Christ. Keywords: Amos Yong, salvation, Holy Spirit, theology of religions, Vatican II.   Abstrak: Di dalam berpapasan dengan agama-agama lain, pemikir-pemikir Kristen mencoba mencari pola hubungan yang dianggap lebih kontekstual dibandingkan pola-pola yang telah terbangun sebelumnya. Salah satunya adalah upaya merekonstruksi pemikiran Kristen tentang teologi agama-agama yang bukan lagi berporos pada eklesiologis maupun kristologis, tetapi melakukan pendekatan yang lebih pneumatologis. Tulisan ini menyoroti fenomena pendekatan pneumatologis ini dengan melakukan eksplorasi terhadap dua pandangan dalam pendekatan pneumatologis terhadap agama-agama, yaitu Konsili Vatikan II dan Amos Yong. Tulisan ini akan memperlihatkan bahwa pendekatan pneumatologis seperti yang diajarkan oleh Vatikan II dan Amos Yong cenderung menafikan partikularitas Yesus Kristus. Kata-kata Kunci: Amos Yong, keselamatan, Roh Kudus, teologi agama-agama, Vatikan II.

Masao Abe and Comparative Theology

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leo D. Lefebure
Keyword(s):  
Graduate Students ◽  
Jesus Christ ◽  
Religious Tradition ◽  
Christian Theology ◽  
Western Philosophy ◽  
Comparative Theology ◽  
Graduate Course ◽  
Beliefs And Practices ◽  
Faith Tradition ◽  
Mahayana Buddhist

A leading form of comparative theology entails commitment to one religious tradition but ventures out to encounter another tradition, with the goal of generating fresh insights into familiar beliefs and practices reliant upon both the tradition of origin and the newly encountered faith tradition. This chapter, based on a graduate course at Georgetown University, examines how Zen Buddhist thinker Masao Abe engages in a dialogue with Western philosophy and Christian theology. Abe interpreted the meaning of the kenosis (emptying) of God in Jesus Christ in Christian theology in light of Mahayana Buddhist perspectives on Sunyata (emptying) and the logic of negation. The chapter includes responses to Abe from various Christian theologians, including Georgetown graduate students.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document