God's omnipotence: Alister McGrath and William of Ockham

London/Greenwich (photo from trekearth.com )

The following is a section of my MPhil thesis (2003) where Alister McGrath deals with the concept of God's omnipotence and I will be adding a section on different views concerning omnipotence within my PhD revisions.

4. God’s Power

In Chapter 3 of Suffering entitled God Almighty, McGrath tried to clear up possible misunderstandings concerning the idea of God’s omnipotence. Firstly, he indicated that God cannot contradict himself. "‘God can’t make a square circle! He would contradict himself if he did.’ The logic of this is undeniable." McGrath (1992: 15)

Secondly, McGrath points out that although God can do anything that is not contradictory to his nature, he is bound by certain promises.

The simple fact of the matter is that God is not able to do everything. His hands are tied. He has made promises - promises which limit his freedom of action. And he is faithful to those promises. And those promises are not arbitrary. They reflect and rest upon God’s unchanging character. Those promises tell us about the way God is. They express the consistency and faithfulness, as well as offer us salvation. What God promises expresses what God is. McGrath (1992: 17).

Theologian, Millard J. Erickson, is in basic agreement with these two points. He stated:

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of. He can do only those things which are proper objects of his power. Thus, he cannot do the logically absurd or contradictory. He cannot make square circles or triangles with four corners. He cannot undo what happened in the past, although he may wipe out its effects of even the memory of it. He cannot act contrary to his nature–he cannot be cruel or unconcerned. He cannot fail to do what he has promised. In reference to God’s having made a promise and having confirmed it with an oath, the writer to the Hebrews says: "So that through two unchangeable things, in which it is impossible that God should prove false, we . . . might have strong encouragement" (Heb. 6:18). All of these "inabilities" however, are not weaknesses, but strengths. The inability to do evil or to lie or to fail is a mark of positive strength rather than of failure.

Another aspect of the power of God is that he is free. While God is bound to keep his promises, he was not initially under any compulsion to make those promises. Nothing in Scripture suggests that God’s will is determined or bound by any external factors. On the contrary, it is common to attribute his decisions and actions to the "good pleasure of his will" (eudokia). Paul in particular attributes them to God’s will (Eph. 1:5, 9; Phil. 2:13). God’s decisions and actions are not determined by consideration of any factors outside himself. They are simply a matter of his own free choice. Erickson (1994: 277-278).

Both McGrath and Erickson are stating that God is not a contradictory being in any of his actions. This means, for example, that God would not have the power to stop being God, or to make someone else God. This, however, has nothing to do with omnipotence, and being all-powerful means God is able to do what can be done logically, but never what cannot done be logically.

Concerning the assertion that God is bound by his promises, I agree, Scripture makes it clear in Hebrews 6:18 that he cannot lie, and also when Jesus promises he is the only way of salvation in John 14:6, it can be concluded that this system of salvation will not be altered. One can be sure that God will save those in Christ who believe, and at the same time, there will never be another way of salvation. God could have chosen not to save humanity from its sins, but once this decision was made and God made a promise, it would not be broken.

With these concepts in mind, according to McGrath, God is restricted in the future as to how he deals with humanity, because he has promised certain things for humankind’s ultimate salvation. With regard to the problem of evil this means that much of the suffering in God’s creation was because God "has deliberately limited his possibilities." McGrath (1992: 20).

McGrath notes the approach of William of Ockham who, according to McGrath, described God’s omnipotence in the following way:

Ockham uses two terms to refer to these different options. The absolute power of God refers to God’s options before he had committed himself to any course of action or world ordering. The ordained power of God refers to the way things are, which reflects the will of God their creator. These do not represent two different sets of options now open to God. They represent two different moments in the history of human salvation. And our concern is with the ordained power of God, the way in which God orders his creation at present. McGrath (1992: 20).

These definitions by Ockham adequately described McGrath’s ideas and made sense; however, McGrath went on to ask: "So where does this leave all the abstract talk about God being omnipotent? In something of a state of ruin, is the short answer." McGrath (1992: 21).

I agree with McGrath’s "Ockham" concept that God had ordained power at this point which included God limiting himself within his promises. However, I do not think this, in any way, puts the idea of God’s omnipotence in ruins because, technically speaking, God still has absolute power so it is not his lack of power that is the issue, it is instead his lack of will.

God possesses will and desire to make certain promises for humanity’s ultimate salvation through him and life with him. He stays omnipotent through all of this but he wills not to do certain things, including not to stop certain evil because to will the cessation of certain evil would interfere with his ultimate will and plan. So although I agree with McGrath’s concept, I would not, in any way, challenge God’s omnipotence but would simply state that he can will evil for the greater good, meaning that people and demonic beings have the freedom to sin. He remains without contradiction and perfectly good, but can use the actions of all finite beings within his ultimate plan for he is infinite. It is logical and plausible to think that the infinite God can create a Universe where an ultimate plan prevails, even while his finite creations plot against him. For God to stop all sin at this time may not be within his plan because human beings may need to experience sin and redemption in order to appreciate God in the greatest measure. It is possible that under every circumstance, humanity would have fallen eventually, and that this type of scenario, where God incarnate must die for humanity, would be needed.

Additional:

'It is possible that under every circumstance, humanity would have fallen eventually, and that this type of scenario, where God incarnate must die for humanity, would be needed.'

Within my PhD I more clearly point my view that God could within a compatibilistic system create significantly free physical/spiritual creatures, or just spiritual creatures with significant free will that would never commit wrong actions. So I would state that human beings as they have been created originally with Adam and Eve would have eventually always fallen, unless God would have severely interfered with their thoughts and actions well beyond what he has done in reality. I have speculated within the MPhil and PhD theses on why God created human creatures in need of salvation.

I noted here:

'For God to stop all sin at this time may not be within his plan because human beings may need to experience sin and redemption in order to appreciate God in the greatest measure.'

And it could be added more importantly that this type of human being would be considered most valuable to God within his culminated Kingdom. This concept received some criticism at my PhD viva, but more in the sense of complaint and not in the sense of defeating with argumentation.

FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

McGRATH, ALISTER (1992) Suffering, London, Hodder and Stoughton Limited.

Giovanni Antonio Canal Canaletto (1697-1768)


Canaletto, Tomb of Lord Somers, 1722-29 (I have seen this one in person)


Something far inferior to Canaletto from Facebook graffiti.

Methodology and Post-Modern Influence (PhD edit)

Methodology and Post-Modern Influence (PhD edit)

Whitby Abbey and Saint Mary's Church (photo from trekearth.com) 

Preface

20090301

So far I have made about 2000 photocopies at Staples copy centre for my PhD revisions. I joke with the employees that it is because I love photocopying. Two of the employees have suggested I work there. In a month's worth of work I have obtained, in my estimation, seventy percent of the materials required to complete revisions. Here is another section of PhD edit that has been trashed from the final copy.

20250201

Methodology and Post-Modern Influence: Ray S. Anderson

Post-modernism is a general term used to describe a variety of intellectual and cultural developments in the late twentieth century[1] within Western society.[2] Post-modern views generally embrace pluralism and place value in the diversity within philosophical worldviews and religions that represent modern society.[3] An element of post-modern thought,[4] according to Ray Anderson (2001), is the death of the appreciation of objective truth.[5] Truth is no longer objectively discovered, according to Anderson’s analysis of the times, rather it is experienced.[6] Although, from my Reformed, theological perspective, I do not primarily hold to this view, I can at least acknowledge that there is some truth to Anderson’s claim that truth is not merely objective.[7] I reason that God has revealed objective truth to us in Scripture,[8] but as Anderson explains the human heart is always an element in establishing a person’s mindset.[9]

Erickson explains that although Scripture presents objective truth, the application of Scripture may be different for each person.[10] Even if one reasons that objective truth exists, each person subjectively with his/her own mindset deals with data and knowledge in an individualistic way.[11] There needs to be solid church teachings that adequately explain Biblical doctrines within their original context, staying true to Biblical theology, and yet teaching should be flexible enough to provide explanations that vary at times in order to be relatable to differing modern groups and individuals. Anderson explains three ways in which post-modern thought impacts practical theology,[12] and I deduce these are methodological matters.

One, as post-modern thought celebrates diversity, it brings with it the idea of moral relativism. Anderson writes for practical theology, it is still vital that communities and not just individuals are important in gaining knowledge.[13] Anderson explains that since in post-modern thought reason is mistrusted, the truth of the Christian message must be experienced and lived out by those within the church. He writes that belief in the Christian message will take place when it is properly experienced.[14] I do not deny that the Christian faith needs to be adequately experienced within the process of belief, but within this thesis, in regard to theodicy, I have no desire to abandon reason. By examining theoretical theodicy I am reviewing the reasonable nature of each perspective. It is my view that Christian faith/philosophy has greater believability when it is theoretically reasonable and, as Anderson notes, when it is demonstrated as practical.[15] 

Two, a celebration of diversity leads to a demand for tolerance. There is often an objection to claims of universal truth.[16] Tolerance is defined by J.E. Wood Junior (1996) as the indulgence of belief or conduct other than one’s own. This would include respect for the opinions and practices of others when they are in conflict with one’s own.[17] I am in basic agreement with Wood’s definition and reason that various philosophical and religious concepts need to be tolerated in Western society.[18] However, I also agree with Wood as he noted there are disagreements in perspective,[19] and this is where I see the need within philosophical and practical theology for respectful dialogue with use of reason and data. 

Three, secularism has expanded at the expense of ecclesiastical authority in regard to dealing with social problems.[20] Anderson comments that the Holy Spirit needs to subject human hearts to the truth of Scripture.[21] I accept this proposition and realize that there are opportunities within both philosophical and practical theological approaches to teach theology and deal with social issues within a secular framework. The internet and worldwide web is a modern example where theologians, such as myself, respectfully present Biblical and theological data without the official support of any church or ecclesiastical leaders.[22] Certain Christians concentrate on social issues, and not all are necessarily operating under ecclesiastical support. 

[1] Continuing on into the present early twenty-first century. 

[2] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 93). 

[3] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 93).

[4] Post-modern thought shall be further discussed in Chapter Six. 

[5] Anderson (2001: 19). 

[6] Anderson (2001: 19). 

[7] Anderson (2001: 20).

[8] Erickson (1994: 251-253). 

[9] Anderson (2001: 20).

[10] Erickson (1994: 253). 

[11] Establishing theological arguments for and against objective truth would be a fascinating thesis, but I do not have the time and space to deal with this issue exhaustively here. I have presented my personal viewpoint on this topic within the tradition I represent.

[12] Anderson (2001: 20).

[13] Anderson (2001: 20).

[14] Anderson (2001: 20).

[15] Anderson (2001: 20).

[16] Anderson (2001: 20).

[17] Wood (1996: 1098).

[18] Wood (1996: 1098). 

[19] Wood (1996: 1098).

[20] Anderson (2001: 20).

[21] Anderson (2001: 20).

[22] Through Blogging and Facebook discussion groups, for example. 

ANDERSON, RAY S. (2001) The Shape of Practical Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1986) Predestination and Free Will, in David Basinger and Randall Basinger (eds.), Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press. 

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

WOOD J.E., JR. (1996) ‘Tolerance’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

Augustine and satanic beings (PhD edit)

Bristol, England (photo from trekearth.com)

In regard to hermeneutics and the existence of satanic beings, Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling explain hermeneutics is the discipline that studies the rules, principles, and theories of how a text, including Scripture, should be theologically interpreted. This would include the relationship between the author, text, and reader.[1] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard note that the word for hermeneutics comes from the Greek verb hermeneuin, meaning to explain, interpret or translate, while the noun hermeneia means interpretation or translation.[2] Charles Caldwell Ryrie (1974) states hermeneutics is the scientific method, which provides a principal of interpretation of Scripture, and these rules guide each reader’s system of theology.[3]

Augustine, from what has been presented in this Chapter within the context of satanic beings, appears to assume they did actually exist and had limited power and dominion over human beings.[4] Augustine therefore can be deduced to have believed in literal, historical, satanic beings in Scripture. This is not an overall evaluation of Augustine’s hermeneutics as that would be another thesis in itself. Plantinga cautiously supports Augustine’s hermeneutical approach and conclusions in regard to the existence of satanic beings.[5] According to D.W. Robertson, Jr. (1964) the translator of Augustine’s book On Christian Doctrine, explains the text sheds light on Augustine’s interpretation of the Bible.[6] Robertson writes that for Augustine, interpretation was not done by scientific and historical analysis, but by understanding the philosophy and theology of Biblical writers.[7] Augustine’s method was based in faith, hope, and charity (love), and a trust in God rather than in science.[8] It was not the hermeneutical method of modern times but was Augustine’s nonetheless.[9] Augustine’s hermeneutic included the idea that one should be mentally clear in regard to issues of God in order to receive guidance.[10] This would support Robertson’s idea that Augustine’s hermeneutical assumptions began with a trust in divine guidance over scientific means of understanding the Biblical text.[11] Robertson explains that Augustine did use an allegory method in his exposition of Scripture, but this was done in order to find the fullest possible interpretations of Scripture.[12] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling define allegory as a method of Biblical interpretation where ‘hidden’ or ‘deeper’ understandings are sought.[13] This favours a ‘spiritual’ meaning over literal ones.[14] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard explain that this was the popular hermeneutical method within the era of the Church Fathers.[15] New Testament scholar, Klyne Snodgrass (1991) explains allegorical approaches would assign a spiritual meaning to specific texts, in particular ones difficult to interpret.[16] Christian theology was often imposed on texts of the Old Testament, and this approach was common in the Christian Church until the Reformation.[17] Although Augustine understood satanic beings as actual entities, this does not mean he used a literal hermeneutic in his overall theological approach, as Robertson points out Augustine uses the allegory method.[18]

[1] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 59).
[2] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 4).
[3] Ryrie (1974: 86).
[4] Augustine (388-395)(1964: 111).
[5] Plantinga (1982: 192).
[6] Robertson (1964: ix)(1997).
[7] Robertson (1964: ix)(1997).
[8] Robertson (1964: xii)(1997). Augustine (427)(1997: 33).
[9] Robertson (1964: xii)(1997).
[10] Augustine (427)(1997: 13).
[11] I reason hermeneutically a scholar does not need to choose between a regimented scientific methodology, and trusting in divine guidance.
[12] Robertson (1964: xi)(1997).
[13] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).
[14] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 8).
[15] Klein, Blomberg, and Hubbard (1993: 32).
[16] Snodgrass (1991: 413).
[17] Snodgrass (1991: 413).
[18] Robertson (1964: xi)(1997).

AUGUSTINE (388-395)(1964) On Free Choice of the Will, Translated by Anna S.Benjamin and L.H. Hackstaff, Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

KLEIN, WILLIAM W. CRAIG, C. BLOMBERG, AND ROBERT L. HUBBARD, JR. (1993) Introduction to Biblical Interpretation, London, Word Publishing.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN.C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

RYRIE, CHARLES CALDWELL (1974) Dispensationalism Today, Chicago, Moody Press.

SNODGRASS, KLYNE (1991) ‘The Use of the Old Testament in the New’, in David Alan Black and David S. Dockery (eds.), New Testament Criticism and Interpretation, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.

This clip has been receiving some traffic (hundreds of hits) over in my satire and theology archives and so here once again is the Lochness Monster/Giant Haystacks.

African 'booze' tree. Thanks, Mom.

Additional

This is a message from someone, that according to her, is now in Benin, Africa, and was formerly in London and North Carolina. She is on the Facebook 'Are You Interested?' application. She acted ticked when I messaged with her briefly here last week and had not visited her when I was in the UK last month, as she was in London. As if I was going to visit her after two to three short email messages, as she is a stranger and I was nowhere near London.

I have no clue what the hell she is writing about.

'sweetie, if i tell you i love you, it doesnt mean facial loving, you talking about facial loving, i havnt met you ,so i believe i just like you but i love the way you talk to me, message me, i can read the feelings you have for me and i believe definetely we are going to me then that means we will one day. i so much chrish your humbleness and the way you talk to me through mails and also your profile is an evidence of you mylove.'

My reply to this message was...

LOL.

Atonement theories (PhD edit)

My Mom sent me these photos supposedly from Quebec City.

This is an edit from my PhD with the present revisions. Much of this material was presented in the past when most of you were not readers. I do not at all apologize for posting older blog material.:) I do not want to have to 'reinvent the wheel' so to speak and will reuse older material in the main body and especially in comments.

I suggest that you all do the same to save time. I will be swamped with PhD revisions for a time. Older material does get revised though at times, just like with my theses.

Please comment and enjoy the footnotes which I have not used on this blog in years, but this is a paste from the PhD. I would view sacrifice as a definite aspect of the atoning work of Christ, as I would propitiation, substitution and reconciliation. It is a complex subject, no doubt.

Russ

As Millard J. Erickson points out, atonement theory is multifaceted including the concepts of sacrifice, propitiation (appeasement of God), substitution and reconciliation.[1] Bloesch writes that the atonement of Christ must be understood as God’s effort to reconcile divine holiness and compassion.[2] Love does not end the need for holiness, but through Christ answers it.[3] Within Christian thought, both traditional and modern, there are many different atonement theories concerning the work of Christ.[4] Atonement theory in regard to Christ would be another thesis in itself and is beyond the scope of this work. Augustine’s sacrificial atonement views are not central to this thesis, but Augustine describes Christ’s atoning work as a means by which Christ could bring humanity back to a right relationship with God.[5] Augustine (398-399)(1992) discusses the concept of Christ restoring people from the hands of the adversary.[6] He also notes Christ is the true mediator between sinful humanity and God, and this mediation is what brings people to righteousness.[7] Augustine (400-416)(1987)(2004) continues with this theme calling Christ the mediator of life as Christ is viewed taking the punishment for sin in the place of sinful humanity.[8] Further along in the text, Augustine notes Christ died in order that through his death believers could ultimately be saved from everlasting death through the resurrection.[9] Robert D. Crouse (1990)(1998) explains Augustine viewed Christ’s atoning work as a sacrifice for the sins of humanity.[10]

There are Biblical scholars and theologians who would not hold to a sacrifice atonement theory, as does Augustine. There are the Accident, Martyr and Moral Influence Theories which feature similar approaches that are popular among modern scholars.[11] Thiessen notes the modern Accident Theory sees no significant value in the death of Christ.[12] Christ was a good man who died because his religious views differed from the religious leaders of the day, but there was no further significance to his death.[13] The Accident Theory would be a possible explanation for those within the mainline Christian faith that view Christ’s teaching as that of a good man, but question whether Christ died for the sins of humanity. The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod belief and practices volume writers Erwin L. Lueker, Luther Poellot, and Paul Jackson (2000) note the Accident Theory would view Christ’s death as unforeseen, unexpected and unfortunate.[14] This understanding is held by many modern scholars.[15] In other words, many versions of the Accident Theory do not attach a divine plan to Christ’s death.

The modern Martyr Theory is a similar view to the Accident Theory in that through Christ’s example and peaceful opposition to the religious leaders of his day, people could see there was a need for religious reform within religious organizations.[16] This concept would also view human beings as needing to be reformed spiritually, and Christ provided an excellent example of this in his death.[17] This approach would not require Christ to be a sacrifice for sins, but instead be an example of a human being who has become religiously reformed.[18] Lueker, Poellot and Jackson explain a key for the Martyr Theory is that Christ died for a principle of religious truth,[19] the idea being for those who hold this theory was God used Christ to oppose the religious falsehoods that prevented human beings from having true religious experiences with God.

Peter Abelard (1079-1142)[20] is credited with developing the historic Moral Influence Theory.[21] Abelard (1121)(2006) describes his atonement view in Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, which in English is Commentary on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.[22] Within it he writes, contrary to Anselm’s Satisfaction Theory, God had forgiven sins through love before Christ came to earth and that Christ had taken the suffering for human sin upon himself.[23] Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling note the Moral Influence Theory views Christ’s death as a good example of love in action.[24] F.W. Robertson (1857)(1956) explains this theory understood God was not angry with his Son, but instead Christ bore the sins of humanity as he clashed with evil and died because of it.[25] As Christ took on evil and prevailed over it by remaining true to God, he was able to influence people through the establishment of Christianity. The Satisfaction Theory of Saint Anselm (ca. 1033-1109) deduces Christ was an atoning sacrifice for the sins of humanity, and this theory is not in drastic opposition to Augustine’s prior theory. Anselm (1094-1098)(1968)(2006) states within Cur Deus Homo, which in English is Why God Became Man, it was fitting as death entered into the human race by one man’s disobedience, life should enter by one man’s obedience.[26] For Anselm, Christ was providing satisfaction to God for sin, but was also the perfect sacrifice for sin, much as Augustine had proposed earlier.[27] Bloesch writes Christ’s righteousness is substituted for human sin in order that believers can be righteous before God.[28]

Origen (ca. 185-254),[29] presents the Ransom View of Atonement. In his Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Origen (ca 203-250)(2001) explains the atoning work of Christ was a ransom price as Christ gave up his life in order that human beings could have their lives back.[30] The primary modern exponent, that recovered the patristic emphasis of this view is Gustav Aulen, who wrote Christus Victor and the journal article ‘Chaos and Cosmos: The Drama of Atonement’ both in 1950. In Christus Victor, he explains the central theme of atonement is Christ’s dramatic victory over Satan, sin, and death.[31] Through the incarnated Christ’s death and resurrection, Aulen notes in this drama that Christ reconciles the world to himself.[32] In ‘Chaos and Cosmos’ Aulen writes every Christian doctrine of atonement should include the concept that the love of God through Christ destroys the evil powers.[33] The atonement should be primarily viewed as the means by which God provided humanity with victory over evil and reconciliation with God.[34] Aulen, like Anselm, did view Christ’s atoning work as sacrifice, but Aulen points out it was done willingly by Christ who suffered and then overcame evil.[35] The Ransom Theory of Atonement places less importance on God’s need for justice and sacrifice, and more of an emphasis on God freeing humanity from the bonds of Satan, sin, and death. Instead of atonement being mainly about a sacrifice offered to God for sin from humankind in Christ, Gustaf Wingren states Aulen’s view is primarily concerned with God overcoming evil for his people.[36] Bloesch reasons that Christ has purchased and redeemed his followers through the atoning work. From this task God’s love for humanity is shown as persons cannot save themselves through merit.[37]

[1] Erickson (1994: 811-823).
[2] Bloesch (1987: 97).
[3] Bloesch (1987: 97).
[4] Thiessen (1956: 315-320).
[5] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178).
[6] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 178).
[7] Augustine (398-399)(1992: 219).
[8] Augustine (400-416)(1987)(2004: Book 4: Chapter 13: 10).
[9] Augustine (400-416)(1987)(2004: Book 4: Chapter 13: 11).
[10] Crouse (1990)(1998: 6).
[11] Thiessen (1956: 315).
[12] Thiessen (1956: 315).
[13] Thiessen (1956: 315).
[14] Lueker, Poellot, and Jackson (2000: 4).
[15] Lueker, Poellot, and Jackson (2000: 4).
[16] Thiessen (1956: 316).
[17] Thiessen (1956: 316).
[18] Thiessen (1956: 316).
[19] Lueker, Poellot, and Jackson (2000: 4).
[20] Shelly (1982: 215).
[21] Linder (1996: 2).
[22] Abelard (1121)(2006: 13).
[23] Abelard (1121)(2006: 13).
[24] Grenz, Guretzki, and Nordling (1999: 17).
[25] Robertson in Thiessen (1857)(1956: 174).
[26] Anselm (1094-1098)(1968)(2006: 51).
[27] Anselm (1094-1098)(1968)(2006: 51).
[28] Bloesch (1987: 150).
[29] Kroeger (1996: 803).
[30] Origen (ca 203-250)(2001: 30).
[31] Aulen (1950a: 14).
[32] Aulen (1950a: 5).
[33] Aulen (1950b: 156).
[34] Aulen (1950b: 158).
[35] Aulen (1950b: 162).
[36] Wingren (1965: 310).
[37] Bloesch (1987: 151).

ABELARD, PETER (ca. 1121)(2006) Jeffery E. Brower, and Kevin Guilfoy (eds.), Commentaria in Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos, Commentary on the Epistle of Paul, A complete list of Abelard’s Writings, West Lafayette, Indiana, Purdue University.
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~brower/Papers/Introduction%20to%20Cam%20Comp.pdf

ANSELM, SAINT (1094-1098)(1968)(2006) Cur Deus Homo, Why God Became Man, in Schmitt, Franciscus Salesius, S. Anselmi Cantuariensis Archiepiscopi Opera Omnia. Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt: Friedrich Fromann Verlag.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/anselm.htm#H7

AUGUSTINE (398-399)(1992) Confessions, Translated by Henry Chadwick, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/130104.htm

AULEN, GUSTAV (1950a) Christus Victor, Translated by A.G. Hebert, London, S.P.C.K.

AULEN, GUSTAV (1950b) ‘Chaos and Cosmos: The Drama of Atonement’, in Interpretation: A Journal of Bible and Theology, Volume 4, April, Number 2, New York, Interpretation.

BLOESCH, DONALD G. (1987) Freedom for Obedience, San Francisco, Harper and Rowe Publishers.

CROUSE, ROBERT D. (1990)(1998) ‘Atonement and Sacrifice: Doctrine and Worship-Saint Augustine and the Fathers’, in The Idea of the Church in Historical Development, Charlottetown P.E.I., Saint Peter Publications.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downer’s Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

KROEGER, C.C. (1996) ‘Origen’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 803. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

LINDER, R.D. (1996) ‘Abelard, Peter’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 2. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

LUECKER, ERWIN L, LUTHER POELLOT, AND PAUL JACKSON, (2000) The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod: Christian Cyclopedia, Saint Louis, The Lutheran Church Missouri Synod.
http://www.lcms.org/ca/www/cyclopedia/02/display.asp?t1=A&t2=t

ORIGEN (ca. 203-250)(2001) Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew,
Peter Kirby, California, Early Christian Writings.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/origen-matthew.html

ROBERTSON, F.W. (1887)(1956) ‘Sermons: First Series’, in Thiessen, Henry C., Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

SHELLEY, BRUCE L. (1982) Church History In Plain Language, Waco, Texas, Word Books.

THIESSEN, HENRY C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

WINGREN, GUSTAF (1965) ‘Gustaf Aulen’, in A Handbook of Christian Theologians, Nashville, Abingdon Press.