DOCSLIB.ORG

Toward a Biblical View of Collective Responsibility for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in the Twenty-First Century

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Toward a Biblical View of Collective Responsibility for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church in the Twenty-First Century Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Master's Theses Graduate Research 2013 Toward a Biblical View of Collective Responsibility for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the Twenty-first Century Miroslav Danihel Andrews University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses Recommended Citation Danihel, Miroslav, "Toward a Biblical View of Collective Responsibility for the Seventh-day Adventist Church in the Twenty-first Century" (2013). Master's Theses. 35. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/theses/35 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Research at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Thank you for your interest in the Andrews University Digital Library of Dissertations and Theses. Please honor the copyright of this document by not duplicating or distributing additional copies in any form without the author’s express written permission. Thanks for your cooperation. ABSTRACT TOWARD A BIBLICAL VIEW OF COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY by Miroslav Danihel Adviser: Miroslav Kiš ABSTRACT OF GRADUATE STUDENT RESEARCH Thesis Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary Title: TOWARD A BIBLICAL VIEW OF COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY Name of the researcher: Miroslav Danihel Name and degree of faculty adviser: Miroslav Kiš, Ph.D. Date completed: November 2013 The notion of collective responsibility is an issue that is not very popular in the postmodern society. However, the idea of collective responsibility can be found in the Bible. This thesis examines philosophical, ethical, and biblical sources on the subject. The biblical evidence focuses on examining Josh 7 and Ezek 18, as well as some of the New Testament contributions to the topic. The relationship between collective responsibility, collective personality, and collective punishment is discussed. The thesis acknowledges collective responsibility as a valid biblical doctrine and proposes its application for church members, leaders, and the decision-making process in the Seventh- day Adventist church in the twenty-first century. Andrews University Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary TOWARD A BIBLICAL VIEW OF COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts by Miroslav Danihel 2013 TOWARD A BIBLICAL VIEW OF COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY A thesis presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts by Miroslav Danihel APPROVAL BY THE COMMITTEE: ___________________________ Miroslav Kiš, Ph.D., Adviser ___________________________ Darius Jankiewicz, Ph.D. ___________________________ ___________________________ Martin Hanna, Ph.D. Date approved © Copyright by Miroslav Danihel 2013 All Rights Reserved TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ..........................................................................................................v Chapter 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 Background of the Problem ............................................................................. 1 Statement of the Problem ................................................................................. 8 Statement of Purpose ....................................................................................... 9 Methodology .................................................................................................... 9 Terminology ..................................................................................................... 9 Limitation ....................................................................................................... 10 2. COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY: PHILOSOPHICAL AND ETHICAL REVIEW ............................................................................................................... 12 Introduction .................................................................................................... 12 Collective Personality and Moral Agency ..................................................... 12 Collective Responsibility: Philosophical Discussion ..................................... 16 Internal and External Collective Responsibility ............................................ 19 Individualist and Collectivist Approach to Collective Responsibility ........... 20 Collectivistic Approach ............................................................................ 21 Individualistic Approach .......................................................................... 22 Collective Responsibility in Selected Ethical Systems .................................. 24 Deontological Ethical Systems ................................................................ 24 Teleological Ethical Systems ................................................................... 25 Relativism ................................................................................................ 26 Virtue Ethical System .............................................................................. 27 Summary .................................................................................................. 28 Collective Punishment ................................................................................... 29 Tragic Examples of Collective Punishment ............................................. 31 Toward the Justification of Collective Punishment ................................. 32 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 34 3. BIBLICAL STUDY OF COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY ............................. 37 Introduction .................................................................................................... 37 Corporate Personality: Basic Theological Approaches .................................. 37 iii Collective Responsibility in the Old Testament: Joshua 7 and Ezekiel 18 .... 40 Joshua 7 .................................................................................................... 41 Summary .................................................................................................. 45 Ezekiel 18 ................................................................................................. 47 Individual Responsibility in Ezekiel 18 ............................................. 50 Collective Responsibility in Ezekiel 18 ............................................. 52 Summary ............................................................................................ 53 Collective Responsibility in the New Testament ........................................... 54 Individual Responsibility ......................................................................... 55 The Church as a Collective Person .......................................................... 56 The Church and Collective Responsibility .............................................. 57 Summary .................................................................................................. 62 Biblical Concept of Collective Retribution .................................................... 63 Adam as Absolute Example of Corporate Responsibility and Corporate Punishment ............................................................................................... 65 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 67 4. ECCLESIOLOGY AND COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY ............................ 68 Survival Plan for the Time of Crisis .............................................................. 68 Collective Responsibility and Leadership in the Church ............................... 72 Corporate Responsibility, Christian Community, and Mission ..................... 75 Summary ........................................................................................................ 80 5. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 82 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 87 iv LIST OF FIGURES 1. Internal Responsibility ....................................................................................... 19 2. External Responsibility ...................................................................................... 20 v CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the Problem For as in one body we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ, and individually members one of another. (Rom 12:4-5 ESV) So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. (Rom 14:12 ESV) The church of God, enfeebled and defective though it is through yielding to temptation, is the only object upon earth on which he bestows his supreme regard.1 The church of Christ is a unique entity; it is divine and human at the same time. Christ is the Builder of the church (Matt 16:18), He is the Cornerstone of this building (Eph 2:20), and in Him the whole church is joined
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Golden Cord
    THE GOLDEN CORD A SHORT BOOK ON THE SECULAR AND THE SACRED ' " ' ..I ~·/ I _,., ' '4 ~ 'V . \ . " ': ,., .:._ C HARLE S TALIAFERR O THE GOLDEN CORD THE GOLDEN CORD A SHORT BOOK ON THE SECULAR AND THE SACRED CHARLES TALIAFERRO University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana Copyright © 2012 by the University of Notre Dame Press Notre Dame, Indiana 46556 www.undpress.nd.edu All Rights Reserved Manufactured in the United States of America Library of Congress Cataloging- in- Publication Data Taliaferro, Charles. The golden cord : a short book on the secular and the sacred / Charles Taliaferro. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-268-04238-7 (pbk. : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-268-04238-1 (pbk. : alk. paper) 1. God (Christianity) 2. Life—Religious aspects—Christianity. 3. Self—Religious aspects—Christianity. 4. Redemption—Christianity. 5. Cambridge Platonism. I. Title. BT103.T35 2012 230—dc23 2012037000 ∞ The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. CONTENTS Acknowledgments vii Introduction 1 CHAPTER 1 Love in the Physical World 15 CHAPTER 2 Selves and Bodies 41 CHAPTER 3 Some Big Pictures 61 CHAPTER 4 Some Real Appearances 81 CHAPTER 5 Is God Mad, Bad, and Dangerous to Know? 107 CHAPTER 6 Redemption and Time 131 CHAPTER 7 Eternity in Time 145 CHAPTER 8 Glory and the Hallowing of Domestic Virtue 163 Notes 179 Index 197 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am deeply grateful for the patience, graciousness, support, and encour- agement of the University of Notre Dame Press’s senior editor, Charles Van Hof.
    [Show full text]
  • Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse
    John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Faculty Research Working Papers Series Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism Mathias Risse Nov 2003 RWP03-044 The views expressed in the KSG Faculty Research Working Paper Series are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the John F. Kennedy School of Government or Harvard University. All works posted here are owned and copyrighted by the author(s). Papers may be downloaded for personal use only. Can There be “Libertarianism without Inequality”? Some Worries About the Coherence of Left-Libertarianism1 Mathias Risse John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University October 25, 2003 1. Left-libertarianism is not a new star on the sky of political philosophy, but it was through the recent publication of Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner’s anthologies that it became clearly visible as a contemporary movement with distinct historical roots. “Left- libertarian theories of justice,” says Vallentyne, “hold that agents are full self-owners and that natural resources are owned in some egalitarian manner. Unlike most versions of egalitarianism, left-libertarianism endorses full self-ownership, and thus places specific limits on what others may do to one’s person without one’s permission. Unlike right- libertarianism, it holds that natural resources may be privately appropriated only with the permission of, or with a significant payment to, the members of society. Like right- libertarianism, left-libertarianism holds that the basic rights of individuals are ownership rights. Left-libertarianism is promising because it coherently underwrites both some demands of material equality and some limits on the permissible means of promoting this equality” (Vallentyne and Steiner (2000a), p 1; emphasis added).
    [Show full text]
  • 3 the Case for Animal Rights: a Decade's Passing
    3 THE CASE FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS: A DECADE’S PASSING During the academic year 1993-94 it was my h&or to serve as president of the American Society for Value Inquiry (ASVI). The duties of this office are blessedly few; none is onerous, and all have the active sup- port of the exceptional group of people who have made the society one of the jewels in philosophy’s crown. I am very grateful to the members of ASVI not only for the professional honor they bestowed on me but also for moti- vating me to answer some of the more important objections raised against my book The Case for Animal Rights, first published in 1983. The occasion to offer my answers was the society’s annual Presidential Address, which I presented on December 29,1993, in conjunction with the Eastern Division Meetings of the American Philosophical Association. Had it not been for the need to prepare something special for this event, I am not sure I would have taken up the issues I address in these pages. I certain- ly did not want to spend my life defending myself against the criticisms of others; like anyone with a glimmer of a creative spark, I wanted to explore new territory-new for me, in any event. I do not know whether I made a lasting contribution with the work I did during the decade after the publi- cation of The Case for Animal Rights, much of it devoted to interpreting the moral philosophy of the early twentieth-century English philosopher G.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Libertarianism and Its Critics Distributive Justice, Rational
    Political Libertarianism and its Critics Distributive Justice, Rational Choice, and Public Goods PHIL 3195 Fall Semester, 2009 Meetings: TF 1-2:15 pm Instructor: John Davenport Phone: 636-7928 Email: [email protected] Office: Rm. 921f; Mailbox: Rm 916 Office Hours : Tuesdays and Fridays 3 - 5:00 pm and a few Wednesdays by appointment. Thursdays I teach a graduate seminar at RH, and I'm at RH most Wednesdays for department meetings. Mondays I can be reached by email at home. Course Goals . This course is an interdisciplinary elective that critically explores a key tradition of 'neoconservative' political thought that has roots in classical economic theory and that has been very influential in American politics. Political libertarianism is a theory of social justice that gives primacy to an ideal of individual liberty deriving from Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, and to belief in free-market systems that traces to Adam Smith. It advocates minimal government limits on inequalities resulting from voluntary exchanges and contracts, and maximum freedom for markets forces, and tries to base this on a moral conception of individual rights. While elements of this ideal were expressed by influential US reformers from Patrick Henry to Thoreau, its modern American form was established from the 1940s on in reaction against FDR =s New Deal, European socialism, and of course Communism. Through Ayn Rand's novels and the writings of economists like F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman, arguments were developed against the rising welfare state, increasing health and safety regulations, entitlement programs and graduated taxation schemes. By the early 1980s, libertarian critiques of Abig government @ in general, including federal spending on projects and income taxation had become so influential that they strongly affected party platforms, and have been a major force in American politics ever since.
    [Show full text]
  • Educational Rights and the Roles of Virtues, Perfectionism, and Cultural Progress
    The Law of Education: Educational Rights and the Roles of Virtues, Perfectionism, and Cultural Progress R. GEORGE WRIGHT* I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................... 385 II. EDUCATION: PURPOSES, RECENT OUTCOMES, AND LEGAL MECHANISMS FOR REFORM ................................................................ 391 A. EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND RIGHTS LANGUAGE ...................... 391 B. SOME RECENT GROUNDS FOR CONCERN IN FULFILLING EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ............................................................. 393 C. THE BROAD RANGE OF AVAILABLE TECHNIQUES FOR THE LEGAL REFORM OF EDUCATION ............................................................... 395 III. SOME LINKAGES BETWEEN EDUCATION AND THE BASIC VIRTUES, PERFECTIONISM, AND CULTURAL PROGRESS ..................................... 397 IV. VIRTUES AND THEIR LEGITIMATE PROMOTION THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ...................................................................... 401 V. PERFECTIONISM AND ITS LEGITIMATE PROMOTION THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM ...................................................................... 410 VI. CULTURAL PROGRESS OVER TIME AND ITS LEGITIMATE PROMOTION THROUGH THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM .............................................. 417 VII. CONCLUSION: EDUCATION LAW AS RIGHTS-CENTERED AND AS THE PURSUIT OF WORTHY VALUES AND GOALS: THE EXAMPLE OF HORNE V. FLORES ............................................................................................ 431 I. INTRODUCTION The law of education
    [Show full text]
  • Interview with Anthony De Jasay
    SUBSCRIBE NOW AND RECEIVE CRISIS AND LEVIATHAN* FREE! “The Independent Review does not accept “The Independent Review is pronouncements of government officials nor the excellent.” conventional wisdom at face value.” —GARY BECKER, Noble Laureate —JOHN R. MACARTHUR, Publisher, Harper’s in Economic Sciences Subscribe to The Independent Review and receive a free book of your choice* such as the 25th Anniversary Edition of Crisis and Leviathan: Critical Episodes in the Growth of American Government, by Founding Editor Robert Higgs. This quarterly journal, guided by co-editors Christopher J. Coyne, and Michael C. Munger, and Robert M. Whaples offers leading-edge insights on today’s most critical issues in economics, healthcare, education, law, history, political science, philosophy, and sociology. Thought-provoking and educational, The Independent Review is blazing the way toward informed debate! Student? Educator? Journalist? Business or civic leader? Engaged citizen? This journal is for YOU! *Order today for more FREE book options Perfect for students or anyone on the go! The Independent Review is available on mobile devices or tablets: iOS devices, Amazon Kindle Fire, or Android through Magzter. INDEPENDENT INSTITUTE, 100 SWAN WAY, OAKLAND, CA 94621 • 800-927-8733 • [email protected] PROMO CODE IRA1703 INTERVIEW Interview with Anthony de Jasay F ASCHWIN DE WOLF 1. Once again we have entered an era in which the (unintended) consequences of government regulation and central banking are attributed to “capitalism.” What keeps you motivated as a writer? The short answer is: allergy. I know well enough that there is little or no use in arguing against populist politicians and pundits who denounce greedy capitalism and insufficiently controlled markets that, they claim, have brought catastrophe and will bring catastrophe again.
    [Show full text]
  • Comment on Narveson/Sterba Exchange Molinari Society, Eastern APA 2016 Roderick T. Long Let Me Begin by Setting out and Assessin
    Comment on Narveson/Sterba Exchange Molinari Society, Eastern APA 2016 Roderick T. Long Let me begin by setting out and assessing the dialectic as I understand it. Libertarians claim that individual freedom includes the freedom to acquire and keep private property, thus ruling out welfare rights. James Sterba’s chief objection is that in conflicts over resources, preventing the needy from appropriating the property of the wealthy is a violation of freedom, and so is something that the consistent libertarian must reject; hence libertarianism entails welfare rights. And Jan Narveson’s chef response is that one cannot derive positive rights from negative ones. I think, with one caveat, that Jan is right in denying the possibility of deriving positive rights from negative ones. The caveat is that there are cases in which one must take positive action in order to avoid violating someone’s negative rights. For example, if I am crossing the street while you come racing along in your car, in order to respect my negative right not to be run over it is not sufficient for you to do nothing; you must take the positive action of either stepping on the brakes or turning the wheel. Hence I have a right against you that you take such positive action.1 I don’t see this caveat as relevant to the present dispute, however, since Prof. Sterba is not presenting welfare rights as instrumental to respecting liberty; rather he’s presenting them as an instance of respecting liberty. So I’ll leave the caveat aside. While I agree with Jan, then, that positive rights can’t generally be derived from negative ones, I don’t think this is sufficient to reply to Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Createspace Word Templates
    MOLINARI REVIEW Molinari Review 1, No. 2 (Fall 2019) © The Molinari Institute 2019 All content in this journal is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Published by: The Molinari Institute 402 Martin Avenue Auburn, Alabama 36830 U.S.A. ISBN: 978-1-947236-00-4 MOLINARI REVIEW The Molinari Review is a peer-reviewed, open-access, print-on-demand, interdiscipli- nary journal of libertarian research. We publish scholarship, sympathetic or critical, in and/or on the libertarian tradition, broadly understood as including classical liberalism, individualist anarchism, social anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, anarcho- communism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcha-feminism, panarchism, voluntaryism, mu- tualism, agorism, distributism, bleeding-heart libertarianism, Austrianism, Georgism, public choice, and beyond – essentially, everything from Emma Goldman to Ayn Rand, C. L. R. James to F. A. Hayek, Alexis de Tocqueville to Michel Foucault. (We see exciting affiliations among these strands of the libertarian tradition; but you don’t have to agree with us about that to publish in our pages.) Disciplines in which we seek to publish include philosophy, political science, eco- nomics, history, sociology, psychology, anthropology, theology, ecology, literature, and law. We aim to enhance the visibility of libertarian scholarship, to expand the boundaries of traditional libertarian discussion, and to provide a home for cutting- edge research in the theory and practice of human liberty. INFORMATION FOR AUTHORS Submissions should be sent by email to Roderick T. Long at [email protected] as Word .doc or .docx files, prepared for blind review (i.e. all author information re- moved), and accompanied by an abstract of around 150 words as a guide for referees.
    [Show full text]
  • The Need of State? American Anarcho-Capitalism
    Ad Americam Journal of American Studies Vol. 10, 2009 ISSN 1896-9461 ISBN 978-83-233-2905-3 Magdalena Modrzejewska THE NEED OF STATE? AMERICAN ANARCHO-CAPITALISM The paper examines the theory of anarcho-capitalists philosophers David Friedman and Murray Rothbard. Both philosophers argue for a society based in voluntary trade of private property (including money, consumer goods, land, and capital goods) and services (includ- ing protection services) in order to maximize individual liberty and prosperity. Moreover, they maintain that order exists in the pre-state situation, and any form of compulsion from the government/state violates that natural order. The paper examines how society can func- tion in such an anarchic, non-state situation (especially how the law and legal system can arise and exist without a state/government). Libertarians created a vision of an individual as a rational being, with a broad range of rights bestowed upon him/her, free from any form of external coercion. Therefore, they postulated that all relations between individuals should be established on volun- tary ground. Consequently, they faced the vital question of whether the existence of a state is required at all, and if so – how we could justify the rise of a state without the violation of the individual rights. In their reflection about the shape of the state, libertarians use methodological an- archism.1 “In political philosophy this method means that, as a starting point for their research, they use the state of nature as described by Locke or Hobbes, associated with anarchy, and then they show the possibility of overcoming such an anarchy and reaching in a rational manner the just social state” (Miklaszewska 1994: 21).
    [Show full text]
  • Future Generations and Contemporary Ethical Theory
    FUTURE GENERATIONS AND CONTEMPORARY ETHICAL THEORY STEPHEN BICKHAM Mansfield State College There exists today in philosophy a question of our ethical obligations to future generations. Several different aspects of this question render it philosophically unusual. For one thing the substantive answer to the question is not in dispute. Were someone to suggest seriously that we have no ethical obligations to future generations and mean by this that we need take no care for what living conditions on the planet will be in a hundred years - that whether there would exist then, say, a lethal level of radioactivity in the atmosphere, it would be no concern of ours - we should regard that individual as lacking one of the most basic of human ethical sensibilities. Of course we have some serious responsibility for the future, though this does not commit us to the more particular position that we have ethical obligations to future generations. The question does not, thus, require an answer at the general level, nor am I prepared here to demarcate specifically the content of our responsibility for the future, though I shall treat of others' attempts to do so. I am interested rather in why this question should seem so mysterious at this time as to generate a dispute or issue within the philosophical community. Thus my focus will be interior to philosophy. I hope to show how the assumptions involved in raising this question in this way make it difficult for us to address the new realities with which the question is concerned. Why is this question a current
    [Show full text]
  • The Biblical Doctrine of Original Sin*
    THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN* The central message of the Bible is not a message of sin but of salvation. Our treatment, therefore, of the theme of sin, and espe- cially of original sin, must find its proper context in the whole saving message which the Bible offers. The biblical story of the Fall and the scriptural doctrine of sin grew out of Israel's consciousness of its vocation to be a channel of salvation for all men. The very notion of religion is inseparable from salvation; and salvation is inseparable from the notion of a condition from which man is relieved and to which he is directed. While the "terminus ad quern" will not be treated in this paper, it will always constitute the general framework of what we will be saying here. Biblical theology is not a science in its own right, but an approach under the general heading of theology.1 It attempts to express, in biblical categories, God's revealed truth. This truth is not found in the material text of the Scriptures alone, but in the whole tradition which the material text reflects and crystalizes.2 The biblical theo- logian, then, must be guided in his task by the tradition which the printed page reflects. For the Catholic, this includes taking into ac- count the understanding the Church has had through the centuries, * Excerpts from The Jerusalem, Bible, copyright © 1966 by Darton, Longman & Todd, Ltd. and Doubleday & Company, Inc. Used by permission of the publishers. 1 Cf. Frederick J. Cwiekowski, S.S. "Biblical Theology as Historical The- ology," C£.Q.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul's Apostolic Self-Consciousness at Athens*
    JETS, 14/3 (Summer 1971) PAUL'S APOSTOLIC SELF-CONSCIOUSNESS AT ATHENS* EDWARD FUDGE* While a sizable body of interesting literature may be found ( which, in iceberg fashion, seems to increase upon closer scrutiny) dealing with Paul's Acts 17 speech in Athens, certain aspects of his remarks1 there have received little attention. It is not surprising that much of what has been written has been concerned with the Greek philosophical back- ground and content of the sermon. One might wonder, however, at the paucity of material treating its Jewish-Christian or Old Testament back- ground and motivation. The critics generally deny any connection whatsoever of this sermon on "Mars Hill" with the Old Testament, or, in fact, with the Apostle Paul. Dibelius said of the address : This is what the author considered, at the end of the first Christian century, to be a suitable example of the sort of sermon which ought to be preached to cultured Gentiles!.. .What is seen here.. .is the manner of constructing a Christian theology not on biblical, but on philosophical, especially Stoic, ideas. The true parallels to this speech are found not in Paul but in Cicero and Seneca and their Greek predecessors.2 Even those who accept Luke's record3 as historically reliable, and *M.A., Abilene Christian College; presently enrolled in Covenant Seminary, St. Louis, and preacher of the Church of Christ, Kirkwood, Mo. 1. Our presuppositions here that Luke accurately quoted a historical speech of the Apostle Paul in Athens are in spite of the charge of such higher critics as W.
    [Show full text]