The Theological Journal of Emanuel University

Perichoresis

PerichoresisONL

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> This article examines Athanasius’ argument in his work Contra Arianos, focusing on the reasons for the order in which he addresses the biblical texts he considers. While the choice of which texts to discuss is dictated by the need to consider those texts that were evidently important in the Arians’ own exegetical arguments, the order in which Athanasius discusses them derives from his desire to begin with biblical texts that clearly describe the whole sweep of biblical redemption. Texts such as Philippians 2:5-11 and Hebrews 1-2 describe in some detail the movements of humiliation and exaltation which the Son undergoes as he becomes man, and thus these texts demonstrate the need to apply any given assertion about the Son either to his eternal existence as God or to his temporal existence as man. In such texts, the literary context-the subject of the passage itself-explicitly describes the broader redemptive context. As a result, these texts constitute the starting point from which to develop interpretive principles applicable to other biblical texts in which the redemptive context is not as obvious. The article concludes with reflection on the significance of Athanasius’ starting point: the story of redemption begins not with the Gospels or even with Genesis 1, but with the eternal relationship of Father to Son, a relationship we were created to share and redeemed that we might share it anew.</abstract>

Abstract

Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary University of Cambridge) is the Robert E. Cooley Professor of Early Christianity at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, Charlotte, North Carolina, United States of America

Keywords

<article-title>Context, Context, Context: Athanasius’ Biblical Interpretation in Contra Arianos</article-title>

Context, Context, Context: Athanasius’ Biblical Interpretation in Contra Arianos

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> The Martyrdom of Polycarp narrates a martyrdom ‘according to the Gospel’. Numerous facets of the text echo the passion materials of the Gospels, and Polycarp is directly said to imitate Christ. Various scholars have discussed the imitatio Christi theme within the work. Such an approach focuses upon Christ as an exemplar of suffering to be imitated, through specific events of similar suffering. But the Christology of the Martyrdom of Polycarp is far richer than this focus alone. Jesus Christ is also the Son, Savior, eternal high priest, teacher, elector, king, and alternative to Caesar. As the sovereign , he actively coordinates events and chooses martyrs from among his servants. </abstract>

Faith Baptist Theological Seminary Loyola University Chicago) is Professor of New Testament and Early Christian Studies at Faith Baptist Theological Seminary in Ankeny, Iowa, United States of America.

<article-title>The Christology of the Martyrdom of Polycarp: Martyrdom as Both Imitation of Christ and Election by Christ</article-title>

The Christology of the Martyrdom of Polycarp: Martyrdom as Both Imitation of Christ and Election by Christ

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> Patristic scholars have commented on the early church’s common practice of drawing catechetical instructions from the creation account in Genesis. One of the recurring motifs in such discussions is the fathers’ use of the Adam-Christ typology with its soteriological and sacramental implications. The present study briefly explores this theme in John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria with particular reference to the baptism of Jesus and the theological challenge it posed to the early church: Did Jesus the Lord receive the Spirit at his baptism? Why did he need to be baptized? What is the relationship between the baptism of Jesus and Christian baptism? Both Cyril and Chrysostom make insightful use of the Adamic typology in this context as they discuss how Christ’s work restores fallen humanity from corruption and death that followed Adam’s sin. First, the study examines how the aforementioned fathers from two distinct traditions view the baptism of Jesus in the recovery of God’s grace that was lost in Adam’s fall. Second, the study will demonstrate that both Chrysostom and Cyril had much in common in their understanding of the transforming grace and work of the Spirit in refashioning the believer into a new creation at baptism. And third, it will be shown that there was a consensus on soteriological and sacramental perspectives among the Alexandrians and the Antiochenes.</abstract>

Associate Professor of Theology at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California, United States of America

<article-title>The First Adam-Second Adam Typology in John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria</article-title>

The First Adam-Second Adam Typology in John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria

{"article-title":"The First Adam-Second Adam Typology in John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> I argue that the bishop of Hippo taught sola fide, declarative justification, and the divine acceptance of sinners based on faith alone although he presented these pre-Reformational thoughts with strong emphasis on the necessity of growth in holiness (sanctification). Victorinus and Ambrosiaster already taught a Reformational doctrine of justification prior to Augustine in the fourthcentury Latin Christianity. Therefore, the argument that sola fide and justification as an event did not exist before the sixteenth-century Reformation, and these thoughts were foreign to Augustine is not tenable. For Augustine, justification includes imputed righteousness by Christ’s work, which can be appreciated by faith alone and inherent righteousness assisted by the Holy Spirit at the same time of forgiveness in justification. Nonetheless, the sole ground of the divine acceptance does not depend on inherent righteousness, which is real and to increase. The salvation of the confessing thief and the remaining sinfulness of humanity after justification show Augustine that faith alone is the ground of God’s acceptance of sinners. Augustine’s relatively less frequent discussion of sola fide and declarative justification may be due to his need to reject the antinomian abusers who appealed to the Pauline understanding of justification even when they do not have any intentional commitment to holiness after their confessions. Augustine’s teaching on double righteousness shows considerable theological affinity with Bucer and Calvin who are accustomed to speak of justification in terms of double righteousness. Following Augustine, both Bucer and Calvin speak of the inseparability and simultaneity of justification and sanctification. Like Augustine, Bucer also maintains a conceptual, not categorical, distinction between the two graces of God in their doctrines of justification.</abstract>

Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Assistant Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America

<article-title>Divine Acceptance of Sinners: Augustine’S Doctrine of Justification</article-title>

Divine Acceptance of Sinners: Augustine’S Doctrine of Justification

{"article-title":"Divine Acceptance of Sinners: Augustine\u2019S Doctrine of Justification"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> Over the past century many scholars have questioned integrity and composition of Justin Martyr’s Second Apology. One frequent criticism is that Justin quotes from a variety of sources in Greco- Roman philosophy, but never once quotes scripture. As a result scholars assume that the Second Apology reveals Justin’s real indebtedness to philosophy that diverges from his broader theological and scriptural concerns expressed in his other works. This article challenges these notions by arguing that scripture is essential Justin’s Second Apology and that the lack of any extended quotations of scripture is no basis to disparage his theological perspective. Careful analysis of Justin’s Second Apology demonstrates that he regularly appeals to the authority of scripture and provides numerous echoes and allusions to scriptural passages. Furthermore, in terms of his theological framework, these echoes and allusions are actually more important than mere quotations. They demonstrate that Justin does not simply quote scripture, but absorbs the scriptural content and applies it to particular theological debates and particular issues of Christian practice.</abstract>

(PhD 2012, University of St. Andrews) is Assistant Professor of Biblical Interpretation at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Fort Worth, Texas, United States of America

<article-title>Loftier Doctrine: The use of Scripture in Justin Martyr’S Second Apology</article-title>

Loftier Doctrine: The use of Scripture in Justin Martyr’S Second Apology

{"article-title":"Loftier Doctrine: The use of Scripture in Justin Martyr\u2019S Second Apology"}

<abstract><title style='display:none'>Abstract</title> Cyril of Alexandria was a prolific biblical commentator who underscored the meaning and relevance of the Old Testament for Christian theology by employing a typological method of interpretation. His exegetical concern was to demonstrate that everything associated with the old covenant- people, events, commandments, institutions-were types and shadows foretelling the ‘mystery of Christ’. The key to understanding the types of the Old Testament is to recognize their soteriological fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Throughout his exegetical writings, Cyril draws particular attention to the Jewish rite of circumcision, showing how the physical operation signifies the saving work of Christ through the Spirit. Cyril does not interpret circumcision in a monolithic sense, but derives multiple soteriological meanings from it. Insofar as circumcision represents a variety of saving realities for Cyril, it helps us understand his complex, multi-faceted doctrine of salvation.</abstract>

Assistant Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Toccoa Falls College in Toccoa Falls, Georgia, United States of America

Keywords 

<article-title>Circumcision And Soteriology In Cyril Of Alexandria’S Old Testament Commentaries</article-title>

Circumcision And Soteriology In Cyril Of Alexandria’S Old Testament Commentaries

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html><head> <meta http-equiv=content-type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta content="mshtml 6.00.6000.17104" name=generator></head> <body> Perichoresis is covered by the following services: <UL><LI>ATLA Religion Database</LI><LI>Base d’information bibliographique en patristique / Bibliographic Information Base in Patristics (BIBP)</LI><LI>CEJSH (The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities)</LI><LI>CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)</LI><LI>CNPIEC - cnpLINKer</LI><LI>DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)</LI><LI>EBSCO (relevant databases)</LI><LI>EBSCO Discovery Service</LI><LI>ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)</LI><LI>Google Scholar</LI><LI>Index Theologicus</LI><LI>J-Gate</LI><LI>JournalGuide</LI><LI>Microsoft Academic</LI><LI>Naviga (Softweco)</LI><LI>PhilPapers</LI><LI>Primo Central (ExLibris)</LI><LI>SCImago (SJR)</LI><LI>SCOPUS</LI><LI>Summon (ProQuest)</LI><LI>Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb</LI><LI>Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index</LI><LI>WorldCat (OCLC)</LI></UL></body></html>

<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en"> <html><head> <meta http-equiv=content-type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"> <meta content="mshtml 6.00.6000.17104" name=generator></head> <body> Perichoresis ist in den folgenden Services indiziert: <UL><LI>ATLA Religion Database</LI><LI>Base d’information bibliographique en patristique / Bibliographic Information Base in Patristics (BIBP)</LI><LI>CEJSH (The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities)</LI><LI>CNKI Scholar (China National Knowledge Infrastructure)</LI><LI>CNPIEC - cnpLINKer</LI><LI>DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)</LI><LI>EBSCO (relevant databases)</LI><LI>EBSCO Discovery Service</LI><LI>ERIH PLUS (European Reference Index for the Humanities and Social Sciences)</LI><LI>Google Scholar</LI><LI>Index Theologicus</LI><LI>J-Gate</LI><LI>JournalGuide</LI><LI>Microsoft Academic</LI><LI>Naviga (Softweco)</LI><LI>PhilPapers</LI><LI>Primo Central (ExLibris)</LI><LI>SCImago (SJR)</LI><LI>SCOPUS</LI><LI>Summon (ProQuest)</LI><LI>Ulrich's Periodicals Directory/ulrichsweb</LI><LI>Web of Science - Emerging Sources Citation Index</LI><LI>WorldCat (OCLC)</LI></UL></body></html>

<DIV align=left> Perichoresis is the theological journal of Emanuel University, the only government-accredited Baptist university in Europe. As an institution of higher learning, Emanuel University promotes a traditionally conservative and trinitarian theology, protestant and evangelical, which is reflected in the articles of the contributors who are part of its academic staff. Articles written by people who share different religious views are also welcome provided that they are scientifically argued and focused on academic issues. Perichoresis is published in conjunction with the "Ethics and Society" Research Centre, also part of Emanuel University, which allows for the dialogue between a specifically Protestant-Evangelical morality and the philosophy of contemporary society to take the shape of well-argued contributions for the journal. Perichoresis does not collect article processing charges (APCs) or submission charges. The journal has an editorial review policy for invited papers, as well as double blind peer review for non-invited articles. Why subscribe and read Perichoresis, the Theological Journal of Emanuel University, is the only Romanian Baptist academic review in the field of theology (and cognate subjects, such as philosophy, religious philosophy, ethics, and church history) published exclusively in English throughout Romania. As a scientific journal, Perichoresis has a double purpose: on the one hand, to introduce valuable academic contributions from the English-speaking world to the Romanian academy and, on the other hand, to promote Romanian theological research on the global academic market. Why submit Perichoresis focuses on academic papers in all fields of theology (biblical-exegetical, dogmatic-historical, and pastoral-practical) and is fully recognized by the Romanian National Council for Scientific Research as a B Category academic journal. Archiving Sciendo archives the contents of this journal in <A href="https://www.portico.org/">Portico</A> - digital long-term preservation service of scholarly books, journals and collections. Plagiarism Policy The editorial board is participating in a growing community of <A href="https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/">Similarity Check System's</A> users in order to ensure that the content published is original and trustworthy. Similarity Check is a medium that allows for comprehensive manuscripts screening, aimed to eliminate plagiarism and provide a high standard and quality peer-review process. </DIV>

Editor-in-Chief Corneliu C. Simuţ, Emanuel University, Romania Deputy/ Managing Editor Ciprian Simuţ, Emanuel University, Romania International Advisory Board Torrance Kirby, McGill University, Canada Frank A. James III, Biblical Theological Seminary, United States of America Hamilton Moore, Irish Baptist College, United Kingdom André A. Gazal, North Greenville University, United States of America Ábráhám Kovács, Debrecen Reformed Theological University, Hungary Joshua R. Farris, University of St. Mary of the Lake, United States of America Frank G. Bosman, Tilburg University, the Netherlands †James McMahon, Albert Ellis Institute, United States of America Editors Systematic Theology Paul Negruţ, Emanuel University, Romania Patristics and Classical Languages Marius D. Cruceru, Emanuel University, Romania Applied Theology Adrian Giorgiov, Emanuel University, Romania Old and New Testament Studies Aurelian Botica, Emanuel University, Romania Language Editors Eunicia Ile, Emanuel University, Romania Technical Editors Ciprian Simuţ, Emanuel University, Romania Contact <A href="mailto:perichoresis@emanuel.ro">perichoresis@emanuel.ro</A> Publisher De Gruyter Poland Bogumiła Zuga 32A Str. 01-811 Warsaw, Poland T: +48 22 701 50 15

<DIV align=left> Please submit your manuscripts to Perichoresis via email to: <A href="mailto:perichoresis@emanuel.ro">perichoresis@emanuel.ro</A> Open Access Statement The journal is an Open Access journal that allows a free unlimited access to all its contents without any restrictions upon publication to all users. <A href="https://sciendo-parsed-data-feed.s3.eu-central-1.amazonaws.com/PERC/Open_Access_License.pdf">Open Access License</A> </DIV>

Cite Score

European Reference Index for the Humanities

SCImago Journal Rank

Source Normalized Impact per Paper

Volume 12 (2014): Issue 2 (October 2014) Special issue title: Exploring the Contours of Patristic Thought. Studies on Exegesis, Christology, and Soteriology in the Early Church

Volume 13 (2015): Issue 1 (June 2015) Issue Title: The Value of Controversy. Defining Early Modern Religion through Ritual and Writing. Issue Editor: Angela Ranson

Issues

Journal & Issues

Perichoresis

Search

Volume 12 (2014): Issue 2 (October 2014)
Special issue title: Exploring the Contours of Patristic Thought. Studies on Exegesis, Christology, and Soteriology in the Early Church

Journal & Issue Details

Search

Articles

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo

Issues

Journal & Issues

Perichoresis

Search

Volume 12 (2014): Issue 2 (October 2014)Special issue title: Exploring the Contours of Patristic Thought. Studies on Exegesis, Christology, and Soteriology in the Early Church

Journal & Issue Details

Search

Articles

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo

Volume 12 (2014): Issue 2 (October 2014)
Special issue title: Exploring the Contours of Patristic Thought. Studies on Exegesis, Christology, and Soteriology in the Early Church