34116 research outputs found
Sort by
Mechanics and Dimensions of Divine Forgiveness
No full textCentral to Christianity is the doctrine of forgiveness, yet no unified understanding or coherent concept of forgiveness exists in Christian discourse. Understandings of the process of forgiveness invariably depend on denominational traditions, beliefs, values, and practices (Worthington et al. 2019). A point of convergence is the view that forgiveness relates to the physical or psychological harm or wrongdoing inflicted by one person on another (Słowikowski 2020:56). There is also agreement that forgiveness is of different types: interpersonal, intrapersonal, and God-to-human (Fincham 2022; Maranges and Fincham 2024; Shah et al. 2024). The first two types constitute human (earthly) forgiveness, and the third Divine. Group and organizational or societal forgiveness are included as other types of human forgiveness (Worthington et al. 2019; Houwelingen et al. 2022; Haikola 2023a). Although interconnected, the various types of forgiveness are often studied in a silo-like fashion (Krause 2017:129; Fincham and May 2022). Besides, extant research focuses lopsidedly on the benefits of forgiveness.
Disagreement exists about the origins of forgiveness studies. Worthington et al. (2019) say that Christian writers have written about forgiveness for centuries (see Haikola 2023a:693), while others suggest that forgiveness research is of recent vintage (Słowikowski 2020:56; Fincham and May 2023:175; Haikola 2023b). Conspicuous in the forgiveness discourse is the relative absence of systematic research on Divine forgiveness, the most consequential type (Couenhoven 2010:166; Chen et al. 2019:650;
Fincham 2022:451; Fincham and May 2023:174). This might be due to the failure of many Christians to critically consider the concept of forgiveness itself (Morales-Gudmundsson 2007:18; Olafsson 2007:34). That failure confirms a central thesis of this article: that many in Christendom intuitively assume that God automatically and unconditionally grants forgiveness. It might also be due to the general publication apathy shown by mainstream publishers and media toward works of biblical scholarship in contemporary society. Moberly (2024:273) states that “secularized Western culture has generally lost interest in the Bible (other than as a source of certain images and tropes).”
Our article focuses on Divine forgiveness. The importance of religion and spirituality in many people’s lives means that novel perspectives are needed to inspire deeper conversations and enhance understanding of this key soteriological and human behavioural theme. Urgency attaches, considering the unknowability of the timing of death and the close of probation, as well as the divergence in understanding of Divine forgiveness among Christian denominations (Worthington et al. 2019:1). We enter into the arena with some clarity and certainty, doing so by introducing the concept of Discretionary Divine Forgiveness [DDF], in opposition to the idea of automatic Divine forgiveness espoused by Eleonore Stump (2018). We present a model of the mechanics of DDF as a heuristic to stimulate research in this key area of Theism, Christology, missiology, and mission. The article fills a gap in Christian theological discourse, by distinguishing itself as an original, first known, and potentially seminal work to examine the processes entailed in Divine forgiveness.
Grounding the article is the thesis that irrespective of its timing or circumstances, Divine forgiveness is entirely discretionary. Forgiveness is a gift graciously and mercifully given to sinners by God. An even more radical state of affairs holds in DDF thought: God does not always automatically forgive sin even if a person is remorsefully contrite, because God owes no one any duty of forgiveness. Neither does anyone have any right of forgiveness with him. These overarching claims emanate from several propositions the first and foremost of which states that all Divine acts are manifestations of God’s absolute discretion. God is his own supreme authority, and he acts as he decides. Divine action is intrinsic to God’s sovereign, underived authority (Job 38; Rom 9:19-21). There is no power or authority higher than God, therefore, Divine decisions are final and unappealable. When God covenanted with Abraham and promised to make him the father of nations, he swore by himself because there was no authority greater than him to swear by (Gen 22:16-17; Heb 6:13-16).
We pursue our goal in several steps. Immediately following this introduction is a description of the principle applied in our analysis. We then lay a foundation by foraying into hamartiology, because no analysis of forgiveness would be complete without an examination of the phenomenon (sin) that necessitates Divine intervention. Next, we identify key differences between earthly and heavenly forgiveness, and follow it with a comparison of the participants and their respective roles in the transgression– forgiveness dynamic. Thereafter, we discuss the DDF concept that birthed this work. We then conclude the article but not before considering the practical implications of DDF. Its relatability and practicality are the strengths and promise of DDF, but the work as a whole extends beyond theological philosophizing. It has wider implications for Christ-like living, soteriology, and mission. It is to the analytic principle we now turn
Developing BibleOL-Based Biblical Greek Exercises for Students with the Help of TextFabric
No full text
Failure of a Ritual Procession (2 Samuel 6; 1 Chronicles 13) and Its Implications Regarding the Nature of God
No full textThe present article investigates the cause(s) and implications of a biblical instance of ritual failure: the failure of the first ritual procession by which King David attempted to bring the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem. Analysis of the descriptions of this procession includes comparison and contrast with accounts or instructions regarding other ancient Near Eastern ritual processions and with the biblical descriptions of David’s second successful procession. The failure of David’s first procession highlighted the awesomeness of Israel’s deity and the importance of strictly following his instructions
Mosaic of meaning: A redemptive reading of Genesis 3:16 in light of its biblical contexts and inter-texts
No full textThis paper provides a fresh redemptive reading of Gen 3:16, viewed in light of a whole mosaic of canonical contexts and intertextual connections. These include, among others, the full equality without hierarchy of man and woman in Gen 1–2; the paradigmatic nature of egalitarian marriage with mutual submission between husband and wife in Gen 2:18–24; the rupture of husband–wife relationships in Gen 3:6–13; the covenant lawsuit of Gen 3:14–19; the meaning of mashal in Gen 1:16–18 and 4:7; the meaning of teshuqah and grammatical–syntactical parallels and contrasts in Gen 4:7 and Song 7:11 (Eng. v. 10); the redemptive aspects of the woman and her seed in Gen 3:15; and the intertextual connections with New Testament passages. Considering this mosaic of contexts and connections, it is suggested that Gen 3:16 must be viewed only in reference to marriage; it is never broadened to include man–woman gender relationships in general. In Gen 3:16, God provides a temporary, remedial measure to preserve harmony and unity in a ruptured marriage relationship, with an implicit call for husbands and wives to return as soon as possible from the mashal–teshuqah relationship to the paradigmatic egalitarian marriage set forth in Gen 2:24. This return to the divine creation ideal for marriage is empowered by the redemptive promises of Gen 3:15, confirmed in the reversal of the Gen 3:16 marital relationship articulated in the Song of Songs—the inspired commentary on Gen 1–3—particularly Song 7:11 [Eng. v. 10]), and reaffirmed in the consistent citations of Gen 2:24 (and not Gen 3:16) in the NT (Matt 19:5, 6; Eph 5:31)
Economic Interconnections: Proportional Effects of China’s Tax Policies on Asian GDP Growth
No full textA Brief History of Managing for Quality: The Journey Continues
No full textManaging for quality represents a series of developments and initiatives aimed at enhancing product and service quality. It has undergone significant developments throughout history, with various methodologies and approaches emerging to enhance product and service quality. Throughout its history, the quality movement has evolved in response to changing industrial landscapes, emerging methodologies, and the ongoing pursuit of excellence in products and services. The movement continues to influence various industries, with a strong emphasis on customer satisfaction, continuous improvement, and the integration of quality into organizational culture
