jodiemcneill.com

Both Barth and Moltmann claim that the resurrection is at the heart of the Christian message. Yet, both theologians are not prepared to place the resurrection in the same category as history, either in an attempt to avoid the lifelessness of relegating it to a past event, or due to claims of its the lack of admissibility as evidence in the court of science. This denial of the objectivity leads to deeper misunderstandings of the resurrection. Moltmann claims that the resurrection is a process not a fact, and thus is the means by which God works through history to liberate his fallen world from the effects of sin. Barth claims that the resurrection adds nothing to our reconciliation, but rather is the means by which God revealed his finished work to the first disciples. Both positions fail to sufficiently emphasise the objective revivification of Jesus Christ that was necessary for him to succeed in his mission by conquering death and the devil, being exalted from his humiliation.

Read the full theological paper here

For nearly the entire history of Christendom it has been held that God does not have feelings. Yet, how is it that this could be maintained despite the frequent references in Scripture to his emotions? And for what reason was it so emphatically held? The suffering of the 20th century has led to a dramatic reversal of this monolithic doctrine. Yet, is this simply a modern reaction, or is there validity in accepting a radical revision to this view of the character of God?

To read this article click here.