<DIV align=justify> 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. <A>Similarity Check Plagiarism Screening System</A> The editorial board is participating in a growing community of Similarity Check System's 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. Detailed description of the Similarity Check System can be found at: <A href="https://www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/">www.crossref.org/services/similarity-check/</A> </DIV>

The Theological Journal of Emanuel University

Perichoresis

In this paper, we examine the concepts ‘destination’, ‘revelation’, ‘foreknowledge’, ‘will’, ‘transmission’, ‘motion’, and ‘grace’, as they appear in Gregory Palamas’ treatise <italic>De opera-tionibus divinis</italic>. According to the Christian theologian, these terms correspond to specific ways of God’s manifestation, i.e. His natural and supernatural revelation. Since they illuminate God’s energies, but not His essence, they are participated by the beings of the natural world. The first two terms mainly refer to a general version of the revelation, while the third contains epistemological elements as well and the fourth contains elements referring also to the divine will. The fifth term condenses the content of the afore-mentioned terms seen as an <italic>ad extra</italic> bestowment. By means of these concepts, Palamas preserves the ontological difference between the supernatural and the natural, while, at the same time, he defines the exact way of their communion, which excludes pantheism. He introduces into the divine realm the state of distinction, which, however, does not restrict its unity at all. He accepts the development of a metaphysical multitude, which is regulated by the divine uniqueness. What emerges is not a kind of Neoplatonic polytheism, but the infinite richness of the divine existence. Thus, Palamas steadily moves within the tradition founded by Ps.-Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, John Damascene, and George Pachymeres, the main characteristic of which is ontological monism. This is a tradition which formulated common places as to the content, the concepts and the relevant methodology, while the distinction between negative and affirmative theology is dominant.

Abstract

Keywords

<article-title>Aspects of the Revelation of the Divine in St. Gregory Palamas’ Treatise <italic>De Operationibus Divinis</italic></article-title>

Aspects of the Revelation of the Divine in St. Gregory Palamas’ Treatise 

In this study, we are discussing the terms ‘idea’, ‘eidos’, and ‘logos’ in George Pachymeres’ <italic>Paraphrase</italic> of Dionysius the Areopagite’s <italic>De divinis nominibus</italic>. This is a very important topic, at least from the ontological point of view. Many questions come to the fore, such as whether the three terms are as to their meaning the same, whether their non-autonomous character is mentioned, what their relation with the divine energies is and whether and how they are connected to the divine will. The structure of our study is based on the fact that the terms come from the Platonic, Aristotelian, and Patristic tradition respectively. Considering that both God and the created beings are objective realities, which the human consciousness is asked to investigate, we attempt to extrapolate ontology to the gnoseological level as well. I.e. we attempt to explain the matter of ‘universals’ relying on two questions. Specifically, from the ontological point of view: do they exist independently? And, from the gnoseological point of view: what is their relation to the human thinking?

<article-title>Aspects of the Theory on ‘Ideas’, ‘Eide’ and ‘Logoi’ of Beings in George Pachymeres</article-title>

Aspects of the Theory on ‘Ideas’, ‘Eide’ and ‘Logoi’ of Beings in George Pachymeres

All the major sixteenth-century Reformers knew something about the early church and used the early Fathers. As an Augustinian monk and professor of theology, however, Luther’s knowledge and use of the great Father was both deeper and more nuanced. While indebted to Augustine, Luther went further in defining what it meant for theology to be ‘scriptural’. He saw history as the interaction of God’s two regimes, and the church of every age as weak and flawed but conquering through the cross of Christ. This led him to a free use of the Fathers without being constrained to always agree with or imitate them. The comfort he received from the Apostles’ Creed in particular led him to appreciate the early creedal statements, and so it was natural for him to use them as models when formulating the new confessions required in his own day. The sixteenth-century heritage of written confessions of faith is a heritage under-appreciated but still vital for church bodies today.1

<article-title>The Daughter of the Word: What Luther Learned from the Early Church and the Fathers</article-title>

The Daughter of the Word: What Luther Learned from the Early Church and the Fathers

John Calvin drew from patristic authors in a selective manner. His preference for the theological perspectives of Augustine is readily evident. Nevertheless, while he resonated with the doctrine of Augustine, he touted the interpretive and homiletic labors of John Chrysostom. Even though Calvin’s <italic>Institutes of the Christian Religion</italic> critiqued Chrysostom’s understanding of grace and free will, the Antiochene bishop is the most frequently referenced patristic author within Calvin’s commentaries. Calvin composed a preface to a projected edition of Chrysostom’s homilies (<italic>Praefatio in Chrysostomi Homilias</italic>). This preface argued for the necessity of reaching the general public with secondary aids along with the scriptures, explained Calvin’s esteem for Chrysostom’s homilies above other patristic texts, and acknowledged the theological dissimilarities that separated his views from Chrysostom’s. The <italic>Praefatio</italic>’s assessments reveal Calvin’s own hermeneutical, pastoral, and theological priorities. Calvin’s evaluations of Chrysostom and the other fathers are a window into his own interpretive concerns, homiletical aims, and dogmatic emphases.

<article-title>Calvin’s Preface to Chrysostom’s Homilies as a Window into Calvin’s Own Priorities and Perspectives</article-title>

Calvin’s Preface to Chrysostom’s Homilies as a Window into Calvin’s Own Priorities and Perspectives

This article will examine the role the first four ecumenical councils played in the controversial enterprises of John Jewel (1522-71) as well as two later early modern English theologians, Richard Hooker (1553-1600) and George Carleton (1559-1628). In three different polemical contexts, each divine portrays the councils as representing definitive catholic consensus not only for doctrine, but also ecclesiastical order and governance. For all three of these theologians, the manner in which the first four ecumenical councils were summoned and conducted, as well as their enactments touching the Church’s life provided patristic norms for its rightful administration. Jewel, Hooker, and Carleton each argued that the English Protestant national Church as defined by the Elizabethan Settlement exemplified a faithful recovery of patristic conciliar ecclesiastical government as an essential component in England’s overall endeavor to return to the true Church Catholic. Jewel employed these councils in order to impeach the Council of Trent’s (1545-63) status as a general council, and to justify the transfer of the authority of general councils to national and regional synods under the direction of godly princes. Hooker proposes the recovery of general councils as a means of achieving Catholic consensus within a Christendom divided along national and confessional lines while at the same time employing the pronouncements of the first four general councils to uphold the authoritative patristic and catholic warrant for institutions and practices retained by the Elizabethan Church. Finally, amid the controversy surrounding the Oath of Allegiance during the reign of James VI/1 (r. 1603-25), George Carleton devoted his extensive examination of these councils to refute papal claims to coercive authority with which to depose monarchs as an extension of excommunication. In so doing, Carleton relocates this ‘coactive jurisdiction’ in the ecclesiastical authority divinely invested in the monarch, making the ruler the source of conciliar authority, and arguably of catholic consensus itself.

<article-title>’That Ancient and Christian Liberty’: Early Church Councils in Reformation Anglican Thought</article-title>

’That Ancient and Christian Liberty’: Early Church Councils in Reformation Anglican Thought

Anabaptists have long been thought to have been ‘biblicists’ and shunned reading patristic literature. But a close analysis of the debates Anabaptists had with Magisterial Reformers shows that the Anabaptists developed an extensive history of baptism using church fathers. They attempted to show that adult baptism was the norm in the earliest centuries of the church and that infant baptism was the innovation away from the Bible. This debate was about who had inherited the biblical faith around baptism.

<article-title>’Lest I Make You a Tertullian’: Early Anabaptist Baptismal Narratives and Patristics</article-title>

’Lest I Make You a Tertullian’: Early Anabaptist Baptismal Narratives and Patristics

This paper offers a concise overview of the impact made by Scottish evangelicalism of the Free Church of Scotland on the theology, piety and practice of Hungarian Reformed faith within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. They planted a kind of piety that was foreign, at least in its language and expressions, to most of the Hungarian Reformed people until the arrival of Scottish missionaries in 1841. Their conduct of practical Christianity, <italic>praxis pietatis</italic> materialised itself in Christian evangelism and social action. In this paper the focus is on the period between 1865 and 1914. To demonstrate the nature and form of this impact, first the paper outlines some key features of Scottish evangelicalism. Then, it investigates the theological and ecclesiastical impact of Scottish evangelicalism made through the establishment of voluntary societies and examines influence on the piety and praxis of Reformed faith in Hungary.

<article-title>Is Christ Proclaimed to Christians? The Impact of Scottish Evangelicalism on Hungarian Theology, Piety, and Praxis (1841-1945)</article-title>

Is Christ Proclaimed to Christians? The Impact of Scottish Evangelicalism on Hungarian Theology, Piety, and Praxis (1841-1945)

<!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>

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

Please submit your manuscripts to Perichoresis via email to: <A href="mailto:perichoresis@emanuel.ro">perichoresis@emanuel.ro</A>

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.

Cite Score

European Reference Index for the Humanities

SCImago Journal Rank

Source Normalized Impact per Paper

Volume 17 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019) Patristic Thought in Byzantine and Protestant Theology. From Gregory Palamas and George Pachymeres to Luther, Calvin, Anglicans, and Anabaptists. Editor: Andre A. Gazal

Volume 17 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)

Volume 18 (2020): Issue 1 (March 2020) Baptist and Reformed Theologies of Vision and Deification (2). Constructive Issues in Contemporary Research. Editors: Joshua R. Farris and Ryan A. Brandt

Volume 17 (2019): Issue 3 (July 2019) Contemporary Evangelicals on Carl F. H. Henry’s Theology. From Philosophy, Evangelism, and Apologetics to Education, History, and Practice. Editor: Robert W. Talley

Ausgaben

Zeitschriften und Ausgaben

Perichoresis

Suche

Volume 17 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)
Patristic Thought in Byzantine and Protestant Theology. From Gregory Palamas and George Pachymeres to Luther, Calvin, Anglicans, and Anabaptists. Editor: Andre A. Gazal

Details zu Zeitschrift und Ausgabe

Suche

Artikel

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo

Ausgaben

Zeitschriften und Ausgaben

Perichoresis

Suche

Volume 17 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)Patristic Thought in Byzantine and Protestant Theology. From Gregory Palamas and George Pachymeres to Luther, Calvin, Anglicans, and Anabaptists. Editor: Andre A. Gazal

Details zu Zeitschrift und Ausgabe

Suche

Artikel

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo

Volume 17 (2019): Issue 4 (December 2019)
Patristic Thought in Byzantine and Protestant Theology. From Gregory Palamas and George Pachymeres to Luther, Calvin, Anglicans, and Anabaptists. Editor: Andre A. Gazal