The Theological Journal of Emanuel University

Perichoresis

PerichoresisONL

<abstract>
<title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>
This article explores a probable motivation for the insertion of the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) in the Gospel of John in consideration of the motive of ‘living/life’ used by the gospel writer. Using John 8:12 as the starting point of this investigation, the article focuses on the warning to the Israelites against idolatry with specific attention to the warning against worshiping the sun, the moon, and the stars (Deuteronomy 4:15–20). It also deals with the Feast of Tabernacles, which is the direct context in which Jesus declared that he is the light of the world. The water ceremony also plays a central role in understanding the bigger picture that unfolds, as well as the Early Church’s struggle against heretical Christological teachings of who Jesus was with regard to his human nature and his divine nature.
</abstract>

Abstract

Keywords

<article-title>The <italic>Pericope Adulterae</italic> (John 7:53–8:11): Jesus’ Answer, an Offer of Life to Suffering Women</article-title>

The  (John 7:53–8:11): Jesus’ Answer, an Offer of Life to Suffering Women

<abstract>
<title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>
In a recent article, William C. Roach (2019) offers a presuppositional critique, which is inspired by Carl F. H. Henry, of Michael R. Licona’s (2010) so-called <italic>New Historiographical Approach</italic> (NHA) to defending the resurrection. More precisely, Roach attempts to defend six key theses, namely, that (1) the NHA is an evidentialist approach, (2) the NHA is a deductive argument, (3) the NHA is an insufficient approach, (4) believers and unbelievers share no common ground, (5) the NHA does not embrace a correspondence theory of truth, and (6) the presupposition of divine revelation is necessary for apologetics. We respond to each of Roach’s arguments, respectively.
</abstract>

<article-title>On Roach’s Presuppositional Response to Licona’s <italic>New Historiographical Approach</italic></article-title>

On Roach’s Presuppositional Response to Licona’s 

<abstract>
<title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>
Since its enactment in AD 313, the Edict of Milan (sometimes referred to as ‘the Edict of Toleration’), an edict that freed Christianity from empire-wide persecution, Constantine’s declaration has received a significant amount of attention within Christendom. Most of the discussion has centered on Constantine’s conversion, the precursor to the actual edict (whether the conversion was real or insincere, as some have suggested), with many suggesting that Constantine was acting more as a politician than a Christian. While this line of inquiry is legitimate, perhaps a better approach to the question may be more helpful to present-day Christians. That is, while it is logical to deduce that every prudent politician will ignore the largest religious movement in his/her time at his/her own peril, Christians of every age will be better served if they critically evaluate their reception of each and every major policy that is clearly aimed at their benefit. With this background, this paper will attempt to critically examine the reception of Constantine’s edict by the Church in the years immediately following its enactment. Two early exhibits will be brought to bear here: the Donatist controversy and the Arian controversy. In so doing, the thesis that while Christians had every reason to celebrate the enactment of the edict, down the road, an uncritical adoption of the emperor’s policies and favors towards the church opened a door for an unhealthy marriage between earthly powers and the church that proved detrimental in the ensuing years, will be defended. As such, the Church’s reception of the Edict of Milan continues to be a lesson to Christians of every age in their relationship with the political leadership of their time.
</abstract>

<article-title>A Critical Examination of the Church’s Reception of Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan of AD 313</article-title>

A Critical Examination of the Church’s Reception of Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan of AD 313

<abstract>
<title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>
Gregory of Nyssa (cca 335–cca 395), one of the three Cappadocian Fathers, introduces the creation of human beings on the basis of <italic>Genesis</italic> 1:26–27 and interprets these two biblical verses as a ‘double creation’—the first of which is ‘in the image of God’ (Genesis 1:26) and secondly as male or female (Genesis 1:27). His concept of ‘double creation’ is obviously inspired by Philo of Alexandria, a first-century Jewish philosopher, but Gregory points out the condition of human beings before and after committing the sin, in contrast to Philo’s conception. While Philo distinguishes between the first and the second creation of the entirety of nature, Gregory only relates the double creation to humans. Thus plants as nourishment for humans, according to <italic>Genesis</italic>, must be matched with the second creation of humans. In the resurrection, when the ‘first creation’ of human nature will be reached, human beings with their restored bodies will only feed on immaterial, spiritual food—the Word of God.
</abstract>

<article-title>Nourishment in Paradise and After Resurrection: Double Creation According to Gregory of Nyssa</article-title>

Nourishment in Paradise and After Resurrection: Double Creation According to Gregory of Nyssa

<abstract>
<title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>
Fear is a social phenomenon that develops in people facing a crisis, such as a pandemic. For instance, the entire world is currently exposed to Covid-19 pandemic, causing great fear. In the Bible, Jesus’ disciples were terrified of sinking in their boat during a storm. Although these two scenarios are different, the response is the same. Fear produces stress and anxiety disorders when not appropriately managed. This paper examines the causes of fear and how they can be addressed. Specifically, the study involves determining the cause of fear and proposing a strategy based on Hope, as described by Erich in the book <italic>Revolution of Hope</italic> which positively correlates with building fortitude and endurance. Surrendering or persisting is a dialectical choice, though theology fear does not give chances. Instead, Humans only survive by depending on God. This research was involved literature reviews by utilizing reference sources, including books, journal articles, and other scientific content.
</abstract>

<article-title>Theology of Hope Amidst the World’s Fears</article-title>

Theology of Hope Amidst the World’s Fears

{"article-title":"Theology of Hope Amidst the World\u2019s Fears"}

<abstract>
<title style='display:none'>Abstract</title>
One issue that sometimes produces mistrust of God in the life of a Christian is God’s perceived silence when He allows a trial to enter the believer’s life—especially when the believer has been faithfully praying that God would not allow it and there is no evident reason why God would not answer this prayer. This paper examines the nature of trust and some key reasons why it is difficult to trust God. It then argues that accepting the truth of human libertarian freedom and divine middle knowledge provides a powerful basis for thinking that God has meticulous providential control over the world without implicating God in evil, and this can help believers to trust God when they face trials and wrestle with His silence and apparent unresponsiveness to prayer.
</abstract>

<article-title>Molinism’s Value in Easing Mistrust of God Stemming From Suffering and Divine Silence</article-title>

Molinism’s Value in Easing Mistrust of God Stemming From Suffering and Divine Silence

<!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 19 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021) Miscellaneous Theological Studies: Biblical, Apologetic, Historical, Patristic, Theodicean, and Systematic. Issue Editor: Corneliu C. Simuţ

Volume 19 (2021): Issue 4 (December 2021)

Volume 20 (2022): Issue 1 (March 2022) Confessing the Trinity. The Trinitarianism of Particular Baptists, 1640s-1840s. Issue Editor: Michael A. G. Haykin

Volume 19 (2021): Issue 3 (July 2021) Islam and Islamism. The Challenge for Modern Liberal Democracies. Issue Editors: Raphael Lataster, Rumy Hasan

Ausgaben

Zeitschriften und Ausgaben

Perichoresis

Suche

Volumen 19 (2021): Heft 4 (December 2021)
Miscellaneous Theological Studies: Biblical, Apologetic, Historical, Patristic, Theodicean, and Systematic. Heft Editor: Corneliu C. Simuţ

Details zu Zeitschrift und Ausgabe

Suche

Artikel

Planen Sie Ihre Fernkonferenz mit Scienceendo

Ausgaben

Zeitschriften und Ausgaben

Perichoresis

Suche

Volumen 19 (2021): Heft 4 (December 2021)Miscellaneous Theological Studies: Biblical, Apologetic, Historical, Patristic, Theodicean, and Systematic. Heft Editor: Corneliu C. Simuţ

Details zu Zeitschrift und Ausgabe

Suche

Artikel

Planen Sie Ihre Fernkonferenz mit Scienceendo

Volumen 19 (2021): Heft 4 (December 2021)
Miscellaneous Theological Studies: Biblical, Apologetic, Historical, Patristic, Theodicean, and Systematic. Heft Editor: Corneliu C. Simuţ