Can you answer these questions?

#1: Vanhoozer states,  “God’s revelatory words always accompany God’s redemptive deeds.” (in McDermott, 44). This seems similar to the claims made by Cone and González about how revelation and/or scripture is correctly interpreted. Is this assessment correct? What are Vanhoozer’s commitments when it comes to scripture and its authority? (e.g. How does he understand inerrancy and infallibility?) Compare Vanhoozer’s position with either Cone’s or González’s (within the scope of the assigned reading). Which do you think is more satisfactory and why?


#2: Ellen Charry attempts to define parameters as to what counts as Christian Theological Experience (CTE). She identifies parameters against which an experience can be tested to see if it can qualify as a source of knowledge of the God which Christians profess. Why does she undertake this project? What is she worried about with respect to experience? Does she clearly identify what the parameters are? If so, what are they? Does she ultimately succeed in offering a helpful and constructive proposal as to how we out to think about Christian theological experiences?


#3: “The God of Abraham and the God of the philosophers are alien, and great harm is done by any attempt to bring them together.” (Holmes, in Webster, 57).  “Any God whose existence can be proven is an idol.” (González, 90). What reasons do Holmes and González give for their distrust of the philosophical method of discerning the attributes of God? What does each think about the ability of language and reason (or natural theology) to “reach” or adequately describe God? Does Marshall’s method of using liturgical tradition to identify the God Christians worship provide a way of addressing Holmes and Gonzáles concerns?


#4: Drawing on the selections from Sanders and González, identify what is meant by the distinction between the economic Trinity and the immanent Trinity and why it became a dominant framework in 20th Century theology. Sanders references "Rahner's Axiom" which states that "the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity and vice versa." According to Sanders (or other sources in our readings), why did Rahner insist on the identity between the two? Sanders claims that if Rahner's axiom is taken seriously, this would lead to a denial of the immanent Trinity apart from salvation history (in McDermott, 41). What is Sanders’ reasoning for making this assertion? Does Sanders’ claim, if correct, also lead to a denial of the immanent Trinity? Is Sanders saying Rahner’s position is really a form of modalism? How would Athanasius respond to this conversation?




If you can't answer these questions, then I don't have time to deal with you right now, because I have a midterm tomorrow and I have to be able to write a full-fledged essay on one of these topics in 11 hours.  Please check back later for your daily dose of wit and candor.