All things are symbolic for humanity because we are a people who need language and codes in order process meaning and significance. Revelation is more than just an event in history; it is God's self-communication and is symbolic so that humanity can perceive the significance. Consider the symbolic revelation of the Incarnation and the Liturgy that uses experience, reflection, and perception of God's self.

The relationship between Judaism and Christianity was the true issue of contention. Christianity was a Jewish sect that infuriated the Jewish leaders. With followers from Jewish and Gentile communities, questions arose about the requirements for Gentile converts. The writings of Paul take this crisis head on.

8. Explain the difference between Stanley Hauerwas's reading of the Sermon on the Mount and that of Reinhold Niebuhr.

Hauerwas described the beatitudes as "indicative" because they indicated the nature of the Kingdom of God by renewing a covenant. Motivated by God's righteous action, the community of Israel was responsible for making God's virtues real in history. Niebuhr counters that the beatitudes are "imperative" and issue the commands for ethical interpersonal behavior. Because Neibuhr sees the beatitudes as imperative for interpersonal and not communal duty, he is comfortable suggesting that the imperatives do not apply to nations and states, justifying the use of force in order to resist evil and protect the innocent.

9. Define "docetic" or "docetism". Explain why Ernst Kasemann believes that the Christology of his teacher, Rudolf Bultmann, leads to docetism.

"Docetism" is a heretical position that does not recognize Christ's full humanity. Bultmann believed that the writings of Scripture were so colored by faith in the Risen Christ that we could/need not find a pure historical Jesus in the narrative. The Christ of faith was the only concern. Kasemann argues that the historical Jesus is possible/necessary and is not contrary to faith. After all, Jesus was a Jew in first century Palestine!

Marcion rejected the Old Testament and Christian Scriptures that dealt with issues of Judaism. In order to explain the presence of evil in the world, he argued that there were two gods, one evil and one good. The evil god was responsible for creation and the good god only began to intervene in history through Jesus Christ. Humanity was not being restored to what was originally intended, but invited into a new and fresh covenant with the good god.

The basic difference revolves around the perception of God and his intention. The Gnostics claimed many random gods and no good purpose in the existence of creation. Irenaeus countered that "God is one" and had a good plan for creation. The Gnostics named the dualities of Creator vs. Redeemer, material vs. spiritual, elite vs. common people, the Old vs. the New Testament while Irenaeus saw the both/and unity of Creator and Redeemer, material and spiritual, unity of all humanity, unity of the human person, and the unity of the Old and New Testament.

Clement was a cultured man who emphasized tolerance and made use of Hellenistic philosophy. He went so far as to encourage his wealthy student that is was possible to live as a Christian and have money as long as one did not value it too highly. To the contrary, Tertullian wanted Christians to have little to do with society. He is famous for the line, "What has Athens to do with Rome?" and resisted any effort to mix philosophy with the explanation of Christian beliefs.

Origen argued for the pre-existence of all souls with God in eternity prior to creation. Creation was actually the fall of those souls from the state of eternity. Purification of the soul is working back to that original state. Maximus rejected this view on the grounds there was always a division between the Creator and Creation, Creation is a result of God's will--not a fall, humanity's being and freedom reflect God's being and freedom, and immortal life is rest in God--not a return. Maximus also argues that on can see God's love is in all creation and we share in God most when we are acting in Christ's mission.

Ignatius was replying to the Gnostic notion of privileged knowledge. How could the Christians respond when the Gnostics claimed to possess a secret knowledge? Ignatius argued that the bishops were appropriate voices for the Christians because they inherited the authority of Christ. A few years later Irenaeus would articulate that the authority passed from one successor to the next beginning with Christ and the apostles and moving down the generations. These few were the ones most intimately connected with anything Christ himself would have passed down, contrary to the Gnostic claim of knowledge.

Pelagius was concerned with Christian morality and so emphasized that we are responsible for our sinful and our good actions. According to his view God, through Christ, had reestablished the capacity for people to do good and helps them along the way. Moral behavior is thereby a necessary human effort and responsibility.

Augustine had personal experience with being trapped in his own sinful behavior. He did not believe that the will was capable of choosing moral behavior on it own, so he disagreed with Pelagius and said that God's grace alone saves and enables morality. Grace actually acts to transform the will. Otherwise Jesus would have only come as a teacher, imparting knowledge that would allow the will to choose the good.

The Romans blamed Christianity for causing the fall of Rome by diverting the empire away from proper worship of their deities. Augustine argued that humanity is divided by two cities: the city of man and the city of God. The city of man is examined in worldly terms of material and temporal things, leaving it prey to humanity--Rome was never an eternal city. The city of God, on the other hand, is divine and eternal. The distinguishing difference between the two cities is the way you order love: for self or for the common good. The fall of Rome is evidence of the natural happenings of the city of man whose love is disordered.

Augustine's theory of evil had to be consistent with his concept of one good God and the assumption that nothing in Creation is evil of itself. He argued that evil was the privation of the good that ought to be present. Sin is the result of this instability. We sin when we choose a disordered ranking of good and fail to see the order of creation.

In battling Pelagius, Augustine affirmed that God's grace and not personal merit saved a person. According to Scripture, not everyone was saved. That must mean that God has chosen save some and leave others (predestination). The grace that God chose to give to some is a gift is not unfairly given because ultimately everyone deserves punishment for their sinfulness. Preservative grace is the gift of God that enables those who are chosen to remain in a state of grace and grow in the Spirit. If nothing else, predestination and preservative grace prevented Christians from being overly prideful in their reception of grace--it was the work and grace of God alone.

Aquinas and Clement both called for tolerance of non-Christian ideas and language with the hope that those ideas could be adapted and used to explain the Christian faith. They maintained that there are things that knowledge can comprehend, but such knowledge is not quite perfect. Similar to the concept of grace perfecting nature, Aquinas argued that faith perfects reason, making us adhere to God for all things. The intellect is capable of trust, grasping content, maturing, and becoming humbled when transformed by faith.

Realism was the backdrop of philosophical systems holding to the concept of forms or ideals. The thought was that there exists an eternal form or universal that orders our reality. Discovering those universals allows us to identify the particulars. Nominalism disagreed. It suggested that the only order for the world is that which humanity gives it. The "names" of things are a matter of choice, not eternal design. So only objects existed, not universals. This would come to influence the discussions about Christ's death being efficacious for all of humanity (a universal).

Ockham emphasized the absolute power of God to do as he willed. At times this may be consistent with human logic, but at times it can be comprehended. On these grounds, he held that theology only follows from what God has actually done. We cannot impose our expectations or theories upon God's wisdom to act. Thus, human reason lost its credibility for postulating about God and it became more difficult to use human reason to explore God's reason or wisdom.

The doctrine of original sin did not hold Luther's position that there was absolutely no good within us. Instead Trent affirmed that the goodness of free will, although weakened, is still present. Grace then would work in a person to perfect the nature and bring it to a state of justification. Luther held that this justification was offered to the Father on our behalf. (This is the difference between "infused" and "imputed" grace). Justification for Trent was the transition from a state of the first Adam to the state of the second Adam, meaning we are actually formed to Christ. Grace always comes first and makes it possible for the sinner to come to repentance. This process is called justification.

"Antinomianism" was a movement "against law". Assuming that justification was imputed to the Christian by grace through faith in Christ, there was no real need to adhere to the law or do good works. Some of Paul's letters actually confront this very heresy, charging the community's to understand the motivation grounded in grace and the responsibility to act according to the new life in the Spirit.

Luther argued for faith alone, grace alone, and Scripture alone. He emphasized faith over the means of reason, grace over merits of works, and Scripture over the authority of Tradition. Luther sought clarity for the sake of terrified consciences and found great security in the solas. Catholics declared grace was preeminent, but appreciated the tensions of both faith and reason, both grace and works, and both Scripture and Tradition. From the Catholic perspective, clarity and security was better found in consistency with the emerging sense knowledge and the dynamic sense of ongoing formation of Tradition.