What do you think?
Rate this book
Incarnation and Resurrection: Toward a Contemporary Understanding
For too long contemporary theology has downplayed the importance of holding together the incarnation and the resurrection when thinking theologically. Paul Molnar here surveys the place of these key doctrines in the thought of several influential Karl Barth, Karl Rahner, Thomas F. Torrance, John Macquarrie, Gordon Kaufman, Sallie McFague, Roger Haight, John Hick, and Wolfhart Pannenberg.
Molnar demonstrates that whenever the starting point for interpreting the resurrection is not Jesus himself, the incarnate Son of the Father, then Christology and Soteriology are undermined because they are not properly rooted in a plausible doctrine of the Trinity. Fair, comprehensive, and balanced, Molnar's analysis, following Torrance and Barth, highlights the details of contemporary theology of the resurrection linked to the incarnation and maintains the necessity of the incarnation in its intrinsic unity with the resurrection as the beginning, rather than the end, of Christology.
Molnar demonstrates that whenever the starting point for interpreting the resurrection is not Jesus himself, the incarnate Son of the Father, then Christology and Soteriology are undermined because they are not properly rooted in a plausible doctrine of the Trinity. Fair, comprehensive, and balanced, Molnar's analysis, following Torrance and Barth, highlights the details of contemporary theology of the resurrection linked to the incarnation and maintains the necessity of the incarnation in its intrinsic unity with the resurrection as the beginning, rather than the end, of Christology.
- GenresTheology
432 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 2007
5 people are currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
August 12, 2011
Molnar’s book “Incarnation and Resurrection” will probably be understood as a Barth and Torrance apology. While certainly, Molnar does this in light of opposition from modern theologians, it must be kept in mind that Molnar uses Barth and Torrance of paradigms for how he understands the very nature of theological science should be. Which, as he argues (328-329):
1. Christology must begin with Jesus Christ (this is contra Rahner, Hick, Kauffman and others who start with or include our human experience.)
2. The doctrine of the incarnation and resurrection must be held together. The resurrection was a historical event in the life of Jesus Christ that gave the first disciples faith. Only subsequently were they able to understand the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Conversely, the resurrection of Jesus Christ only has meaning in light of the incarnation. The resurrection of Jesus was a bodily resurrection of the incarnate Son of God. Thus, the starting point of Christology must be the incarnate Son of God. “Any idea whatsoever that the incarnation should be seen as the result and not the starting point for theology necessarily means a compromise of Christ’s true divinity which must be acknowledged as definitive, authentic, and essential.”
3. Both Jesus’ full humanity AND full divinity must be treated seriously.
4. “Christology can never detach the title Christ from Jesus himself and attempt to locate the meaning of the incarnation within the community or within the world at large;”
5. “Grace and revelation can never be detached from Jesus himself and located directly within our Christian experiences of faith and hope.”
Clearly written, Molnar allows his theological partners to speak for themselves and only comments after letting their voices be heard. As such the reader is allowed to make up his or her mind as to the validity of the various theological claims argued. In the end, I believe Molnar’s conclusion is correct: our Christology must never start with anthropology or a general doctrine of God. We must begin with the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Son or Word of God incarnate.
1. Christology must begin with Jesus Christ (this is contra Rahner, Hick, Kauffman and others who start with or include our human experience.)
2. The doctrine of the incarnation and resurrection must be held together. The resurrection was a historical event in the life of Jesus Christ that gave the first disciples faith. Only subsequently were they able to understand the incarnation of Jesus Christ. Conversely, the resurrection of Jesus Christ only has meaning in light of the incarnation. The resurrection of Jesus was a bodily resurrection of the incarnate Son of God. Thus, the starting point of Christology must be the incarnate Son of God. “Any idea whatsoever that the incarnation should be seen as the result and not the starting point for theology necessarily means a compromise of Christ’s true divinity which must be acknowledged as definitive, authentic, and essential.”
3. Both Jesus’ full humanity AND full divinity must be treated seriously.
4. “Christology can never detach the title Christ from Jesus himself and attempt to locate the meaning of the incarnation within the community or within the world at large;”
5. “Grace and revelation can never be detached from Jesus himself and located directly within our Christian experiences of faith and hope.”
Clearly written, Molnar allows his theological partners to speak for themselves and only comments after letting their voices be heard. As such the reader is allowed to make up his or her mind as to the validity of the various theological claims argued. In the end, I believe Molnar’s conclusion is correct: our Christology must never start with anthropology or a general doctrine of God. We must begin with the revelation of Jesus Christ as the Son or Word of God incarnate.
Displaying 1 of 1 review