^{page 1 note 1} Three papers read at the Faith and Order Commission meeting at Aarhus in August 1964 were published in the Scottish Journal of Theology in the issues of Dec. 1964, March 1965 and June 1965. cf. infra.

^{page 1 note 2} Gibbs, John G., The Lord of Creation and Redemption According to Pauline Thought (Princeton, N.J.: unpublished dissertation at Princeton Theological Seminary, 1966).Google Scholar

^{page 1 note 3} 1 Cor. 8.6 asserts that Jesus Christ is the One through whom God creates and redeems. Rom. 5.12–21 shows the specifically anthropological application of Jesus' mediating lordship in creation and redemption. Rom. 8.18–39 declares that Christ's lordship in creation is an attestation of His lordship in the redemption of those who are brought with Him on the way from suffering to glory. According to Phil. 2.5–11, the relation between God and the world comes to a focal point in the history, from humiliation to exaltation, of the One who is made to be Lord over all things, and under whom the Philippian Christians are to carry forward God's redemptive purpose in this world. By describing Jesus Christ as both the kephale of the Church and the prototokos of all creation, Col. 1.13–20 relates God's creation and redemption to one another through ‘the Beloved Son’, in whom they meet and are held together. The mysterion which God has revealed is, according to Eph. 1.3–14, the unsearchable riches of Christ, which embrace the relation between God's redemptive purpose and the cosmic totality.

^{page 2 note 1} Agreement between Paul and the early Church is indicated in several ways. Probably 1 Cor. 8.6 represents a formula first articulated by Paul, then quoted by the Corinthians in their letter to Paul, and finally used by Paul in his reply in 1 Cor. 8.6. Cf. Hurd, John Coolidge Jr, The Origin of I Corinthians (S.P.C.K., London, 1965), p. 68Google Scholar. Themes shared in common by Paul and the early Church, which themes concern creation and redemption, are derived primarily from Hebraic sources. Cf. Gibbs, J. G., op. cit., pp. 215–35Google Scholar. The two foci of Jesus' lordship, as described in the Pauline literature, are in accord with the early Church's homologia. Cf. Neufeld, Vernon H., The Earliest Christian Confessions (New Testament Tools and Studies, V; Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1963), pp. 42–51.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 1} Kierkegaard, S., Concluding Unscientific Postscript, tr. by Swenson, D. F., ed. by Walter Lowrie (Princeton University Press, 1944), pp. 507, 513, 516Google Scholar, Cf. Lowrie, Walter, Kierkegaard (Oxford University Press, London, 1938), p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 2} Cf. especially Luther, , Commentary on Galatians and Treatise on Christian LibertyGoogle Scholar; Niebuhr, H. Richard, Christ and Culture (Harper, New York, 1951), pp. 170–9Google Scholar; Bainton, Roland, Here I Stand (Abingdon, New York, 1950), pp. 241–6Google Scholar; Watson, Philip S., Let God Be God! (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, Penn., 1947), pp. 110–16, 155.Google Scholar

^{page 3 note 3} Niebuhr, H. R., op. cit., pp. 188–9.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 1} Carré, Mayrick H., Realists and Nominalists (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1946), pp. 98–100.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 2} Temple, William, Nature, Man, and God (Macmillan, London, 1951), p. 57.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 3} Galloway, Allan D., The Cosmic Christ (Nisbet, London, 1951), p. 98Google Scholar; cf. pp. 80–98. Origen, , De Principiis, 1.5.1, 3, 5.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 4} Niebuhr, H. R., op. cit., p. 146Google Scholar. Cf., for instance, Thomas' view (Summa, II.2) of a secular sub-structure beneath a religious realm as super-structure; especially, moreover, the consequences for historical understanding of the donum superadditum. Cf. Gilson, Etienne, The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas (Random House, New York, 1956), pp. 130–43.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 5} Anselm, , Proslogium, 1–4Google Scholar; Cur Deus homo?, Preface; Barth, Karl, Anselm: Fides Quaerens Intellectum, Eng. tr. of second German ed. (John Knox Press, Richmond, Va., 1961)Google Scholar. Cf. Torrance, T. F., The School of Faith (James Clarke, London, 1959), pp. xliii–lxxi.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 6} Galloway, , op. cit., p. 136.Google Scholar

^{page 4 note 7} G. W. F. Hegel, The Phenomenology of Mind; cf. Galloway, , op. cit., pp. 156–7.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 1} Cf. Galloway, , op. cit., p. 139.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 2} ibid., p. 186.

^{page 5 note 3} ibid., p. 177; cf. pp. 156–97. Hegel unsuccessfully attempted to restore the unity of matter and spirit, however.

^{page 5 note 4} Bernard, J. H., tr. and ed. of Kant, I., Kritik of Judgement (Macmillan, London, 1892), p. xii.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 5} Beck, Lewis White, A Commentary on Kant's Critique of Practical Reason (University of Chicago Press, 1960), p. 50Google Scholar. Cf. Kant, I., Critique of Practical Reason (The Library of Liberal Arts, LII; Liberal Arts Press, New York, 1956).Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 6} ibid., p. 192. In the third Critique Kant concludes that the distinction between natural and moral laws depends on the peculiar nature of our understanding, a conclusion which could imply that the two types of laws are to be regarded ‘as co-ordinate, not one as subordinate to the other in constitutive authority and experience’ (192). According to Beck: ‘It is the concept of the summum bonum as the final purpose of the world with its corollary concept of God that finally bridges the gap between nature and morals. Through these concepts Kant believes that he is enabled to approach most nearly the goal of a single system of philosophy and to show that practical and theoretical reason are finally one and the same’ (278–9).

^{page 5 note 7} Kant, , op. cit., p. 14.Google Scholar

^{page 5 note 8} ibid., p. 41. According to Kant, ‘man considered as noumenon’ is ‘the only natural being in which we can recognise, on the side of its peculiar constitution, a supersensible faculty (freedom) and also the law of causality, together with the Object, which this faculty may propose to itself as highest purpose (the highest good in the world)’ (360). Cf. Galloway, , op. cit., pp. 154–5, 190Google Scholar, who refers to Kant's concept of ‘the transcendental unity of apperception’.

^{page 6 note 1} Niebuhr, Richard R., Resurrection and Historical Reason (Scribner's Sons, New York, 1957), p. 72Google Scholar. Cf. pp. 57–60, 72–81.

^{page 6 note 2} This is an insight of Otto Piper in his seminar, ‘The Methodology of New Testament Studies’, autumn 1960, at Princeton Theological Seminary.

^{page 6 note 3} Torrance, , op. cit., p. xlix.Google Scholar

^{page 6 note 4} ibid., p. lv.

^{page 6 note 5} Niebuhr, H. R., Christ and Culture, pp. 120–41Google Scholar. Cf. Galloway, , op. cit., pp. 131–8.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 1} Galloway, , op. cit., pp. 131–8.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 2} Niebuhr, Richard R., op. cit., pp. 113–17.Google Scholar

^{page 7 note 3} Heim, Karl, Christian Faith and Natural Science (Harper Torchbooks, New York, 1957), pp. 151–74Google Scholar. The ego and the personal God are different from everything which is accessible to scientific investigation (34), and the two different ‘spaces’ are ‘hermetically sealed off’ from each other (170). According to such a view there can be no real co-ordination between creation and redemption. Rather than beginning with Christ's lordship, moreover, Heim begins with the ego and the world and moves from there to the Power that moves the universe, with the result that Heim finds a ‘formal homogeneity’ between the two ‘spaces’—a concept which cannot be squared with Paul's view of the dynamic relation between God's redemptive purpose and the creation through the mediatorship of Christ.

^{page 7 note 4} Niebuhr, H. R., op. cit., pp. 85–115.Google Scholar

^{page 8 note 1} ibid., p. 114.

^{page 8 note 2} ibid., p. 109.

^{page 9 note 1} The parallelism of these developments was suggested by Temple, William, op. cit., pp. 57–81Google Scholar. Watson, Philip S., Let God Be God!, pp. 33–70Google Scholar, emphasises the ‘Copernican revolution’ in Luther's thought from an anthropocentric to a theocentric religion, but fails to see that Luther read the New Testament, as well as the Old, and speculated about the canon, on the basis of ‘justification by faith’, having derived this principle mainly from the apostle Paul, in spite of the fact, now widely acknowledged, that this is not the primary emphasis Paul makes.

^{page 9 note 2} Prenter, R., ‘Die Einheit von Schöpfung und Erlösung’, Theologische Zeitschrift, II (1946), 180.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 3} Berkouwer, G. C., The Triumph of Grace in the Theology of Karl Barth (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1956), p. 56.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 4} von Balthasar, H. U., Karl Barth (Darstellung und Deutung seiner Theologie) (Jakob Hegner Bücherei, Köln and Olten, 1951), p. 148.Google Scholar

^{page 9 note 5} ibid., p. 131.

^{page 9 note 6} Kreck, W., ‘Analogia fidei oder analogia entis?’, Antwort: Festschrift zu Karl Barth, 70. Geburtstag (Evangelischer Verlag, Zollikon, 1956), p. 277Google Scholar; cf. pp. 273–86.

^{page 10 note 1} Gibbs, J. G., ‘A Secondary Point of Reference in Barth's Anthropology’, Scottish Journal of Theology, XVI (1963), 132–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Barth, Karl, Church Dogmatics, III.2 (T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh, 1960).Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 2} Irenaeus, , Contra Haereses, 2.28.1, 3.11.5, 3.16.6Google Scholar, and most of Book Five. According to Galloway, , op. cit., pp. 99–117Google Scholar, Irenaeus retained the Hebraic, physical reference of apocalyptic symbolism on which the Christus Victor motif was built.

^{page 10 note 3} Galloway, , op. cit., pp. 99–117, 123.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 4} Niebuhr, H. R., op. cit., p. 209Google Scholar speaks of the ‘conversion of culture’ as an Augustinian effort. Bourke, Vernon J., Augustine's View of Reality (Villanova University Press, 1964), pp. 7–14Google Scholar, emphasises Augustine's metaphysical dynamism. Carré, M. H., Realists and Nominalists, pp. 2, 12–18Google Scholar rightly shows the influence of Platonic idea on Augustine's interpretation of the act of knowing.

^{page 10 note 5} Niebuhr, H. R., op. cit., p. 219.Google Scholar

^{page 10 note 6} Niebuhr, Richard R., op. cit., pp. 81–89Google Scholar, contends that this school tries to apply the practical reason of Kantian idealism to the task of interpreting biblical history, with the result that: ‘Heilsgeschichte as a concept threatens the essential, animating paradox of the incarnation and all Christian history, that that, which is the supreme interpretation of all that has gone before and is to come, is itself a participant in the travail of history’ (88). Steck, K. G., Die Idee der Heilsgeschichte (Theologische Studien, LVI; Evangelischer Verlag, Zollikon, 1959)Google Scholar, objects that the heilsgeschichtliche method tries to mix the theological concept of revelation with recent concepts of history (55), that it obscures the Incarnation (57), that it is ‘crass Positivism’ (59), and that it wrongly attempts to view all of revelation from the standpoint of history (60). The last objection has been raised also by Barr, James, ‘Revelation Through History in the Old Testament and in Modern Theology’, Interpretation, XVII (1963), 193–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar, who points out that alongside the concept of revelation through history ‘…there are other axes through the biblical material which are equally pervasive and important…’ (201).

Piper, Otto, ‘Christology and History’, Theology Today, XIX (1962), 324–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar, maintains, on the other hand, that the connexion between periods of time, according to the heilsgeschichtliche school, lies in God's providence rather than in physical causality, which latter is the connecting link between past and present according to the historical-critical school. The continuity of Heilsgeschichte is rooted ‘in God's determination to bring his creation redemptively to its consummation’ (333), and is ‘not an independent segment of history’ (334).

^{page 11 note 1} Cf. Piper, Otto, Biblical Theology of the New Testament, I (privately printed manuscript, Princeton Theological Seminary, 1951), 163Google Scholar; Schlink, Edmund, ‘The Ecumenical Contribution of the Russian Orthodox Church’, Scottish Journal of Theology, XII (1959), 41–67, especially 54–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Zernov, Nicolas, Eastern Christendom (G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York, 1961), pp. 238–65Google Scholar, provides a description of ‘worship and sacraments in the Christian East’ which shows amply the great cosmic context of both worship and sacraments.

Evdokimov, Paul, ‘Nature’, Scottish Journal of Theology, XVIII (03 1965), 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar, in near-poetic fashion shows the striking, beautiful ‘joyful cosmicism of Orthodoxy’ (19). On the other hand, following the Western tradition of almost forgetting Christ's cosmic work, Dantine, W., ‘Creation and Redemption: Attempt at a Theological Interpretation in the Light of the Contemporary Understanding of the World’, Scottish Journal of Theology, XVIII (1965), 129–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar, begins methodologically with ‘the key position of anthropology’, a procedure which has the unfortunate, but necessary, result of dealing with creation not in its own right, but ‘in terms of soteriology and eschatology’ (133).

^{page 12 note 1} Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. by McNeill, J. T. and Battles, F. L., I (Westminster, Philadelphia, 1960), 494–503Google Scholar; Watson, P. S., op. cit., pp. 102–48.Google Scholar

^{page 12 note 2} Calvin, , op. cit., I, 38,Google Scholar footnote 7.