Heinrich Bullinger on prophecy and the prophetic office (1523–1538). By Daniël Timmerman . (Reformed Historical Theology, 33.) Pp. 329. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2015. €74.99. 978 3 525 55089 2

2017 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 416-416
Author(s):  
Jon Balserak
2020 ◽  
pp. 1-172
Author(s):  
John F. Lingelbach

Three hundred years after its discovery, scholars find themselves unable to determine the more likely of the two hypotheses regarding the date of the Muratorian Fragment, which consists of a catalog of New Testament texts. Is the Fragment a late second- to early third-century composition or a fourth-century composition? This present work seeks to break the impasse. The study found that, by making an inference to the best explanation, a second-century date for the Fragment is preferred. This methodology consists of weighing the two hypotheses against five criteria: plausibility, explanatory scope, explanatory power, credibility, and simplicity. What makes this current work unique in its contribution to church history and historical theology is that it marks the first time the rigorous application of an objective methodology, known as “inference to the best explanation” (or IBE), has been formally applied to the problem of the Fragment’s date.


2021 ◽  
Vol 74 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-176
Author(s):  
Gerald O'Collins

AbstractThis article argues that, unlike some exegetes (e.g. Francis Moloney), Thomas Torrance correctly interpreted Mark 16:19–20 in support of a theology of the ascended Christ's continuing prophetic activity. In the ministry of the Word, Christ remains present and at work witnessing to himself. This prophetic office, associated with and not to be separated from his kingly and priestly functions, is not to be played down. He is the primary agent forever actively involved in Christian proclamation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document