Jesus Christ for Contemporary Life. Don Schweitzer

Dunn, Christology in the Making, 59–60.

15. Schnackenberg, Jesus in the Gospels, 312.

16. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 250.

17. Ibid., 253–54.

18. Schillebeeckx, Jesus, 549.

19. Schnackenberg, Jesus in the Gospels, 315–16.

20. Dunn, Christology in the Making, 267–68.

21. Johnson, She Who Is, 151–61.

22. Ruether, “Can Christology Be Liberated?,” 8–16, 23.

23. For a brief examination and correction of distortions the patriarchal worldview of the Greco-Roman world introduced into Christology and Christian anthropology, see Johnson, She Who Is, 151–56.

24. Sobrino, Christ the Liberator, 286.

25. Moltmann, Crucified God, 334–35.

26. Cahill, “Christology, Ethics, and Spirituality,” 202–4.

27. Haight, Jesus, 183.

28. Tanner, Christ the Key, 56.

29. Taylor, Secular Age, 695–703.

30. Haight, Jesus, 208–12.

31. Watson, “Trinity and Community,” 183–84.

32. Fee, God’s Empowering Presence, 839. See also Schweizer, Good News according to Matthew, 533.

33. This is R.P.C. Hanson’s description of the process of doctrinal development that went on in the Arian controversy (Hanson, Search, xviii–xx).

34. Ibid., 873.

35. Dünzl, Brief History, 6–7.

36. Ibid., 9.

37. Ibid., 18–19.

38. McGuckin, “Logos Theology,” 207–8.

39. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 40.

40. The “economic” Trinity refers to God as experienced in salvation history. The “immanent” Trinity refers to God as existing in eternity.

41. In Origen’s time it could also be translated in Latin as “substance,” but in the course of the development of Trinitarian theology the former became its technical meaning (McGuckin, “Hypostasis,” 174).

42. Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, 171.

43. For an overview of Origen’s theology, its ambiguities and subsequent influence in this regard, see Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 20–30.

44. Hanson, Search, 121.

45. Ibid., 102–4.

46. Ibid., 848.

47. Paul Gavrilyuk disputes this, arguing that “there was no consensus philosophorum amounting to an affirmation of divine indifference and non-involvement” among Hellenistic philosophers (Gavrilyuk, Suffering of the Impassible God, 35–36). However, a page earlier he admits that it “is true that among educated pagans, whose philosophical views tended towards later Platonism, the divine impassibility did acquire the status of a universally shared opinion” (ibid., 34).

48. Tillich, Systematic Theology, 1:242.

49. Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 430.

50. Ibid., 20.

51. Quoted from Hanson, Search, 806.

52. Ibid., 156.

53. Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy, 430.

54. For a brief overview of the history of the Arian controversy, see ibid., 430–35.

55. Hanson, Search, 676–737.

56. Ibid., 873.

57. Ibid., 167–68.

58. Studer, Trinity and Incarnation, 113.

59. The focus at Nicaea was on the relationship of Jesus Christ to God the Creator and Redeemer, with little attention given to the Holy Spirit. Only later at the council of Constantinople in 381 CE was the divinity of the Holy Spirit given explicit attention.

60. Ibid., 193.