Református Szemle 109.1 (2016)

In diesem Beitrag möchte ich auf folgende Frage eine Antwort geben: In welchem Masse hat der Briefschreiber des Epheserbriefes (ein Schüler von Paulus) den Hauptgedanken von Paulus aus dem Römerbrief 3,21—30, bzw. dem Galatherbrief 2,15—21 bezüglich der Rechtfertigung des Menschen durch Gottes Gnaden bewahren? Anders: Welche Wirkungsgeschichte hat die soteriologische Lehre des Paulus in den deuteropaulinschen Briefen, besonders im Brief an die Epheser?

We are always seeking for the sense of the life, for ourselves and for the place in our family and community. Religion shows a new way to us, according to Jesus Christ’s principles. The son of God not only created a religion, but gave us an example how to live, and sacrifice himself for us. Sándor Karácsony reckons religion as a spiritual behavior, the base of our social contacts. We have to see into our lives and character according to the message of Jesus Christ. The right and appropriate personality can be evolved by individual training.

This paper concludes that within the moral philosophy of Jankélévitch, the problem of forgiveness is ambiguous; or rather the author has an ambiguous attitude towards forgiveness.His point of view also has shortcomings that are due to the deficiencies of his metaphysics, his anthropology, his image of God and his interpretation of death. The God of Jankélévitch is creative energy, eternal acting goodness and love, but it is not a person and does not personally know its creations. It does not rule, does not enter into a covenant, does not bring redemption at the cost of its own heartbreak, does not judge sins and does not forgive them, does not speak, does not give commandments, does not conquer death, does not resurrect the dead, and does not offer eternal life. So the imperative of forgiveness is not — cannot — be supported by faith.

The Arminianist doctrine concerning predestination as well as Cocceius' theology of the covenant, which intended to dilute the inflexibility of the Dordrecht decisions, kept the Dutch theology of the seventeenth century in fever, causing serious problems even during the first half of the eighteenth. The Hungarian adepts of these doctrines were Sámuel Nádudvari, József Makfalvi, András Huszti, Ferenc Csepregi Turkovics and György Verestói, who, after their return home, began to disseminate the teaching, which differred from the confessions of the Transylvanian Reformed Church. The lawsuit and legal process concerning doctrinal errors, however, was initiated and carried out only in the case of Huszti, Nádudvari and Makfalvi. Whilst Csepregi and Verestói could easily clear their names of any suspicion of heterodoxy, the other three theologians (Huszti, Nádudvari and Makfalvi) did not take this opportunity, which ultimately caused an irreparable break in their careers.