Access

You are not currently logged in.

Access your personal account or get JSTOR access through your library or other institution:

login

Log in to your personal account or through your institution.

If You Use a Screen Reader

This content is available through Read Online (Free) program, which relies on page scans. Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.

IST DIE „REDUCTIO IN MYSTERIUM“ IRRATIONAL? Zu A. Kreiners Quaestio Disputata

Gregor Maria Hoff
Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie
Vol. 121, No. 2 (1999), pp. 159-176
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24168906
Page Count: 18
  • Read Online (Free)
  • Subscribe ($19.50)
  • Cite this Item
Since scans are not currently available to screen readers, please contact JSTOR User Support for access. We'll provide a PDF copy for your screen reader.
IST DIE „REDUCTIO IN MYSTERIUM“ IRRATIONAL? Zu A. Kreiners Quaestio Disputata
Preview not available

Abstract

One type of contemporary religious criticism deals with a variety of theodicee-arguments. This essay discusses a recent theological book on this issue by Armin Kreiner. He unfolds himself a very rationalistic theodicee and opposes it to any kind of a "reductio in mysterium", interpreting this theological commonplace as an illegal evasive method of dealing with this theme. His idea of a freewill-defence seems to be logically consistent, but it involves theological Problems. Kreiner is forced to eliminate the category of "mysterium" from theological thinking. In contrast to this an interpretation of the theodicee-question, in which the problems are tackled without the certitude of a solution, is preferred. This „aporetic" thinking is an indispensable part of theological knowledge, for example in the christological formulations of Chalcedon, which form a basic document for the faith. Following the aporetical inspiration of Chalcedon, the exposed ideas suggest a theodicee, which insists on the insolubility of the main problem, interpreting this result – against Kreiner – as strictly rational thinking.

Page Thumbnails

  • Thumbnail: Page 
[159]
    [159]
  • Thumbnail: Page 
160
    160
  • Thumbnail: Page 
161
    161
  • Thumbnail: Page 
162
    162
  • Thumbnail: Page 
163
    163
  • Thumbnail: Page 
164
    164
  • Thumbnail: Page 
165
    165
  • Thumbnail: Page 
166
    166
  • Thumbnail: Page 
167
    167
  • Thumbnail: Page 
168
    168
  • Thumbnail: Page 
169
    169
  • Thumbnail: Page 
170
    170
  • Thumbnail: Page 
171
    171
  • Thumbnail: Page 
172
    172
  • Thumbnail: Page 
173
    173
  • Thumbnail: Page 
174
    174
  • Thumbnail: Page 
175
    175
  • Thumbnail: Page 
176
    176