Fr Patrick Reardon on the Incarnation and Redemption of Christ

Advertisements
Video | This entry was posted in Theotokos. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Fr Patrick Reardon on the Incarnation and Redemption of Christ

  1. Ben says:

    Fr Aidan, I know this comment has nothing to do with this video (I did watch the video and really enjoyed it) but I was just wondering if you are aware of this book: The Devil’s Redemption: A New History and Interpretation of Christian Universalism by Michael J. McClymond and if you know (or at least think) if David Bentley Hart will review it at all?

    Like

    • Fr Aidan Kimel says:

      Yes, I am aware of this book. McClymond’s been working on it a good while now. McClymond reviewed Ilaria Ramelli’s big book, and I was definitely not impressed. It was clear that he was wading into territory outside his expertise (as Ramelli’s response to him devastatingly demonstrated). But clearly McClymond has strong convictions on this topic, and I have to applaud him for taking on such an ambitious project.

      I would not expect Hart to review the book, but who knows? I was offered the opportunity, but declined, citing my lack of historical competence.

      Like

  2. Fr. Reardon seems conversant in the parlance of Protestant biblical theology. His remarks echo Fr. John Behr’s reflections on Irenaeus as the preeminent theologian of the 2nd century church, as reflected in On the Apostolic Preaching. I am struck, in reading Irenaeus by how much his reading of the OT is exegetical-theological, and I think it is a wonderful compliment to the more philosophical-theological reflections of the Fathers in the 3-5th Centuries. I don’t think there is an either/or relationship between the two approaches, rather a dialectical movement between the synchronic and diachronic that paints a fuller picture not only of the history of salvation, but also the distillate truth that this historical unfolding entails.

    Like

    • Fr Aidan Kimel says:

      St Irenaeus really does turn exegesis upside down, doesn’t he? Typology is given the primary place of honor. I honestly do not know any longer what place should be given to historical-critical exegesis in the life of the Church.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I place as much value on historical-critical exegesis as I do on an outdated postage stamp. It has limited value, should take up limited space in one’s theology, and shouldn’t be counted on to adequately deliver the message of Scriptural truth.

        Like

Comments are closed.