No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Various disciplines, despite their intrinsic differences, have in common the use of models to provide understanding. A model is a verbal or physical example upon which there can be general agreement whereby people can be led to understand something which before was unclear or perplexing. Lord Kelvin regarded the mechanical-replica model, as a scale model of a ship, as the sine qua non for understanding in the physical sciences.
page 296 note 1 Ramsey, Ian T., Models and Mystery (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1964).Google Scholar
page 297 note 1 Minear, Paul S., Images of the Church In The New Testament (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1960), see appendix, pp. 268–269.Google Scholar
page 297 note 2 Ramsey, Ian T., Religious Language (Macmillan, New York, paperback edn., 1963), chapter 2.Google Scholar
page 297 note 3 Ramsey, Ian T., On Being Sure In Religion (Athlone Press, London, 1963), p. 19.Google Scholar
page 297 note 4 ibid., pp. 18, 19.
page 297 note 5 ibid., p. 19.
page 298 note 1 McIntyre, John, The Shape of Christology (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1966), chapter 3.Google Scholar
page 300 note 1 Aulén, Gustaf, Christus Victor, trans, by Hebert, A. G. (Macmillan, New York, 1961).Google Scholar
page 301 note 1 Mehta, Ved, The New Theologian (Harper and Row, New York, 1965), pp. 125, 126.Google Scholar
page 301 note 2 ibid., p. 126.
page 302 note 1 Richardson, Alan, Religion in Contemporary Debate (Westminster Press, Philadelphia, 1966), p. 75.Google Scholar
page 302 note 2 ibid., p. 74.
page 302 note 3 ibid., p. 76.
page 302 note 4 Thielicke, Helmut, How Modern Should Theology Be?, trans, by Anderson, H. G. (Fortress Press, Philadelphia, 1967), p. 5.Google Scholar
page 303 note 1 See Gilkey, Langdon, Religion and the Scientific Future (Harper and Row, New York, 1970)Google Scholar; and ‘Cosmology, Ontology, and the Travail of Biblical Language’, Journal of Religion, July 1961, pp. 194–205Google Scholar; also Torrance, Thomas F., Space, Time and Incarnation (Oxford Univ. Press, London, 1969).Google Scholar
page 303 note 2 Kopp, Joseph V., Teilhard de Chardin (Paulist Press, Glen Rock, N.J., 1964), p. 16Google Scholar.
page 304 note 1 Ramm, Bernard, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1955), p. 78.Google Scholar
page 304 note 2 ibid., p. 76.
page 304 note 3 Holmer, Paul L., ‘Contra the New Theologies’, The Christian Century, vol. LXXXII, no. 11 (17th March 1965), p. 330.Google Scholar
page 304 note 4 Beker, J. Christiaan, ‘Biblical Theology Today’, Princeton Seminary Bulletin, vol. LXI, no. 2 (Winter 1968), pp. 13, 14.Google Scholar
page 305 note 1 Black, Max, Models and Metaphors (Cornell Univ. Press, Ithaca, 1962), p. 222.Google Scholar
page 305 note 2 Jordan, Clarence, The Cotton Patch Version of Luke and Acts (Association Press, New York, 1969), pp. 46, 47.Google Scholar
page 306 note 1 Max Black, op. cit., pp. 230, 231.
page 307 note 1 Robinson, James M., A New Quest of the Historical Jesus (S.C.M. Press, London, 1959), p. 94.Google Scholar
page 307 note 2 Ramsey, Ian T., Models and Mystery, p. 17.Google Scholar