Comparing and contrasting the theologies of Moltmann and Pannenberg within the rubric of theology of hope
Hope is a foundational pillar that shapes the Christian doctrines as evidently presented in the scripture. Such a line of reasoning develops in the sense that there are various Christian institutions that have an emphasis on the Christian value. In this view, it is important to comment about the theology of hope given that it is a Christian value emphasized in various churches across the world (Hanson, 1970). A particular consideration develops with two theologians namely Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Importantly, the two offer a deeper insight into the theology of hope with enlightened viewpoints. As such, this paper will compare and contrast both Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenbergs theology in reference to the rubric of the Theology of Hope.
Jurgen Moltmann he is considered as one of the foremost advocates of the theology of hope. On the same point of view, Jurgen Moltmann believes in God and all His promises. in addition, he also believe that Jesus Christ resurrected and he trusts all the possible promise of the future .it is evidently noted that Jurgen Moltmann convicted in the possible promises of the future hence he went an extra mile in writing his book of Theology of hope. Moltmann stoutly wants his theology to relate to the life experiences (Ejsing, 2007). On the other hand, Pannenberg is clearly more interested in coherent, apologetic and more systematic in his theology. Both Moltmann and Pannenberg have same similarities on the belief that they have to emphasize on the power of the future over the present. So far, they are recognized to differ when they come to more accurate understandings of this particular issue.
Pannenberg is a person who sees the future as being truly contained in the present world. However, he considers that the present does not need to be improved hence it gradually improve. On the same line of reasoning, He insists that anyone can approach the resurrection of Jesus or any other event of history. It is very important to note that, being that they have similarities they also have differences on their divinity. This is to say that the differences touch on parts like Trinity and escatology (Grenz, 1990). It is exceedingly important to note that Moltmann is a sponsor of democratic-socialism as have to be in the better position to provide a more impartial outcome. On the same spot, it is evidently identified Pannenberg stoutly supports the democratic- capitalist.
The most important thing to do is to believe in whatever thing one does and sturdily create emphasis on the particular wring of the theology. On the same view, Moltmann political view can actually create some meaningful emphasis having that in his writings he became more popular in the liberation theology movement. In this view, there is a need to point that Moltmann has a general perception of life that includes the Christian teachings. This means that his viewpoint of the theology of hope revolves around one's personal life and deeds. This argument is evident given the case that Christianity revolves around practice and tradition. Importantly, the reasoning presented by Moltmann is that for one to obtain good on earth, they have to face the reality of life by practicing morality. As such, he advocates for the need to continue life in a moral perspective given they case that when one fails to observe the scripture they will ultimately face the wrath of the everlasting fire. On the same argument there is te intuition that if one commits evil, they ultimately have a price t p[ay given 5tyhe case that the word of God has a conditional statement that guide morality.
On the contrary, there is the differing intuition presented by Pannenberg on the theology of hope given the case that he advocates for the need for one to practice moral deeds through the word of Jesus resurrection. In this view, one would agree on the life after death is the major theme emphasized by Pannenberg given the case that he argues in the sense that redemption is the only ultimate solution to living a true Christian life. Notably, he presents facts about Jesus resurrection given the case that when believes in such an intuition, they are likely to do well on earth.
Conclusively, there is differing perspective on the approach to the theology of hope as addressed by Jurgen Moltmann and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Evidently, one believes that it is the responsibility of the Christian community to make right their ways by living exemplary lives as deemed right in the eyes of the Lord. On the same case, the two theologians share common ideology in the case that they would want to make right their ideology with teachings developed from the word of God. In this view, there is a need to point that the two believe in the Christian institution given that they hold dear the scripture and share the word of God with other Christians of the world.
Hanson, B. C. (1970). Hope and participation in Christ: A study in the theology of Barth and Pannenberg.
Grenz, S. J. (1990). Reason for hope: The Systematic theology of Wolfhart Pannenberg. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ejsing, A. (2007). Theology of anticipation: A constructive study of C.S. Peirce. Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the SuperbGrade website, please click below to request its removal: