Muller - Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms

Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2017. – 430 p.

ISBN 978-1-4934-1208-2

 

The ability to work productively in the field of theology, as in any long-established discipline, rests in no small measure upon the mastery of vocabulary. The task is doubly difficult for English-speaking students. In the first place, the technical language of theology is still frequently in Greek or Latin. Not only is the precision of the original languages often lost in the transition to English, but many of the standard works in the field of theology continue to use the Greek and Latin terms, assuming that students have mastered the vocabulary. The problem is complicated, in the second place, by the fact that most of the contemporary lexical aids developed for English-speaking theological students are completely in English, including both the terms and their definitions. These considerations alone were enough inducement to lead one toward writing a brief dictionary of Greek and Latin theological terms.

 

There is one other issue, however, which makes the need for such a lexicon even more pressing: that issue concerns the Protestant heritage and its appropriation in and for the present, for the education of future ministers and teachers, and for the good of the church. Protestants have at their disposal a wealth of finely wrought theological systems, not only from the Reformers, but also from their successors, the theologians and teachers of the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. These latter writers took the ideas of the Reformers and, for the sake of preserving Protestantism from external attack and internal dissolution, forged a precise and detailed technical edifice of school-theology, which is now called Protestant orthodoxy or Protestant scholasticism. Not only did these orthodox or scholastic Protestants sustain the historical progress of the Reformation and transmit its theology to later generations, but they also clarified and developed the doctrines of the Reformers on such topics as the threefold office of Christ, the two states of Christ, the Lord’s Supper, and predestination.

 

The work of these theologians is well described by the two terms “scholastic” and “orthodox.” The former term refers primarily to method, the latter primarily to dogmatic or doctrinal intention. In the late sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries, both Reformed and Lutheran theologians adopted a highly technical and logical approach to theological system, according to which each theological topic, or locus, was divided into its component parts, and the parts were analyzed and then defined in careful propositional form. In addition, this highly technical approach sought to achieve precise definition by debate with adversaries and by use of the Christian tradition as a whole in arguing its doctrines. The form of theological system was adapted to a didactical and polemical model that could move from biblical definition to traditional development of doctrine, to debate with doctrinal adversaries past and present, to theological resolution of the problem. This method is rightly called scholastic both in view of its roots in medieval scholasticism and in view of its intention to provide an adequate technical theology for schools—seminaries and universities. The goal of this method, the dogmatic or doctrinal intention of this theology, was to provide the church with “right teaching,” literally, “orthodoxy.”

 

* * *

 

peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum

sin against the Holy Spirit; the so-called unforgivable sin committed against the work of the Spirit (cf. Matt. 12:31–32; Mark 3:28–29; Luke 12:10), usually defined as blasphemy against the truth of salvation conveyed to the heart and mind by the Spirit. Both Lutherans and Reformed distinguish between the peccatum in Spiritum Sanctum and mere impoenitentia finalis, or final impenitence, arguing that the former is not simply impenitence but rather the ultimate apostasy from and conscious rejection of the obvious truth of the gospel, despite the work of the Spirit, by one who remains convinced of that truth and cannot deny it but still maliciously assaults it and rejects it, as indicated in Hebrews 6:4–6; 10:28–29. Since the work of the Spirit is the one path toward remission of sin, ultimate rejection of the Spirit in this blasphemous manner is the sole peccatum irremissibile, or unforgivable sin.

 

pneumata leitourgika

(πνεύματα λειτουργικά): ministering spirits; i.e., angels. By definition angels are immaterial; of spiritual substance; endowed with intellect, reason, and will; and created by God for his service as ministers or messengers. Angels are not eternal but are created ex nihilo. Before the fall of Adam, some fell away from God of their own free will; the others, who persevered in righteousness, are now held by grace in their communion with God.

 

Since they are finite, angels do not have the attribute of omnipresence; yet as spirit, they are not, strictly speaking, in a place. They are limited, not by physical space, but by power of operation upon things. Thus they are localized definitively but not circumscriptively. See alicubitas; praesentia; spiritus.