Testing van Huyssteen's Post-Foundationalist Approach to Human Origins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Affirming that J. Wentzel van Huyssteen's post-foundationalist approach to theology is a helpful contribution to public theology and to the recovery of nature as an element of Christian theological discourse, this essay explores the coherence and fertility of van Huyssteen's understanding of human uniqueness for theological anthropology and soteriology. It discusses the implications of van Huyssteen's approach first in the context of some typical Christian understandings of human origins and the Fall, and next with reference to the questions “Who or what is being saved?” and “From what is it being saved?” The essay suggests that van Huyssteen's attention to paleoanthropology helpfully corrects the tendencies of some theological anthropologies and notes a point of possible coherence between his view of human uniqueness and that of a contemporary eco-feminist theologian. It proceeds to suggest four fertile areas for further theological re-examination and reconstruction of a less anthropocentric and more cosmic soteriology: first, a broadening of Christian understanding of that from which we are to be saved; second, a continuing critique of the legal metaphors of atonement prevalent in Western theology; third, a recovery and expansion of elements of Christian thought that address the salvation of all of creation; and fourth, an analysis of possible continuity of autonomy in creation, both between humans and other animals and between biological and non-biological entities.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".