The Salvific Efficacy of the African Indigenous Religions: With Special Reference to the Waaqeffanna Religion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Christianity, Salvation is understood as the deliverance from sin and its consequences, and admission to eternal life brought about through the birth, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, while for the African Indigenous Religions (AIR), it is related to protection from dangers that threaten individuals and/or both communities. Thus, Salvation is perceived as a concrete event, and “is never experienced once and for all or awaited at a futuristic eschaton, but rather [it is] encountered and experienced situationally and in context.” In an attempt to understand the doctrine of Salvation, this thesis asks: Do the AIR, the Waaqeffanna Religion (WR) in particular have salvific efficacy? The thesis argues that the AIR have salvific efficacy, and therefore, WR is salvifically efficacious. Besides, the AIR’s doctrine of Salvation is compatible and has significant implications for the Christian doctrine of Salvation. Furthermore, both the aforementioned religious traditions believe that the grace of God and human efforts are required for Salvation. Drawing attention to the Catholic teachings such as Lumen Gentium (LG), Gaudium et Spes (GS), Nostra Aetate (NA), and the works of Laurenti Magessa, Charles Nyamiti, and John Mbiti, the thesis explores how the doctrine of Salvation is understood by the AIR and the Catholic Church.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".