Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.408
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Jurnal Penelitian Progresif (JPP)
Evans Winata
Sekolah Tinggi Teologi Injili Indonesia
Religion Humanities Economics, Econometrics & Finance Education Languange, Linguistic, Communication & Media Law, Crime, Criminology & Criminal Justice Public Health Social Sciences Other

Published : 2 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 2 Documents
Search

 1 
AN ANSELMIAN METHOD FOR CONTEMPORARY SOTERIOLOGICAL DEBATES Evans Winata; Jonathan Octavianus
Jurnal Penelitian Progresif Vol 5 No 1 (2026): SEPTEMBER 2025 - FEBRUARY 2026
Publisher : CV Naskah Aceh

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61992/jpp.v5i1.288

Abstract

Reformed Epistemology successfully defends the rationality of Christian belief against evidentialist objections. Plantinga demonstrates that belief in God can be properly basic and warranted without inferential justification. But this apologetic achievement leaves a methodological gap: believers know they are rational to believe, yet lack rigorous tools for adjudicating between competing doctrines. Both Calvinist and Arminian can claim warranted beliefs about salvation; Reformed Epistemology offers no criteria for choosing between them. This paper argues that Anselm's fides quaerens intellectum fills precisely this gap. Beginning with faith and deploying reason to explore internal coherence, Anselmian method provides constructive theological tools that complement Reformed Epistemology's defensive posture. Three case studies demonstrate the method's utility: the logical order of salvation, the relationship between justification and sanctification, and the grounds of assurance. In each case, Anselmian analysis clarifies underlying commitments, reveals logical structures, and enables more productive theological dialogue. The paper concludes that this medieval method addresses a critical need in contemporary evangelical thought—transforming apologetic defense into constructive systematic theology.
SILENCE AS HERMENEUTICAL SIGNAL: READING ENOCH'S NARRATIVE VOID AGAINST THE TRADITION OF SPECTACULAR INTERPRETATION Felicia Oetomo; Evans Winata; Sri Binar; Andrew Lucas Tjong
Jurnal Penelitian Progresif Vol 5 No 2 (2026): MARCH 2026 - AUGUST 2026
Publisher : CV Naskah Aceh

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.61992/jpp.v5i2.399

Abstract

Genesis 5:21-24 contains one of the most laconic accounts of any figure in the entire Hebrew Bible: three verses, no recorded speech, no miracle, no mission, no legacy. Yet Enoch has become one of the most elaborated figures in post-biblical Jewish and Christian tradition, generating extensive apocalyptic literature, heavenly journey narratives, and prophetic attributions. This paper argues that the interpretive tradition’s expansion of Enoch’s profile represents not merely an imaginative supplement but a categorical hermeneutical error: it imports post-flood interpretive logic into a pre-flood narrative zone that operates by fundamentally different literary and theological rules. Drawing on narrative criticism and canonical hermeneutics, this study demonstrates that the narrative void in Genesis 5:21-24 is itself the communicative signal, that walking with God required no instruction, no spectacular achievement, no institutional framework, and produced no recordable legacy, and that this plainness is precisely the point. The contrast with Elijah, who also escaped ordinary death but whose narrative is dense with assignment, confrontation, disciples, and transferred authority, confirms rather than complicates this thesis: both figures inhabit categorically different redemptive-historical zones, and reading one through the lens of the other constitutes a methodological failure that has shaped biblical interpretation for millennia. The paper concludes with implications for contemporary spirituality shaped by cultures of measurable religious productivity.
Co-Authors Felicia Oetomo Jonathan Octavianus Sri Binar Tjong, Andrew Lucas