{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01768346595932803, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00618921308576481, 'mean_word_length': 4.835051546391752, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: David Friedrich Strauss and His Theology

conceptuality for conveying religious experience and insights into the gospel. Finally, I am not convinced by Lienhard's repeated rebuttals against Congar on the role of the humanity of Christ. A probe of passages of Luther's 1531 commentary on Galatians showed that many of the references to Christ's willingness and free acceptance refer to his coming and entry into solidarity with sinful men. There is little or no reference to graced human willingness at the center of the victory over wrath and sin. Theologically, Luther does marginalize the free commitment and dedication by which Christ implants in our humanity an act of love and homage toward the Father with which sinful men can become associated in conversion and in the sacraments. Christ is primarily a passive victim at the critical historical moment. I would suggest that Luther went to excess in projecting on to Christ his own experience of being assailed by temptation and then (e.g., on Gal 3:13) magnified this by unchecked use of superlatives in depicting the rush of noxious forces against the God-man.