How could a sixteenth-century Protestant reformer who championed sola scriptura defend against the charge of novelty? In particular, how did a reformer understand the post-apostolic church's regula fidei as a possible early counter-precedent to the scripture principle? And what does the answer to these questions tell us about the Reformation scripture principle? These are the principal questions with which this article is concerned. By looking at Martin Chemnitz's Examination of the Council of Trent, I show that Chemnitz rebutted the charge of novelty by returning the favour, that is, he rhetorically situated the Catholics alongside the early Gnostics since both believed in an oral tradition that differed substantially from scripture. Furthermore, I find that Chemnitz contended that Irenaeus’ and Tertullian's use of the regula fidei actually supported sola scriptura since these fathers never posited a substantial distinction between scripture and tradition and, in fact, held that the content of the rule was recorded in scripture. Chemnitz concluded that Protestants holding the scripture principle are the ones who are truly faithful to early church tradition in general and the rule in particular.

Calvin scholars have disputed whether Calvin had the concept of deification. Carl Mosser was eager to find deification in Calvin's theology. On the other hand, Jonathan Slater was earnest to deny deification in Calvin's thought. Calvin distinguishes between divine essence and divine kind. According to Calvin, we will be partakers of the divine kind, but not of the divine essence. We will be like God, but we will not be God. For Calvin, righteousness and immortality are called divine righteousness and divine immortality because God is its author. They are gifts from God, not God's own essence. Calvin says that we are God's offspring, but in quality, not in essence, inasmuch as he, indeed, adorned us with divine gifts. On the other hand, although Slater argues that Calvin's position is that believers share in what is Christ's according to his human nature, in accordance with Calvin, all the actions which Christ performed to reconcile God and man refer to the whole person, and are not to be separately restricted to only one nature. In this article, I find that Calvin distinguishes between divine essence and divine kind, in other words, essential and non-essential or central and peripheral.

Paul quoted extensively from scripture, especially in Romans. Many of these citations are from the Psalms, using the Septuagint. Paul could have found all his vocabulary and concepts for ‘justification by faith’ in the Psalms. The Psalms contain a doctrine of ‘righteousness through faithfulness’: God is righteous by forming a covenant with Israel, and proves his righteousness by remaining faithful to that covenant despite Israel's failings. He will remain faithful to the end by vindicating his righteous ones when they are oppressed by the ungodly. Israelites are righteous by having been elected to the covenant and will remain righteous through faithfulness to God, the marks of which are the avoidance of idolatry and keeping the law. Far from rejecting this Old Testament inheritance, Paul takes over this doctrine of ‘righteousness through faithfulness’ as it stands in the Psalms (Romans 1:18–3:20) and then christologises it (from 3:21). The mark of faithfulness to God now is no longer the law, however, but faithfulness to Christ, who is himself the model of faithfulness and what it is to be righteous. This understanding of how one becomes righteous is located by Paul himself within his fivefold scheme of salvation at Romans 8:30: foreknown, predestined, called, made righteous and glorified.

Widely recognised for his work in hermeneutics and theological method, the christological implications of David Tracy's thinking have been less explored. This article engages in a close reading of David Tracy's major work: critically correlating his theological epistemology with his christological statements; offering suggestions for the future development of christology. Theology, for Tracy, is the critical engagement of the Christian tradition in a specific culture. Theology, today, requires the responses of the early faith communities mediated by the church in scripture and tradition. Its corporate purpose of reform is achieved through personal encounter. The meeting of a particular, complex individual with the event of Jesus Christ brings forth change in the individual, and a new reading of the event. Christian theology is held together by its focus on Jesus Christ and its recognition of the scriptures as normative. Writing is, nonetheless, always ambiguous, thus multiple readings of scripture must be recognised and welcomed. Today's theology must be concretely embedded in history and the cosmos: for, too often, the victims of history have been silenced in Christian readings. There may be concreteness when there is recognition that facts may be actualised in individuals as well as in concepts. Theology's use of personal experiences may, therefore, be adequate for the tradition, and intelligible through coherence with general grounds for truth. Theology today, Tracy argues, must hold together all appropriate reflection on Jesus, known as Christ; just as the tradition has always allowed for multiple understandings such as Word-as-Logos and Word-as-Kergyma. In incarnation, cross and resurrection, in communal and personal encounter, reflection on Jesus empowers other-focused action through a spirit of hope. Future christologies, in this reading, must ultimately recognise that universality is a network of responses to the event of Jesus Christ. Particular encounters reflect the genuine multiplicity of today's interpretations of the tradition in specific cultures.

This article attempts to show that Karl Barth and Thomas Aquinas are not as divergent as often thought. Taking Eugene Rogers's argument as a working hypothesis, I argue for two points of convergence between Barth and Aquinas, specifically on their understandings of analogy. First, both root analogy in christology. Using Christ as the great magister, Aquinas shows how Christ teaches us to see him, despite its difficulty, in his trinitarian divinity. Barth, using the imagery of the prodigal son, discusses how the incarnation places humanity in an ontological relationship within God's own dialogue within the Trinity. Second, both understand analogy as a theological practice, not a metaphysical mechanism or abstract doctrine, though metaphysics and doctrine are at play in their work. Both Aquinas and Barth attempt to train their readers in the judgement necessary to speak truthfully about God. This analogical relationship between Barth and Aquinas I call the analogia Christi.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on a book that I have watched in the making, from a distance, over the past ten years or more. Richard Burridge was a faithful participant in the New Testament Ethics Seminar at the Studiorum Novi Testamenti Societas, a seminar that I had the privilege of co-chairing, along with Wolfgang Schrage and Andreas Lindemann. During the years of that working group Richard presented early drafts of material that adumbrated the basic themes of Imitating Jesus. Consequently, he and I have been discussing our common interests in these matters for quite a while. Anyone who reads Richard's substantial new work alongside my earlier book, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, will see that we don't always agree, but there are actually a fair number of commonalities – perhaps more commonalities than would be conveyed by a casual survey of Richard's explicit references to my work.

Richard Burridge is best known for his book, What are the Gospels?, which argues convincingly that the gospels belong within the broad generic category of the Graeco-Roman biography. The consensus that ‘the gospels are not biographies’ rests on a set of modern assumptions about what a biography should contain; measured against the yardstick of ancient biographies, however, the gospels clearly represent the same kind of literature. Of course, that does not mean that they are in every respect like other Graeco-Roman bioi or vitae. The gospels remain distinctive. One indication of this distinctiveness is that the title attached to them is not bios tou Iesou or the like, but euaggelion kata . . . followed by an evangelist's name. The gospels intend to be more than just a further contribution to the biographical literature of the ancient world. Burridge allowed that ‘gospel’ might represent a distinctive and new ‘subgenre’ within the broader biographical genre; there is no difficulty about such a move if we understand genre as a dynamic concept rather than a static one. Perhaps we might want to qualify the claim that ‘the gospels are biographies’ by stating instead that ‘the gospels represent a new development within the biographical genre’.

For the six years I was at Hartford Seminary (which is one-third Muslim), I had the enjoyable challenge of teaching Christian doctrine to Muslims. I have lost count of the number of conversations I have with Muslims who invite me to compare the Bible and the Qur'an and admit that the Qur'an looks much more like the Word of God than the Bible. In every case, I would push back and insist that they are not comparing like with like. For Christians, the primary Word of God is the Eternal Word – the Word made flesh in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus. In fact, I would explain the right way to compare the Qur'an is not with the Bible but with the Eternal Word made flesh. The incarnation is the Christian equivalent of the Qur'an. And perhaps it is better to see the Bible as closer to the Hadith. At this point, the same question is asked: ‘but how is it possible to read a life?’

I am extremely grateful to everyone who participated in the discussion of my book, Imitating Jesus: An Inclusive Approach to New Testament Ethics. Thanks go first to Professor Kenneth Newport for organising and chairing the session on the ‘Use, Influence and Impact of the Bible’ at the SBL Meeting in Boston in November 2008, as well as for his interest in the project over the last decade. Also each of the panellists have contributed so much to my work throughout the gestation and writing of this book.