Natural theology is enjoying something of a resurgence at present but this article seeks to question its place in Christian philosophy and theology. Antecedent natural theology accepts that it is necessary for Christian beliefs to be rationally warranted. Romans 1:18ff. is often cited in favour of natural theology. However, examination of this text shows that Paul argues here on the basis of a prior revelation. Not only does he not endorse natural theology but what he does say implies that arguments for a God's existence are not likely to lead to the God revealed in Jesus Christ. Such arguments are in any case tainted by the noetic effects of sin. It is therefore not clear that these arguments lead to the God of Christian belief who calls us to simple discipleship. Consequent natural theology holds that Christians are under an epistemological obligation to their surrounding culture to show that they are reflectively rational. But the arguments put up for this by Michael Sudduth ignore theological arguments which should bear on Christian epistemology. Apart from God's self-revelation we find ourselves sceptics, and natural theology is unable to overcome this. Historical research has shown the damaging effects that arguing from nature has had on Christian theology. So, for both theological and historical reasons, Christians need not accept the epistemological obligations imposed on them by unbelievers which lead them to do natural theology.

This article tries to show that metaphorical God-talk can be descriptive and true. First, it is established that true metaphorical descriptions of reality are possible. No special theory of ‘metaphorical truth’ is required for metaphorical descriptions. Next, it is argued that a realistic metaphorical description of God is possible because we can know the transcendent creator in the experience of being addressed by him in Jesus Christ. God-talk is an extension of our response to God's address. The truth-condition of metaphorical God-talk is God's self-revelation; its truth-criterion is biblical God-talk.

Legalisation of marriages with a deceased wife's sister (MDWS) was once controversial among Christians. The pattern of Presbyterian pronouncement on MDWS – initial dogmatic assertion (accompanied by debatable claims about their long-standing traditions), strong initial claims about the teaching of scripture, apocalyptic fears about possibly drastic social consequences of liberalisation, and later muted acceptance – is also reflected in the English Reformed Churches' discussions of divorce and remarriage. The author notes both the inexperience and ill-preparedness of church bodies for the debates, accompanied by initial dogmatism disproportionate to their experience of the subject, and the diversity of opinion on divorce and remarriage held by people who shared a common approach to scripture.

The tone of discussion and the manner in which dialogue takes place is in itself part of the church's witness just as much as what is said. Truth and unity must be seen as equally important: faithfulness to God requires both orthodoxy and orthopraxis. Unity is founded on relationships rather than holding the same opinion on all matters. This is based on the relational unity of God the Trinity. In seeking scriptural guidance, the Christian community must read scripture together rather than individualistically.

Acts 11–15 provide guidance when re-evaluating deeply held convictions, but purported analogies between the acceptance of Gentiles in the church without requiring them first to conform to the Jewish requirement of circumcision and the acceptance of other conduct require close examination.

This article is an ecumenical conversation between Pentecostal and Anabaptist-Pietist traditions. Emerging out of this will be a suggestion that the Christian worship practice of footwashing may provide a means to share Christian love and fellowship that is inclusive of all Christian traditions. In this article we will addresses important points of theological intersection of these two storied traditions, specifically soteriology as a ‘Christian synergism’ and ecclesiology as an ‘alternative society’. These traditions approach ecclesiology through soteriology with a conscientious concern to form eschatological communities. We believe that these traditions must engage in ecumenical dialogue for mutual theological support in forming and sustaining ‘alternative Christian communities’ while continuing to participate in ecumenical dialogue with other traditions.

The theses offered here for discussion constitute a response to theses published by my Princeton Theological Seminary colleague, George Hunsinger. The debate carried out between us has to do not only with the question of how Karl Barth's theology is to be understood, but also with how his theology is to be taken up today in order address pressing issues of concern. As the debate has unfolded, it has centred upon three areas of questioning: 1) the genetic-historical question of how Karl Barth's theology developed, whether his mind changed on important issues and in what way; 2) the question of whether Barth's later christology (in volume IV of the Church Dogmatics) would require modifications to be made in his earlier treatment of the doctrine of the Trinity (in CD I/1), his christology (in CD I/2) and of the being and perfections of God (in CD II/1); and 3) the question of the logical relationship between God's eternal act of election (as treated by Barth in CD II/2) and God's triunity. The last question does indeed take me beyond Barth, but it does so in a way that does full justice to the christological commitments found in his doctrine of reconciliation. The position I set forth here is one I have held to with a high degree of consistency since 1994 – which means that it antedates the publication of my book on Barth's theological development in 1995. Since that time, I have been engaged in a process of further elaboration and clarification.