This paper argues for the possibility of a non-foundationalist reading of Karl Rahner's theology, one which treats it as logically independent of his philosophy. It argues that there is a greater degree of discontinuity between Rahner's early philosophical writings and his later theology than is usually recognized, and focusing on the Vorgriff auf esse, that the same claim may function differently in his theology than it does in his philosophy. Through an analysis of a line of tension running through much of Rahner's later thought, it shows that his insistence on the inescapability of pluralism, if taken fully seriously, has significant consequences for one's understanding of the ‘transcendental’ aspect of Rahner's theology.

The female deity of ancient Israel should be studied using the same methods as for the male. Priority should be given to written evidence, there should be recognition of a variety of names and titles for the one figure in both singular and plural forms, and it must be admitted that as conceptions of the male deity moved away from anthropomorphism, it is unlikely that the female deity would have had an exactly opposite fate. Evidence from the Hebrew scriptures, the Enochic writings, archaeology and early Christian tradition all suggest that Wisdom was the name by which the pre-Josianic female deity was best known.

The essay explores the inner logic that connects Jenson's view of the work of Christ, the person of Christ, and the doctrine of God. More specifically, it examines his understanding of the cross, the incarnation, and the trinity. Despite clear intentions to the contrary, Jenson lands outside the bounds of established ecumenical consensus. His view of the cross tends toward Socinus, of the incarnation toward Arius, and of the trinity toward Hegel in ways that seem subordinationist and tritheistic. One possible reason for this outcome is a rationalistic mindset that displays a low tolerance for paradox in dogmatic theology.

Robert Jenson's two-volume Systematic Theology is a highly creative and individual synthesis of a number of often divergent strands of contemporary theology. An ecumenical and trinitarian theology, it is also a theology of narrative, hope, and of the word. The main body of this article attempts a sympathetic paraphrase of the argument of this work section by section. In a more critical ‘postscript’, it is argued that ‘word of God’ language is appropriate to the bible's twofold canonical structure, and that the appropriation of the beginning, middle and end of the biblical narrative to the first, second and third persons of the trinity respectively results in an undue bias towards eschatology.

This is the Scottish Journal of Theology's second attention to my two volumes of systematic theology. The first time, when asked to respond, I did so only abruptly. This time, I am obligated to be more forthcoming.