This paper1 is an attempt to sketch to sketch the role of language in man's relationship with God, especially as a means whereby God teaches men about himself. Serious doubts have been raised about the adequacy of human language for this purpose—even many of those who see no inadequacy within language itself would feel that, since the human mind is finite, no message communicated through it by an infinite God can be reliable. Some believe that a man may become genuinely aware of the reality of God, but that it is immaterial whether any linguistic propositions involved in this process (and in particular the propositions of the Bible) are true or false.

Luther's theology rests upon a sure foundation—namely, his discovery of the grace of the sovereign God. Perhaps the most cogent evidence for this assertion is to be found in his vigorous refutation of Erasmus' Diatribe on the freedom of the will.

For a long time it has been widely believed that both in doctrinal content and intellectual method the thought of Saint Anselm closely follows that of Saint Augustine. The major thesis of this paper is that this widespread belief is not entirely accurate. It is not entirely inaccurate either, for, as I shall try to show, Anselm's intellectual career falls into two distinct periods, in the first of which his thought does greatly resemble that of Augustine. But the first period does not last long; in fact it encompasses only the writing of the Monologion, the Proslogion, and the Reply to Gaunilo—a period of about five years. In contrast to many of the works in Anselm's later period, which are virtually unknown in theological and philosophical circles today, these writings are much more generally known—a fact which helps to explain the widespread misunderstanding concerning the degree of similarity between Anselm's thought and Augustine's. Anselm's later period covers a much longer span of time, and it includes a greater number and variety of writings. These writings show a marked shift both in general philosophical perspective and in intellectual method, and this shift represents a significant departure from the pervasive Augustinianism of the earlier period.

The purpose of this argument is to demonstrate the relevance of at least one aspect of the philosophy of Kant to the contemporary form of the theological task. While the term ‘world come of age‘ originates in Bonhoeffer, and the problem it represents is styled by Professor Gregor Smith ‘the Great Revolution‘, it will be shown that this problem was first recognised by Kant, and that these contemporary discussions implicitly depend upon the position achieved by the Critical Philosophy.

In the current turmoil over the reality and identity of God, process theology has offered itself as having the most acceptable alternative to ‘classical theism’ and ‘substance philosophy’ with which, it is said, traditional Christianity, both Protestant and Catholic, has aligned itself. As an indirect child of Bergsonian philosophy, though, process theology is not new. And when it is recalled that Bergson not only influenced Whitehead, before the latter exchanged Cambridge for Harvard, but also the leaders of avant-garde Catholicism at the turn of the century, it will be seen that contemporary process theologians have some interesting relatives. Those of Bergson's progeny who have been born through Whitehead and Hartshorne tend to be North American and Protestant; but his other children are European and largely Catholic. The purpose of this essay, then, is to examine the ideas of one of these, George Tyrrell, with the intention of tracing out the similarities that exist between his theology and that advanced by contemporary process theologians. To look for precise coincidence between the positions would be foolish, but to find close parallels would be instructive. It would confirm the view that currently a convergence is taking place between the Protestant avant-garde and its Catholic counterpart, for very frequently the latter is merely reiterating ideas which George Tyrrell had already articulated and for which he was excommunicated in 1908.

Recent decades have seen a flood of books and articles dealing with the resurrection of Jesus Christ. At no time since the second and third centuries has the central affirmation of Christian faith won so much attention from theologians and exegetes. This renewed interest in the resurrection was pioneered by Karl Barth (1886–1968), whose Epistle to the Romans in its second edition of 1922 marks thereal beginning of twentiethcentury theology. To prevent this investigation of Barth's view of Christ's resurrection from becoming confused and confusing, it seems advisable to make use of a distinction between the earlier and the later Barth. His Anselm study (Fides Quaerens Intellectum) of 1931 forms the turning point. It would be inaccurate to maintain that Barth's later theology represents a total break with his work in the 1920's, but it is incontestable that certain important shifts take place.