In a previous article entitled ‘Augustinian Universalism’, I argued that the principles of Augustinianism are compatible with universalism. For those who reason to Augustinianism on the basis of biblical-theological arguments, this may not be terribly troubling. However, if the logic of Augustinianism is consistent with universalism this sets up an Augustinian problem of evil. For if God could have created a world where all would have been saved, but did not, this calls divine benevolence into question. In this article, I set out to rebut Augustinian universalism by arguing that there are good theological reasons for thinking God does not bring about the salvation of all humanity.

When the Proslogion is read from within the context of Anselm's De Veritate it seems that Anselm's project is firmly based on theological premises. Anselm works with a two-fold conception of truth. Truth is first of all a quality inherent in the statement itself. It is the correctness (rectitudo) of the statement. Second, truth is the correspondence with the extra-linguistic reality. This second level of truth is accidental to the statement. What provides the link between extra-linguistic reality and the statement is the Word of God, which is the level of true reference, where original statements correspond to the original will of God in the creation. When Plato asks what true knowledge is in the Theatetus, the final answer seems to be that what is needed is a statement which carries its own truth as a certainty of Being and Unity within itself. However, no such statement is presented in the dialogue. The name of God in the Proslogion is such a statement which carries its own truth as a certainty of Being and Unity within itself, in that on the first level of truth (rectituto) it is impossible to deny. As the statement concerns the Being of God and cannot be denied it necessarily overflows into the second level of truth which is correspondence with extra-linguistic reality. Therefore, this article argues that Anselm develops a statement which fulfils the criterion of true knowledge presented in the Theatetus. He manages to do this from the position of faith, which includes a strict theological rationality.

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.

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.

With regard to sacred books, Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism (1805 – 1844), is best known for his publication of the Book of Mormon, as a history comparable to the Bible, and for other texts he put forth as divine revelations. These volumes established the unique beliefs of Mormonism and set it apart from other religions. What is less well known and often overlooked by historians is the fact that virtually every aspect of Joseph Smith's career involved the Bible, which was central to his theology and to the religious system that he established – but always in ways unique to him. Priesthoods of Aaron and Melchizedek, the building of temples and the establishment of communities in promised lands are all themes for which he invoked biblical precedents. He also produced, but never published in his lifetime, a revision of the Bible itself, the result of three years of adding to and editing the text. In addition, as he taught doctrine in his correspondence, newspaper editorials and sermons, he drew his texts and illustrations from the Bible and virtually never from the Book of Mormon or his own revelations. This article explores the role of the Bible in each of these enterprises and examines the ways Joseph Smith used it in the establishment of Mormon beliefs. The article proposes that, in his extensive use of the Bible, he was making a statement regarding his prophetic authority and his relationship to prophets and scriptures of the past.

This article suggests that Christian orthodoxy according to Justin's Dialogue can be understood if one considers Justin's christology as stemming not merely from an opposition to Judaism (as Boyarin argues), but rather from the recognition of inadequate soteriology according to rabbinic teachings of Justin's time. This is most clearly delineated in Trypho's response as well as Justin's emphasis on the inclusive salvific efficacy of the crucifixion. Trypho's most enduring objection is not that there is another god explicated by Justin through Logos theology, nor that the Messiah is divine. Trypho resists the Christian message because he is most troubled by Justin's assertion that this Messiah died the death cursed by the Law of Moses.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The thesis of this article is that an appropriate apocalyptic is remarkably pertinent, perhaps essential, in addressing certain theological challenges of our time. What an appropriate understanding of apocalyptic might be will, I trust, emerge with discussion; clarifying the contemporary challenges will be the first concern. Once that is done, the argument will proceed through two steps or concepts: first, the issue of concreteness and second, a concept I will call ‘contextualisation’. These steps establish the connection between the challenges and apocalyptic. I conclude by sketching some implications. Throughout, the article is guided by an ongoing conversation with Karl Barth, especially II/1 of the Church Dogmatics.

In this article, I look at the possible impact of John Chrysostom's exegetical approach upon John Calvin's biblical interpretation. I detect the traces of Chrysostom's hermeneutical approach to Paul's Letter to the Romans in John Calvin's reading of the same epistle. Why Paul's literature? Because both Chrysostom and Calvin are very fond of Paul and his thinking and consider him the major voice in the Bible. Why the Epistle to the Romans specifically? Because they both believe that this epistle is valuable for the church at all times. According to them, it is the first door to the understanding of the Good News of God's salvation as proclaimed in the Bible. I make this comparison on the basis of the following foundational thesis. If the first Protestant reformers were reliant on the church's exegetical tradition, and if they believed in the affinity of their biblical reading to a long tradition of reading conducted before them, the impact of the church fathers' exegetical methodology on the reformers' biblical interpretation should be part and parcel of any scholarship we do on the Reformation's hermeneutics.

Assurance of salvation is a matter of perennial pastoral concern and theological controversy. After the Great Awakening, Jonathan Edwards developed a doctrine of assurance based largely on discerning the work of the Spirit in the affections and actions of the professed believer. One might have expected from this theocentric, trinitarian and surprisingly participational theologian a robust doctrine of assurance and a joyful, other-centred spirituality. Ironically, however, profound ambiguities persisted within it which will be shown to arise from the predominantly pneumatic nature of his version of theosis, a blurring of the distinction between justification and sanctification, and the power of his predominantly psychological analogy of the Trinity. This article will therefore first present the main features of Jonathan Edwards’ doctrine of the assurance of salvation. The second section will evaluate it by outlining factors in Edwards’ theology which might have been expected to produce a high level of certainty concerning assurance, and then those which might militate against this certainty. Whilst Edwards did at times espouse the social analogy of the Trinity, his theosis is constructed predominantly within the psychological analogy. Innovatively modified though it was, because Edwards works within this framework, he overemphasises the pneumatological union of the saints with God, at the expense of the incarnational union of God with and for humanity in Christ. This results correspondingly in an inordinate reliance for assurance on the Spirit's work within the realm of human subjectivity, over against objective christological realities. In short, Edwards’ theology of assurance is, in the end, individualistic and anthropocentric.

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 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.

This article explores the notion of ‘middle future’ apocalypticism through the work of the late sixteenth-century Scottish theologian and the discoverer of logarithms, John Napier. Middle future apocalypticism envisaged the end of the world, not in the immediate or far distant future but (rather like modern environmental apocalypticism) within the next 100–200 years. It enabled the understanding of the present in apocalyptic terms, and set out the requisite conditions, tasks and obligations – social, political and personal – essential for bringing to reality those events which were necessary precursors of the coming of Christ. John Napier's 1593 A Plaine Discovery of the whole Reuelation of Saint Iohn was the first Scottish work on the book of Revelation. Though later to be derided by historians of mathematics and science, in its time, it was highly influential, not only in Scotland and England but also in Protestant communities on the Continent. I explore the complex mathematics which Napier brings to bear and suggest that the middle future apocalypticism of Napier, as demonstrated in the carefully articulated mathematics of history in this work, is both socially conservative and socially active. Living in the seventh age, as Napier believed he did, did not entail either ‘downing tools’ and passively awaiting the end, nor actively hastening the end by radical social upheaval. But it did mean in the here and now fighting the Antichrist of Rome, bringing in Reformed religion and spreading the true Gospel.

The article investigates the encounter between Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger and Jürgen Habermas in Munich 2004. The event was widely regarded as a conversation about the topic ‘The Pre-Political Moral Foundations of a Liberal State’. It was praised as a dialogue between the ‘personification of the Catholic faith’ and ‘the personification of liberal, individual and secular thought’ with far-reaching consequences. A close analysis of the texts, however, shows that Ratzinger and Habermas think in quite incompatible frameworks with very different concerns. They both share a sceptical attitude towards scientific ideology and they both show a remarkable lack of cultural and political realism. Habermas assumes that civil-societal elites will transform moral concerns into political and legal power. Ratzinger hopes for a revival of natural law tradition which would overcome the ‘pathologies of reason’ and political and religious fanaticism.

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.

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.

Following the thinking of Karl Barth, this article demonstrates how and why reading the Bible in faith is necessary in order to understand the truth which is and remains identical with God himself speaking to us in his Word and Spirit. After developing how faith, grace, revelation and truth are connected in Barth's theology by being determined by who God is in Jesus Christ, this article explains why Barth was essentially correct in claiming that we cannot know God truly through a study of religious experience but only through Christ himself and thus through the Spirit. I illustrate that for Barth the truth of religion simply cannot be found in the study of religion itself but only through revelation. That is why he applied the doctrine of justification by faith both to knowledge of God and to reading scripture. In light of what is then established, I conclude by briefly exploring exactly why the thinking of Paul Tillich, and three theologians who follow the general trend of Tillich's thinking (John Haught, John A. T. Robinson and S. Mark Heim), exemplify the correctness of Barth's analysis of the relation between religion and revelation, since each theologian is led to an understanding of who God is, how we reach God and how the doctrine of the Trinity should be understood that actually undermines Barth's emphasis on the fact that all knowledge of God and all doctrine should be dictated solely by who God is in Jesus Christ.