The names of Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Rudolf Bultmann have frequently and inevitably been associated in theological debate since the Second World War. On a popular level in the English-speaking world, it was perhaps J. A. T. Robinson's Honest to God (1963) which most notably placed Bonhoeffer alongside Bultmann, along with Tillich, as close allies in the search for a fresh and viable understanding of God.

It has become almost a commonplace in Calvin studies to assume that his teaching was distorted by later theologians who professed to be his disciples, notably Beza, Zanchi and Turretin. It is held that they transformed his vital teaching into a rigid intellectual and dogmatic scheme whose central tenet was the doctrine of election whereby God by his own inscrutable decree predestined a fixed number to salvation and reprobated all others to damnation. It is claimed that once the shell of this Protestant scholasticism is broken and once the later confessional declarations lose their mesmeric hold then Calvin's teaching can be studied afresh and he will be revealed as a theologian whose central theme is God's saving action in Christ. It will be seen, so it is claimed, that Calvin only dealt with the doctrine of election in the context of his exposition of the Person and Work of Christ, and when it is realised that Christ was the proper man who did a work for all mankind then it will be clear that all are elected in Christ and that the offer of salvation is made to all. Moreover, it is claimed that when due regard is paid to Calvin's pastoral concern for the people of Geneva and to his practical advice given to scores of correspondents then he can no longer be seen as the relentless theologian but as the generous shepherd of the flock.

In a recent paper,1 Professor Jay Newman alleged that Cardinal Newman was entangled in a conundrum about faith and reason — a conundrum from which the cardinal tried, but failed utterly, to escape by means of a doctrine about love. He alleges that Newman is finally unable to arbitrate amongst rival faiths and is left holding an implausible account of love and of its relation to Christian virtue.

Theological attitudes to Hegel have undergone considerable fluctuation in the 150 years that have elapsed since his death. If they were traced on a graph, the line would show a sequence of highs and lows. Hegel has been pronounced dead several times in these years, but he has shown a remarkable capacity for revival. And the occurrence of a revival near the 150th anniversary of his death may furnish an appropriate occasion for an examination of the ups and downs of Hegel in the theological stock-market.

Feminist theology in America is largely a phenomenon of the 1970s that emerged from the larger parallel drive for women's liberation in the social-economic arena.

My aim in this paper is to explore the question of David Hume's position on the theological problem of evil. I want to determine whether Hume was of the opinion that God and evil are logically incompatible. The argument will proceed by an examination of Parts x and xi of the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and a discussion of two current views of Hume's view on this matter. These are the positions of William Capitan and Nelson Pike.