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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This article is about John Cassian and Prosper of Aquitaine's understanding of grace and free will as put forward during the initial phase of the Western Church's struggle to define the doctrine of grace in the wake of the Pelagian controversy. Although both figured prominently in this struggle, both Cassian and Prosper's later understandings of grace and free will, which appreciated the diverse expressions of grace, failed to have any influence on the terms of the debate set forth in the Pelagian controversy. The history of the debate on grace and free will followed the mutually exclusive model in which salvation was the result of either grace or free will. Cassian and Prosper, who both offered an alternative to the mutually exclusive model, have not been fully recognised for their innovative views.