This paper considers two twentieth-century heresiological critiques of G. W. F. Hegel. That Henri de Lubac and Sergius Bulgakov should both worry at Hegel's ‘heresy’ is hardly surprising. More surprising, however, is how and that each charges Hegel with a different heresy. Though de Lubac's heresiological critique has proven more influential, I commend Bulgakov's. The paper concludes by querying the very strategy of assaying philosophers like Hegel heresiologically.

Despite the theological controversy surrounding ‘Russian sophiology' amongst Orthodox theologians, John Milbank has claimed that it has proven to be one of the most daring theological breakthroughs within twentieth-century theology. He further considers it to be a fecund avenue of theological and philosophical reflection that has the potential to effectively communicate his central theological arguments in a new idiom. However, many of the positions which Milbank adopts within his sophiology prove to be controversial. This article offers a critical appraisal of Milbank's sophiology, drawing particular attention to several theological aporias it appears to generate and leave unresolved.