A translation of a Greek epigram by E. J. Hutchinson
What difference does it make to have Christ himself at the centre of our exegesis?
A little classical theism can go a long way with the problem of evil.
What’s the value of theological retrieval in preaching and ministry?
The classical doctrine of God has received lavish attention from Christian scholars in the past few years, particularly among Protestants. Much of this renewed focus has been concerned with expositing the attributes of God.
A Review of God in Himself: Scripture, Metaphysics, and the Task of Christian Theology, by Steven J. Duby (InterVarsity Press Academic, 2019) When considering how to engage in theology, two inclinations tend to be opposed. The first prioritizes “a speculative doctrine...
Aristotle described politics as involving art or craft (techne). It, too, required skill. It, too, could produce excellent, even wondrous edifices: regimes. Once upon a time, the Reformed tradition saw politics in the same manner. Althusius, for example, spoke of “the art of governing.” Joseph Caryl, a Westminster Divine, described rulers as engaging in an “art” or a “craft.” These thinkers, moreover, developed this artistry, doing so consciously within a Reformed framework.
Matthew Wilcoxen’s Divine Humility: God’s Morally Perfect Being stands out among modern accounts of the doctrine of God, drawing out and expanding upon a neglected dimension within the tradition.
Few topics are more likely to cause a stir among Christians than universal salvation, or apokatastasis—the view that no person will ultimately experience eternal estrangement from God. Although the universalist view is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the authoritative teaching of most Christian churches, it is not consistently considered heresy on the level of, say, denying the Trinity or the hypostatic union in Christ. But the concept of hell as “eternal conscious torment” has undoubtedly been a part of the Christian theological fabric for centuries, and from the perspective of the broader Church catholic, the burden of proof is probably on any challenger wishing to disrupt that consensus.
Not many passages in the New Testament speak directly to political order. The first part of the thirteenth chapter of Romans is perhaps the most famous. I would like to focus in this essay on vv. 3-4, which may appear prima facie to be something of an interpretive crux. Are these verses descriptive or prescriptive? That is, are they simply declarative, or are they imperatival, telling us what magistrates ought to do?