Christian theists have not normally wished to deny either of the following tenets:

T1: God creates human agents such that they are free with respect to certain actions and, therefore, morally responsible for them.

T2: God is an omniscient, wholly good being who is omnipotent in the sense that he has (sovereign, providential) control over all existent states of affairs.

Why this is so is quite obvious. If T1 is denied, it is difficult to make sense of the standard Christian belief that God can justifiably discipline human agents when they perform actions which violate his commands — i.e., it is difficult to make sense of the basic Christian concepts of sin and punishment. T2 is equally important. If it is denied, it is difficult to make sense of such standard Christian beliefs as (1) God is in control of the significant aspects of our lives, (2) God will bring about his desired goals regardless of the action of human agents, and (3) God is capable of responding in a positive manner to any petitionary prayer that is in keeping with his will.

By widespread agreement the Didache is a riddle and an enigma, as to its chronological and geographical setting, its primitive character in matters of church order and theology, or its artificiality as a romantic contrivance or forgery. It is unlikely that the problem will be solved merely by reviewing the arguments yet again. But it may be possible to shed new light by concentrating on the tradition to which the Didache itself suggests that it belongs. An investigation of this tradition may also indicate a relationship between the Didache and St. Matthew's Gospel which is of mutual advantage in exegesis.

The Christian community or as it is more commonly termed ‘the Church’ is usually thought of as coming into existence after the death and resurrection of Jesus. The purpose of this essay is to argue that, at least for Luke, the Church comes into existence during the ministry of Jesus. In Luke's presentation of the disciples and in his discussion on discipleship it is his intent to set before his readers a model Christian community. The disciples in the third Gospel are not meant to prefigure the Church nor to represent the Church in embryo: they are the Church, albeit in idealised form. This conclusion is based on a study of the way Luke uses and adapts traditions about the disciples in his Gospel. But before we turn to this evidence three possible objections to our thesis must be considered.

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.

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.