It is traditional in large sectors of the christian church to separate the word of god into law and gospel. The law is that part of the word which tells man what god wishes him to do. The gospel is that part of the word which tells man what god has done for him. The lutheran confessions insist, and i believe correctly, that one of the chief requisites of a theologian is the ability rightly to divide the word into its components of law and gospel and rightly to use them. one of the problems which arises in this connexion is which should take chronological order in the proclaiming of the word. it is usual to say that the law should be proclaimed first in order to convince man that he is a sinner and that then the gospel is to be proclaimed so that he may not despair of his sin but, on the contrary, be comforted by the message that the lord is gracious to repentant sinners and saves them. The purpose of this paper is to question the efficacy of this procedure.

There is a renewed interest in the relations between the Eastern and Western parts of the Church; and some have been surprised at the affinities of thought between the two. In a study of the Atonement in Gregory of Nyssa, the following examination was made of the meanings of the word Grace in his writings. It may be of interest to others who are working towards a closer understanding of the thought of the Eastern Fathers.

I. From God's side

(a) Grace may be used to point to the general attitude of kindly favour that God displayed to all creation and to mankind in particular. Verb and noun are both employed to indicate the distinction between man and all other animals, over whom he was given a royal authority. The potentiality in man for both good and evil is greater than in any other part of the universe. (b) This Fatherly care did not cease at creation, but is visible throughout the Old Testament history. It was present at Sinai; and spoke freely and often through the prophets, as when, under Ahab and Jezebel, Elijah fought single-handed against the prophets of Baal; and we even have the phrase reminding us of the Pauline charisma. Gregory often speaks of the Grace of God, much more commonly in fact than of His love.

This article is concerned with the relation of ‘religion A’ to ‘religion B’ in the thought of Søren Kierkegaard. The point of departure for my study is a disagreement with the views of Walter Lowrie, one of the most prolific translators of SK into English and the author of the extensive and competent biography, Kierkegaard (Princeton, 1938). Lowrie's main discussion of the question at hand occurs in his introduction to the Postscript. If my alternative thesis has any merit, it is indeed unfortunate that English readers are confronted with Lowrie's understanding of the matter before they have had a chance to form a judgment of their own.

In 1960 a unique encounter between East and West took place. Paul Tillich visited Japan for a lecture visit of three months. In a recent article appearing in The Christian Century in the series ‘How My Mind Has Changed’, Tillich declares that this encounter was perhaps the most significant experience of the past ten years of his life. His discussions with Japanese religious leaders, especially those of Buddhism, ‘served to bring to full awareness elements of thought which had been present for a long time’ (‘On the Boundary Line’, Christian Century, 6th Dec. 1960, p. 1435). While not becoming a convert to Zen Buddhism (as he puts it), he was impressed with the ultimate concern he found in forms of religious life uninfluenced by Christianity. He declares that his observations strengthened his theological conviction that the concept of religion in its larger sense ‘transcends the concrete existence of any religion, as God transcends each of his manifestations’ (ibid.).

‘On every hand one encounters a new interest in worship. The liturgical renewal has led to a fresh examination of our Reformation heritage both on the Continent and in America.’

Although Calvin's own views regarding a fixed form of worship are of prime importance for the understanding of our tradition, critical scholarship is not in agreement here. On the one hand, W. D. Maxwell and others stress Calvin's attachment to fixed forms. On the other hand, Wilhelm Niesel insists that ‘The form of divine service is obviously not of fundamental importance for the Reformed Churches. The service can be ordered in this way or in that’—although of course Niesel goes on to recognise that the service must be ordered and not arbitrary. This point of view finds recent agreement in T. Watson Street.

Modern scholarship has accustomed us to recognise the profundity of thought and the breadth of meditation that lie crystallised in even the briefest words of our Lord's and the beauty with which he presents the sublimest Gospel in the simplest way, so that even the barest saying yields fruit an hundredfold. Indeed it seems probable that He deliberately framed His teaching in this way, to be received at different levels of understanding. It may be the parables that have prepared the way for the recognition of this fact since there remain in the recorded words at least two authentic explanations of these and there may be yet a third preserved for us by tradition.

To review the English translation of Ellul's book which, since its publication in 1946, has become the basis of discussion on the theological aspect of law for innumerable Christian as well as non-Christian lawyers and theologians may seem unnecessary. The influence of the arguments about the validity of human state-law proposed by the author under the lasting and vivid impression of the rule of that organised injustice which disguised itself as ‘law’ in Europe under Nazi domination, upon all contemporary discussions on the meaning of ‘law’ can hardly be overrated; and if we want to gauge the force which has been exerted by the problem of ‘law’ in the whole field of theological discussion in post-war Europe, no better introduction may be found for the non-continental theologian than this powerful, but at the same time well-disciplined book with its passionate plea for a ‘theological foundation of law’.