It is no secret that this blog, in many ways, is shaped by Thomas F. Torrance’s influences. I have “known” T. F. for only the lastΒ four years, and I’m still getting to know him π , and everything that I’ve read of his has been a 
“page-turner.” Almost everything I see him saying resonates with my own sense and theological predisposition; I’m obviously a great fan. Not only that, but we even have our very own T. F. Torrance scholar here at TEC, in the person of Dr. Myk Habets (who recently guest-posted some poetry for us). I say all this, because — and I was actually and naively unaware of this, until a few months ago — I have been becoming more and more aware that T. F. Torrance (I knew about Barth) is not a trusted source for many a theologian out there. Here is an example provided by Dr. Michael Haykin, he recently said this at his blog about Barth and Torrance, comparing B and T with Warfield:
. . . to take one example of comparison between Warfield and Barth/Torrance: when the latter read the Fathers, they frequently read them wrongly, out of context and with their own agenda so that the Fathers end up sounding like neo-orthodox before their time. T.F. Torranceβs study of grace in the Apostolic Fathers is very one-sided and fails to aprpeciate [sic] texts like the Letter to Diognetus, while his reading of Nazianzen (I am thinking of his article on Greg Naz and Calvin on the Trinity) is accepted by few patristic scholars. Warfield, on the other hand, read the Fathers well, partly because of his training as a NT scholar, and devotes monographs to their study. This rich understanding of historical theology informs his systematic study and forms the subsoil out of which he develops a rich overview of the Christian Faith. My problem with Barth and Torrance is that I find I cannot trust them when they are doing patristics, and that makes me suspicious of their interpretation of holy Scripture. (taken from: here)
I can understand his reticence, and I find his transparency commendable. But at the same time, come on! Certainly Barth and Torrance took liberty in some of their readings of the Patristics, but what one calls liberty, another calls interpretation. In other words, isn’t this the work of scholarship, to read and interpret, reconstruct and vivify folks from the past? This happens all the time in theological academia, Haykin makes it sound like there is a static norm and threshold of scholarship that must be met, before any particular scholar can be taken seriously. Come on! Scholarship is fluid, views are fluid, interpretations are fluid (I’m not a relativist π ). To say, as Haykin does, that he cannot trust folks like Torrance — which is his perrogative, and that’s fine — and his interpretation of scripture, is too much of a generalization to take seriously. All I see Haykin, and others doing, is protesting the particular metaphysics that folks like Barth and Torrance (click on the hyper-link to see a good intro to this kind of ‘metaphysics’ done by Kevin Davis) were forwarding (contra the classic kind, that I presume Haykin is committed to). What Haykin does is engage a genetic fallacy, by basically stating that anything that comes from Barth and Torrance is suspect simply because it is coming from Barth and Torrance.
What I appreciate about Torrance is simply his constructive theological creativity; it is his ideas, it is his unique brand of theology. I appreciate him because I think that what he communicates (by-and-large, I don’t agree with everything that comes from TFT) provides some great explanatory power per the ‘inner logic’ implicit in scripture (sola scriptura!). I would like to see Haykin, and folks like him (the prejudice), critique the thought and material content of TFT’s broader theological project versus engaging in sweeping generalization when it comes to Barth and/or Torrance.
A little rant, sorry. Btw, over at his blog, Haykin does see Barth and Torrance as necessary dialogue partners, but I’m afraid that this just means that they serve as “those other guys, over there” foils for magnifying real teachers of truth (like Warfield represents for Haykin). I know nothing of Dr. Haykin, except for what I just read over at his blog, so hopefully I’m completely off base here.
**repost, from quite awhile ago, and another blog of mine, even . . . π
I am interested in the study of early christianity, especially the creation and formative years, perhaps the first 200. Although in recent years, I have taken a greater and greater interest in Patristics. To show you some of the stuff I have been collecting, and trying to organize, take a look at these two pages, and see if anything interests you;
http://webulite.dyndns.org:8080/christianity
http://webulite.dyndns.org:8080/?do=showtag&tag=christianity
I am interested in convos on anything in the early christianity general area, If this kind of thing interests you, feel free to contact me by email.
Cheers! RichGriese.NET
Hi Rich,
Thanks, I’ll have to check out your stuff some time. Have you read a dated, but standard work on Patristics called: Early Christian Doctrine by J.N.D. Kelly? If not you should, I think you’ll find it helpful towards understanding this era (by way of picking up its contours) even better.
Haykin. meh. I learnt to not take him too seriously when he tried rewriting Baptist history to denigrate High Calvinist Strict Baptists (they were just erroneous, and therefore not true baptists or calvinists), in favour of Andrew Fuller who drew upon New England New Lights theology (the downgrade but one before Spurgeon). Even Tom Nettles had the decency to admit the caricature of a closeted John Gill was just that. This is why i shy away from so much evangelical ‘academic’ work, since it is not that at all, but just ‘hooray for our side’. Shades of Bob Jones University!! Dialogue is the last thing on their minds.
There, that’s my rant over too.
Rant away, its a blog . . . I think sometimes folks lose sight of that π .
Hey Boddy, thanks for the recommendation, but I tend to look to books by folks with degrees in history, rather than in religion or pastors. I am not really into the supernaturalism of early christianity, but am interested in how the group began and grew. I tend to see it beginning to take the form we know of it today starting around Ireanaeous time, and see almost everything before as legendary material created by him, and through ideology battles between him and other groups. Another good essay series that I think explains how this happened, I have collected at http://webulite.dyndns.org:8080/stephan_huller where I have accumulated his _against polycarp_series, which I think touches on a number of the important issues.
Cheers! RichGriese.NET
Rich,
Kelly has his degrees in history etc. etc. He is famed. If you’re serious about truth, prior “metaphysical” commitments shouldn’t stand in the way; since everyone has them, even those you feel more comfortable referencing.
I’d rather just talk about the resurrection with you, since w/o that Christianity never would’ve developed.
You should check out books by Gary Habermas on the historicity of resurrection, if this is the kind of stuff that stumbles you. I’m not going to probably be a good interlocuter for you since I have degrees in theology and bib studies.
I don’t really like sociology so much, I’m more of a theology guy, Rich π . But thanks for the invitation.
Peace.
Hey Bobby, sorry, I thought you were talking about this guy, the pastor; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Norman_Davidson_Kelly If you could give me a link to a historian with the same name, I will check him out. I tend not to get involved with the writings or pastors, but stick with historians.
With regards to Gary Habermas, I don’t get involved with apologetical writers. But thanks for the suggestions.
Cheers! RichGriese.NET
Hey Bobby, Oh sorry, I didn’t address your resurrection comment. I don’t really get into the resurrection legends. As I was saying, I am interested in the just the historical stuff regarding how the group began and grew. If you are online now, and want to interact real time, feel free to come find me at http://webulite.com
Cheers! RichGriese.NET
Bobby, thanks, i just followed the link to AEs site for the intro. Gratifying on two counts, firstly that i guessed right about what Barth was doing with his Doctrine of Revelation in relation to kantianism, and secondly for the further link to all the goodies, a real feast of fat things!!
Rich,
Yeah, that’s him. Didn’t you read your own link to him. He was a theologian/historian excellence — I don’t really know what you’re talking about. I don’t have a link, you can find his book at Amazon, though. I’ll want to limit any further comments you make to the issue given by the article here. I’m starting to feel like you’re doing a little advertising. Like I said, not interested. Have a good one. If you ever want to talk about your need for a Savior from your sins, let me know.
I’m not interested in dialoguing, I don’t think, Rich. I’m a Christian, I believe in the indubitable reality and historicity of the resurrection. I barely have time to blog, let alone get online at a forum of some sorts.
Tony,
Good!!! π
Hello Bobby, Oh, ok, if that is the guy, the reason I would not get involved with him is that he is a pastor. As I was saying, I am not interested in the supernaturalism of christianity. As a pastor, Darby would be writing as a supernaturalist, so I would not really be interested in his views. Of course, there are few pastors that end up writing something of importance with regards to history, but then their writings get picked up and reported in the history journals, and then I become aware of them.
I understand that you are not interested in talking real time. Thought I would simply offer. I am always happy to talk with those interested in the history of early christianity.
Cheers! RichGriese.NET
You linked, your wikipedia above, to JND Kelly; I’m not talking about JN Darby. Kelly is a theologian/historian par excellence.
Rich, from now on you need to talk about the topic of this post TF Torrance or something directly related.
peace out.
Hello Bobby, Yes, I misspoke with the word Darby, the link to kelly is what I was talking about. And my point was as a pastor, he would be writing as a supernaturalist, so it would not be the kind of writing I would be interested in in. Sorry to have mistyped wrote DARBY instead of KELLY, it was kelly I was talking about, as your post, my replay, and my url went to… sorry again that i added confusion by adding the word Darby. If kelly’s writing were to make it to any of the history journals, I would keep up with them.
Cheers! RichGriese.NET
Sorry, Rich, you’ve been cordial; but you’re done on this thread. I’ve asked you to discuss the topic of the post, and not even an attempt. I’m not really interested in your style of work, and I’m also not going to engage in internet apologetics with you. This thread is now closed.