I have to say, I am realizing that my theological interests are more in the realm of historical theology than what some might call modern theology. The furthest I move into modern theology is with Thomas Torrance, and then of course, by training, TFT was a patristics scholar; which, then, gets me right back into historical theology. I certainly can appreciate Barth, and probably from what I have come to realize, the earlier Barth; but Barth, at the end of the day is not my final cup of tea. I have been trying to read some JΓΌngel, and then of course, Schleiermacher, but this era of theologizing just doesn’t get me going like patristic and Reformation theology (inclusive of post-Reformed) do. My favorites from historical theology to study are: Calvin, Luther, and the Scottish evangelical Calvinists, along with ‘The Spiritual Brethren’ Calvinists of England. I actually like to study Augustine, and Pelagius; I like Athanasius and the Cappadocians; and I like to study Thomas Aquinas and the medieval scholastics. Oh, and I like to study the Bible π . Anyway, since this is a blog, and I felt like writing, I thought I would declare my space in the theological game; and in so doing, let you know what I like to study and research.
On a different note: it is interesting to come across the misconceptions that people have about ‘Reformed theology’. We attend an awesome church, but I am afraid that the culture in which are church is ensconced is rather horrified at the thought of ‘Reformed Theology’. I am afraid that Reformed Theology has become synonymous with 5 Point Calvinism, or rigid logico-deductive deterministic and fatalistic systems of of thought; and thus if someone claims to be a ‘Reformed-Theology-guy’, like I do, that this stereotype is associated with my ‘Reformed’ views (so guilt by association). This only motivates me more to break down such stereotypes by clarifying the depth and breadth that ‘Reformed Theology’ actually represents in the history itself. One thing, though, that certainly makes me ‘Reformed’ is my belief in the primacy of God’s grace and choice in salvation. Of course the way that my own view parses that, my Evangelical Calvinist view, is much different than the 5 Point articulation; but it is not any different than how it has been parsed in the history of Reformed thought (by some Scots and Brits, at least). And it is this point that needs-be clarified for folks who continue to suffer under the old binary notion of Calvinism versus Arminianism. I mean, I don’t blame anyone for thinking this is how it is—especially for those who don’t spend a lot of time studying theology and the history of interpretation—nevertheless, there is no reason that this delusion need continue to prevail in the body of Christ. I am a Reformed theologian (notice I used a small “t” instead of a big one “T” π ), and thus I feel the need to let folk know that it is not careful or accurate to characterize such folk as myself in a narrow way. So my mode is to operate as “lets-be-careful-police”, or something π . At the end of the day what ultimately matters is that folks have a healthy view of Jesus (not all of these labels, but if we are going to use them we should be careful in how we do … I say to self as well).
There can be no doubt that people like Mike Horton have and do read their Bibles, and also just a little theology! π But funny, I am not close enough for many to him. But I am not with Barth or Torrance either. I guess I am just an Anglican, but both “catholic” and “reformed”. I kind of like the FV people, but that’s another long issue! And yeah I like old Luther! π
Bobby: I am somewhat “eclectic”. π Say I wonder how our old friend TC is do’in?
Fr Robert,
I think I like TFT because he really is actually “classic,” but he personalises things in a way that highly resonate with me. I find the analogy of faith and that approach to fit better with Luther and Calvin than I do the analogy of being and the post Reformed Thomist approach. Thus, again, why I like TFT. And yet, I am not into what some call post-metaphysicalism; and neither is TFT, and thus why I like TFT π . But I am able to look at TFT with a little more critical distance than even before, and consider him one of my favorite teachers in the history of the church. I am in the end, quite eclectic myself.
I know, I wonder how TC is doing too? I hope he hasn’t started another blog somewhere w/o letting us know π .
Bobby,
Yeah TFT was a personally great man and Christian! I will always love, and recommend his book: The Trinitarian Faith. But he is too close to Barth for me! But, I like some Barth and read him..in the mood. As too TFT. π
As to Mr. TC, maybe he doesn’t want “us” around? I know I was a pain for him sometimes! π
I too find historical theology fascinating. I just tonight read a chapter sketching out the eschatological strains in German pietism in the 19th century with a focus on Johann Blumhardt and his son Christoph. Their eschatological emphasis was on the outworking of the Kingdom of God now rather than futuristic. Jesus is Victor was a major them for them. Their influence was seen in a number of later theologians – Barth, Eduard Thurneysen, Paul Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Harvey Cox and Jurgen Moltmann.
The relationships of influence in a kind of history of ideas approach I find truly fascinating. One can make too much of it and see things that aren’t there, but everyone is influenced by others and to see those connections help to place the theologian in a larger context.
I found this in a new book “Perspectives in Pentecostal Eschatologies: World Without End” ed. by Peter Althouse and Robby Waddell. They cover a wide spectrum of Pentecostal and Charismatic eschatological emphases. Check out the table of contents if you get a chance.
By the way we are all reformed in some sense since the Reformation even if those who lay claim to the name would exclude us. Of course that is a never ending debate within those circles. Who can claim the use of the label Reformed? That is just one of the many things I find distasteful about those circles. I don’t think I could last 5 minutes in an OPC church. Tow the line or they take you to church court. Yuck! I have seen that abused before and I don’t want anything to do with that mindset.
But there is much of great value in the Reformed tradition. For me that includes all the branches, even those put out by the confessional groups.
@Jon,
Sounds interesting, that is an interesting period. Maybe I should clarify that my primary area of interest is pre and up to 17th century π .
Yes, we are all part of the Reformed tradition, one way or the other, as Protestants; whether that be from the Reformation, proper, of the so called Radical Reformers (which Evangelicalism seems to be a mixture of both relative to variant ecclesiological forms and soteriological commitments etc).
Btw @Jon, I don’t see any of those “guys” in strict historical theology myself! Barth is the closest, but even his “dialectic” overshadows any lasting historical theology to my mind. Only the Reformers, ‘Let God be God’ begins this effort! It is here too that an Augustinianism lives! And note even a classic Catholic Augustinianism is closer here also. But these are just my thoughts, since we have been sharing some.
And finally Bobby, like Luther, the only thing (and a big thing at that) that keeps me from Roman Catholicism again, is the doctrine of the papacy. Perhaps this will help you to understand my place and thinking? I was surely (as Luther) affected by Catholicism! And still see some of its thinking and logic, and this would be again Augustinian. And btw, I am not sure modern ‘evangelicals’ get this? Those of course outside of Lutheranism, and some forms of Anglicanism.
Fr Robert,
Stephen Strehle has a great book called “The Catholic Roots of the Protestant Gospel,” you should read it sometime, if you haven’t.
Bobby,
This is our “tangle”, I love the Reformers! But they certainly could not fully escape scholastic thinking & thought! And they were all more or less affected by Augustinian teaching and thinking! Luther’s Christology and doctrine of the Trinity are essentially Catholic!
Yes, but scholastic is broad; and should be argued, and has, that Luther certainly escaped the conceptual material of scholasticism (like the Aristotelian material/conceptual); at points, not the mode or method. But that’s not to say that the contours of Luther’s via moderna inspired project did not provide a whole new trajectory (certainly medieval, but so).
To say Augustinian, like I said in my other comment to you, to me, means that Luther was not Thomist; which the Heidelberg Dispuation and his Disputation Against Scholastic Theology reflect, clearly (let alone his Three Treatises).