Do evangelicals have a theology, like a confessional-dogmatic theology? No. As an evangelical myself, growing up the deepest theologies I was ever exposed to was something like Walter Martin’s Kingdom of the Cults, or on the fringes, I would hear the name, Francis Schaeffer and C. Everett Koop (as an evangelical who was an intellectual) thrown around (and maybe, Charles Ryrie). None of this is to suggest that my experience is the delimiting factor in regards to whether or not evangelicals had or have a dogmatic theology present. But it is to recognize that even if attempts were indeed being made, they were not prominent ones. Later in life (like in my early 20s) I was exposed to Millard Erickson and Wayne Grudem; not to mention Bruce and Demarest and Stanley Grenz. But none of these theologies have ever risen to the levels of the Post Reformed orthodox theologians, or the Lutherans scholastics of the 16^th and 17^th centuries. And of course, in such a vacuum, because of the lacuna of dogmatic theologies for contemporary evangelicals and Reformed types, they are called back to said 16^th and 17^th century theologians, respectively (which we see now in the retrieval movement). And I think I am also part of this generation of evangelicals who happens to be a deep thinker, and was on the lookout for something deeper and substantive; something catholic, which has a liminal rootage with the church continuous.

What’s more, my turn hasn’t been to the 16^th and 17^th centuries, per se, but, clearly to the early 20^th century as that is primarily resident in the theologies of Karl Barth and Thomas Torrance. Even so, my “turn” happened by becoming attuned to the patristics, the medieval theologians, along with Martin Luther, John Calvin, and even the Post Reformed orthodox; primarily, the Puritans and Pietists. I quickly recognized that whilst there are great riches strewn throughout the history of the church’s doctrinal development, that much of it did not correlate directly with an evangelical ethos. That is, while there has been a lacuna of evangelical dogmatics in the 20^th and 21^st centuries, even still, evangelicals have functioned with an unspoken set of theological themes that have served regulative for their worship services, Sunday morning sermons, Bible studies, so on and so forth. Evangelicals, by and large, believe that Jesus died and rose again for everyone; that the Bible is the authoritative Word of God; that the Gospel is genuinely offered to everyone (not just sufficiently, but efficaciously too); that God is love; that Jesus is God in flesh, both fully God and fully human; that God is triune as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that salvation is by faith alone; and more.

And yet, does Post Reformed orthodoxy map onto those themes in ethos? No, I would say not; even if there is some doctrinal overlap here and there. And so where can the evangelical turn? Many think they are more Arminian or Wesleyan than Calvinist, and then vice versa. As if these types of binaries are the only ones available, or most proximate to what they think they believe as evangelicals. And so often, the evangelical will attempt to cobble together some type of theological identity by taking themes from this perceived “side” or that, and then claim to be an Arminian, Wesleyan, Provisionist (as that has been more popularly developing), Free Grace, Calvinist, Anabaptist, evangelical Lutheran etc. But, in my view, this type of pastiche does not represent a coherent dogmatic theological offering that is genuinely evangelical in ethos, in spirit. I think Barth and TF Torrance, in their own ways, map onto a real evangelical dogmatic theology in ways that evangelicals have been in search for, for a long time (if they have been searching, anyway).

I understand that this post is highly generalized. But it is in gist.