Brother John
Puritan Board Sophomore
If you were to pick one pastor/theologian above all the rest to become your lifetime study who would it be and why?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you were studying for the sake of the wider church and not merely personal benefit, there would be a greater need for us to pick neglected theologians or unpublished theologians who really impacted the church and let the world know more about them.
Horatius Bonar
Angskar (missionary to the Norse, "Apostle of the North").
Owens
Owens
Owens
Edwards
Jonathan Edwards
My first thought was Edwards.
I would pick Edwards
Why? It doesn't seem like Edwards is the best in any given area.
Doesn't that depend on the presupposition that there were such? No doubt there are many theologians who are less well known and who were valuable in their own way. But for all their usefulness, did a Melanchthon, Amsdorf, Bugenhagen or Chemnitz really have an impact comparable to Luther's? No doubt Luther's impact would have been less, or different, without them; but that doesn't mean that their table talk would have been worth preserving. Not everyone ought to be consulted beyond their own time.
I can agree with you, Ruben, about the danger of making one theologian the ruler of your faith. However, I don't know that I can go with you on your assessment of Melanchthon and Chemnitz, especially Melanchthon. His Loci Communes was the first systematic theology of the Reformation period. It greatly influenced Calvin's own Institutes. The LC was the single most reprinted Lutheran dogmatics. In its time, it was more forming than Luther's own writings were, even though Luther was the spark. Melanchthon was the systematizer who "cleaned up" what Luther left behind and didn't deal with. Chemnitz was probably the most incisive critic of Trent who ever lived. His Loci Communes were nearly as influential as Melanchthon's.
I can agree with you, Ruben, about the danger of making one theologian the ruler of your faith. However, I don't know that I can go with you on your assessment of Melanchthon and Chemnitz, especially Melanchthon. His Loci Communes was the first systematic theology of the Reformation period. It greatly influenced Calvin's own Institutes. The LC was the single most reprinted Lutheran dogmatics. In its time, it was more forming than Luther's own writings were, even though Luther was the spark. Melanchthon was the systematizer who "cleaned up" what Luther left behind and didn't deal with. Chemnitz was probably the most incisive critic of Trent who ever lived. His Loci Communes were nearly as influential as Melanchthon's.
Lane, I didn't mean to undervalue the impact of Melanchthon or Chemnitz (or anyone, really): I was just drawing a few examples present to my mind from reading Steinmetz's Reformers in the Wings. And of course a subtle influence may be all the more pervasive for its subtlety. They don't seem like they have the bombshell impact of Luther or Calvin, or like they enjoy the same kind of enduring status as a persistent influence and catalyst beyond confessional/organizational/local/temporal associations that might give someone a particular interest in them. But I can limit my examples to Bugenhagen and Amsdorf, and I think the point still stands that just because someone was very useful in his own time, or very influential in certain structural ways (as Bugenhagen certainly was) doesn't mean that their thought will be a fountain of theological dynamism for all time.
I can definitely go with that.
Wow! No Osteen?! Amazing!