Greatest Mind Of Western Christendom

[Stephen L Smith]

I think it best to leave such questions to our Lord and be content know what honors he will bestow on any when at last we enter into his Kingdom. I am thankful for all of the gifts Christ has given to his church and pray that God will give me the grace to get the greatest good from each one of them as I am able—remembering that these are the tokens of my Lord's ascending love (Eph. 4:10-12).

Agreed. It is hard to compare great Christian leaders because they have different gifts. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has had the greatest overall influence over me but he did not write a Reformed Dogmatics like Bavinck or Vos. Luther was a great reformer but he did not consolidate the teaching of the reformation like Calvin did in the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

'Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.' 1 Cor 3:21-22

 

[Pergamum]

Brilliantly stated, Perg. You do not write much that is sensible, but this post is the exception that proves the rule.

Actually I just read Augustine's Confessions for the dirty parts but then got hooked.

 

[greenbaggins]

Really? Tell me more please.

It is my belief that Vos had the deepest and best understanding of Scripture itself. His volume Biblical Theology is the single most formative book in my thinking other than the Bible. His Reformed Dogmatics, written at the ripe old age of 29, demonstrate an unreal mastery of Christian theology. His volume The Pauline Eschatology sets up the deep structure of Paul's theology in amazing ways. For me, though, the crowning achievement he made was to wed all the theological disciplines together in an inter-connected whole. He could do it all in theology in a way I've never seen anyone else in Christian history do. His article on the history of covenant theology demonstrates an amazing grasp of the Protestant scholastics at a time when few thought they were of any importance. He proved he could do church history. His knowledge of exegesis is rather better known, as is (now, after the publication of RD) knowledge of systematics. But then there is Grace and Glory. which showed he could preach, making everything practical.

 

[itsreed]

I think one would have to seriously consider Athanasius, the tireless opponent of the dangerous and rampant Arian threat in the early church. As part of that effort he is believed to be the chief author of the Nicene Creed, a simple, theological bulwark that has withstood the ages as the basis of Christic belief for all orthodox Christians. He was also the first to discern the full canon of the New Testament as it came to be accepted by the church. A most impressive resume indeed.

Do you mean the later 381 Constantinople-Nicene confirmation? Thought at the original 325 Nicene, Athanasius was but a recording secretary.
Either way, does not detract from your nomination of a great mind.

 

[Phil D.]

Do you mean the later 381 Constantinople-Nicene confirmation? Thought at the original 325 Nicene, Athanasius was but a recording secretary.
Either way, does not detract from your nomination of a great mind.

Yes, I probably should have been more precise.... I have seen some scholars suggest that by 325 the young Athanasius may have already been influencing the articulation of Christic doctrine by his mentor (Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria), the latter of whom, given his status and reputation, was almost certainly instrumental in formulating the original Creed. Both attended the council, but the issue of Athanasius' influence by that time is mostly speculative. There is no doubt that he was the ablest and most determined defender of Nicene theology in the turbulent years immediately following the council. Of course what came to be known as the Athanasian Creed was not written by him either, but it's certainly an apt summation of his teaching.

It is also notable that virtually all of the core points of faith codified in the 325 Nicene Creed are contained in an orderly summation of belief given by Irenaeus in the 2nd Century, of which he then insists,

…[The true church] also believes these points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. (Against Heresies, 1.10f; ANF 1:330f.)​

Congruent with Irenaeus’ assertion of the early origins of this comprehension of the Godhead are some remarks from another bishop attending the council, Eusebius of Caesarea. Writing back to his home church, he related what was told Constantine upon the Creed's presentation to the emperor:

Concerning these doctrines we [the orthodox] steadfastly maintain their truth, and avow our full confidence in them; such also have been our sentiments hitherto. ...In the presence of God Almighty, and of our Lord Jesus Christ we testify, that thus we have believed and thought from our heart and soul, since we have possessed a right estimate of ourselves. …We are moreover prepared to prove by undeniable evidences, and to convince that in time past we have thus believed, and so preached. (Letter of Eusebius; NPNF2 2:11)​

 

[retroGRAD3]

But then there is Grace and Glory. which showed he could preach, making everything practical.

I very much enjoyed this book.

 

[Deleted member 12919 by request]

It is my belief that Vos had the deepest and best understanding of Scripture itself. His volume Biblical Theology is the single most formative book in my thinking other than the Bible. His Reformed Dogmatics, written at the ripe old age of 29, demonstrate an unreal mastery of Christian theology. His volume The Pauline Eschatology sets up the deep structure of Paul's theology in amazing ways. For me, though, the crowning achievement he made was to wed all the theological disciplines together in an inter-connected whole. He could do it all in theology in a way I've never seen anyone else in Christian history do. His article on the history of covenant theology demonstrates an amazing grasp of the Protestant scholastics at a time when few thought they were of any importance. He proved he could do church history. His knowledge of exegesis is rather better known, as is (now, after the publication of RD) knowledge of systematics. But then there is Grace and Glory. which showed he could preach, making everything practical.

Thank you. You almost persuade me to buy all of his works.

 

[greenbaggins]

Thank you. You almost persuade me to buy all of his works.

I can say fairly confidently that you would not regret any of those purchases.

 

[alexanderjames]

I can say fairly confidently that you would not regret any of those purchases.

How’s the Vos Natural Theology book that just came out?

 

[greenbaggins]

How’s the Vos Natural Theology book that just came out?

I haven't read it yet, to be honest.

 

[RamistThomist]

Athanasius would have been the greatest of the ancient world. His comments on theology also determined his cosmology.

John Philoponos would have been the greatest Egyptian after Alexandria. He anticipated modern science by 1,000 years at least. His tritheism, if such it is, is a bit off putting.

Turretin would have been the greatest post-Reformation figure, hands down. I know everyone loves Calvin, and Calvin did a great job organizing theology, but he simply wasn't at the same level as Turretin.

 

[TheInquirer]

OP, what is it you are trying to get at with your original question? Are you looking for a person to devote considerable study to or is it curiosity or something else? Knowing that might help us offer some suggestions.

My limited experience with Vos is that his works range considerably in their accessibility. I would not recommend the average lay person jump straight in to Biblical Theology. When I read it in seminary it felt like quite a slog. I was surprised to see his systematic works that are arranged in question and answer format (Reformed Dogmatics? I am forgetting) to be much clearer and easier to understand and probably a much better entry point for most. However, in my brief reading of his systematics (and I admit it to be brief) nothing struck me as being superior to other systematicians I had been reading. I do not wish to diminish Vos and his contributions but I am not sure everyone has the appreciation for him as the honorable Mr Baggins .

Additionally, contra Piper who I saw once recommended devoting a lot of time studying one person (possibly explains some of his deep flaws in Christian Hedonism), I prefer to read more broadly and benefit from the gifts God has given a number of great and godly minds throughout church history. As some have suggested in this thread, a comparison of "great" is difficult since God raised up different men at different times for differing purposes. I think one would sell themselves short to overly focus on one individual. There is a "body" metaphor of the church and its giftings in Scripture for good reason.

 

[retroGRAD3]

Turretin would have been the greatest post-Reformation figure, hands down. I know everyone loves Calvin, and Calvin did a great job organizing theology, but he simply wasn't at the same level as Turretin.

I have started reading some Turretin. I have really enjoyed it so far and have learned a lot. That said, I very much enjoy the institutes and Calvin's commentaries as well.

 

[alexanderjames]

I haven't read it yet, to be honest.

I just assume you have read everything, especially Vos!

 

[greenbaggins]

I just assume you have read everything, especially Vos!

An impression I like to cultivate, but a smidgen of salt should go along with that. I have read most of Vos.

 

[ZackF]

An impression I like to cultivate, but a smidgen of salt should go along with that. I have read most of Vos.

In Dutch?

 

[greenbaggins]

In Dutch?

I don't read Dutch. Most of Vos's work was originally written in English. As far as I know, only the RD was originally in Dutch.