Historical Theology, by Gregg Allison ★★★
Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology text is deficit of any historical context. This is a serious deficit to an otherwise excellent systematic theology textbook, and Allison attempts to provide in this text what Grudem left out. Each chapter is arranged topically following the chapters in Grudem. This creates a textbook of historical theology that has strengths but also serious weaknesses. Oftentimes, a theological discussion demands the environment of multiple topics, such as the Christological controversies of the 2-4th centuries which cannot be discussed void of the trinitarian controversies. This leaves a text that is only half complete. Allison’s text would not be good for a neophyte in historical theology, as he would loose the entire nature of many controversies. For this reason, JND Kelly’s text for early church theological developments, or Schaff’s History do a far better job of giving the reader a flavor as to the content of the historical debates. Allison’s text would work better if designed as an advanced text, but this would mean a very large section for each of the topics covered, accompanied by a large amount of repetition. Many areas are woefully incomplete, such as a very poor discussion of subordinationism, the iconoclastic controversy, and the rise of covenant theology, just to name a few. The text has strengths in that it is easily readable, and could act as a jumping off point for further reading. As a primary historical theology text, others do better when they stick to a chronological discussion rather than a topical agenda.
Add comments
The basic problem with so much historical theology is that it draws from the history of the great counterfeit church, not the authentic church of apostolic pedigree that did not accept the authority of the papacy. The true church was driven into the wilderness by the papacy soon after it quit attending “Church Councils” dominated by Rome in the 300s AD. Hence much of the trinitarian and christological controversy takes place within the context of a paganized church whose theology included much Greek paganism, fitted with a plastic Jesus overlay.
It is best to follow, from the time of Constantine onward, the history and theology of the true church, a church nearly forgotten by Protestants in our time. Too bad this author simply ran with the herd instead!
Dennis;
I appreciate your comments, but disagree entirely. It’s funny that the Mormons make the same claim as you. Our theology will always be interpreted in light of contextual circumstances, yet theological truths, including the trinitarian/christological controversies don’t seem to be bound by the Greek philosophical mindset, being accepted and explained well in all other philosophical and cultural contexts. Therefore, I wouldn’t explain the trinity to a Muslim in the same manner than I’d explain the doctrine to a 2nd century Greek, yet the truth would remain the same. This is why Calvin, Luther (better minds than you or me) didn’t feel the necessity of addressing the doctrines of God and Christ when formulating the doctrines of the Protestant church.