You raise excellent points. I can say that Edwards was eclectic and drew upon many different sources (there is question about whether he read Thomas). I have no problem saying that different streams feed into the Calvinist lake. Remember what I said about Thomas in my last post. He thought of himself as Augustinian. I didn’t say that all these streams necessarily fit well with one another, but it is a fact that they do co-exist. Why do you think we have fights about apologetics within Reformed circles?

How do you integrate these two disparate camps, Jeff?

Furthermore, looking at the development of dogma, wouldn’t you say that theologians such as: Bullinger, Musculus, and even more significantly Vermigli of Massonius had a heavy impact on the later scholastic (relative to causal and christological loci) development of “Reformed” soteriology within the covenant/federal framework? And if this is true, then the development of “Federal theology” took shape via the dialectic and conceptual framework provided by scholasticism–which in my view would imply that the “foundation” of contemporary Federalism (or Calvinism) is explicitly informed by the Thomist-intellectualist trajectory, and not primarily the Augustinian (Edwards then would reflect a different nuance within the broader Classical theistic development of dogma [e.g. given his Augustinianism]).

In Christ

Merry Christmas to all! I have been away from my computer visiting family in Canada. Even now I am hogging my sister-in-law’s station so I can try to keep up with my e-mail.

Nice to hear from Jonathan and Bobby. Feel free to use my musings however you think most helpful. And yes, please note proper credit. You know how touchy us scholars can be about such things…:o)

Bobby, in answer to your question as to which tradition (Thomist, Scotist, or Augustinian) is most influential in modern Calvinism, I would say that soteriologically, Calvinists are clearly Augustinian. Of course Thomas Aquians saw himself as Augustinian as well. And Scotus has been seen as fairly influential on Calvin. So I would have to say there are elements of all three men in contemporary Calvinism. However, where we see the influences most clearly would be in the area of apologetics. As a Van Tillian, I think presuppositionalism (i.e., a better name in my opinion is “covenantal apologetics”) is most Augustinian and the classical method of apologetics most clearly Thomistic.

However, as I have noted in previous comments, there is much to learn from Thomas even if we disagree with him on a given point. While I am on my soapbox, let me note that we have a tendency to reject everything a given theologian has said when we disagree with one detail. This is not a good way to analyze a theologian. There may be useful things a given theologian says even if we disagree with him on a particular point. In other words, if I rejected out of hand every theologian with whom I had even the smallest difference of opinion, I would end up all by myself. And given the fact that I have changed my mind on various subjects over the years (and so disagree with my earlier self) I might not even end up with myself!

What I have said is a matter of maturity and discernment. I am not thinking about theologians who teach heresy or otherwise serious error. Although even a broken clock is right twice a day. My only concern is that we train ourselves to read a given theologian closely and carefully.

For whatever it is worth…

which tradition highlighted above would you say modern Calvinism has been shaped by (in general)? Thomist, Scotist, or Augustinian?