Some Historical Roots of African American Big God Theology

Year after year our awareness of the historical evidence increases that “Big God Theology” is indigenous to African American leadership from the beginnings of the Christian conversion of Blacks on this continent. Again and again what we find is that the most vivid and horrible descriptions of the slave trade go hand in hand with unshakeable confidence in God’s sovereignty over and in it all.

I would dare to venture that it was precisely the steel certainty of God’s all-governing, all-wise sovereignty, in the furnace of untold suffering, that forged the spiritual treasures of what Carl Ellis calls the “theological soul dynamic” in Black culture. In the last fifty years the biblical character of that soul dynamic has been significantly compromised by the widespread embrace of (largely white!) liberal theology.

But recently there has been a rediscovery and resurgence, among younger black leaders, of confidence in God’s all-wise sovereignty in suffering. This has gone hand in hand with the increasing awareness of how deep are the roots of this confidence in the soil of African American faith.

Ironically, one of the Black historians who has increased our awareness is not a theist, let alone a Christian. Anthony B. Pinn, Professor of humanities and Religious Studies at Rice University, promotes what he calls African American humanism. In his 2002 book, Moral Evil and Redemptive Suffering: A History of Theodicy in African-American Religious Thought, Pinn assembles thirty original historical documents by African Americans from 1787 to the present. Here is a sampling of the three earliest witnesses.

Jupiter Hammon

Jupiter Hammon was the first African American writer to be published in the United States. He lived in Lloyd Harbor, New York and was never emancipated. He was a fervent Christian and renowned for his eloquence. One of his most well-known addresses was given at the inaugural meeting of the African Society, September 24, 1786, titled An Address to the Negroes in the State of New York. He speaks of the deplorable condition of his brothers and their “poor, despised, miserable state”.

When he thinks about their plight, he says,

I am pained to the heart. It is at times almost too much for human nature to bear, and I am obliged to turn my thoughts from the subject or endeavor to still my mind, by considering that it is permitted thus to be, by that God who governs all things, who setteth up one and pulleth down another. (Pinn, 28)

Hammon pleads with the Blacks of New York to take every opportunity to learn how to read because then they may read the Bible.

Therein we may learn what God is. That he made all things by the power of his word, and that he made all things for his own glory, and not for our glory. That he is over all, and above all his creatures, and more above them than we can think or conceive — that they can do nothing without him — that he upholds them all and will overrule all things for his own glory. (Pinn, 34)

Absalom Jones

Twenty-one years later, on January 1, 1808 Absalom Jones, the first African American priest ordained in the Anglican Church, preached a message of thanksgiving in Philadelphia “on account of the abolition of the African Slave Trade on that day by the Congress of the United States.”

Jones gives a painfully vivid account of the plundering of African tribes, the Middle Passage, and the conditions of slaves in their new land, “exposed for sale like horses and cattle upon the wharves; or like bales of good.” He describes the “different modes of torture by means of the whip, the screw, the pincers, and the red hot iron . . . by inhuman overseers . . . deaf to the cries and shrieks of their agonizing slaves” (Pinn, 40).

He admits that “it has always been a mystery, why the impartial Father of the human race should have permitted the transportation of so many millions of our fellow creatures to this country, to endure all the miseries of slavery.” He does not know.

But instead of assuming God was helpless, or evil, or unwise, or non-existent, he assumes an all-wise, divine purpose, even if it is beyond our comprehension. He conjectures:

Perhaps his design was that a knowledge of the gospel might be acquired by some of their descendants, in order that they might become qualified to be the messengers of it, to the land of their fathers. Let this thought animate us, when we are teaching our children to love and adore the name of the Redeemer. Who knows but that a Joseph may rise up among them, who shall be the instrument of feeding the African nations with the bread of life, and of saving them, not from earthly bondage, but from the more galling yoke of sin and Satan. (Pinn, 42)

Nathaniel Paul

Nineteen years later, Nathaniel Paul preached a message July 5, 1827, the day after slavery was abolished in the state of New York. Paul was the pastor of the first African American Baptist Church of Albany, New York. He is overflowing with thankfulness to “the all-wise disposer of events” (Pinn, 46). Slavery, he said, “the most pernicious and abominable of all enterprises, in which the depravity of human nature ever led man to engage. . . . Its visage is satanic, its origin the very offspring of hell, and in all cases its effects are grievous” (47–48).

So he is bold to ask God, why he permitted this:

And, oh thou immaculate God, be not angry with us while we come into this thy sanctuary, and make the bold inquiry in this thy holy temple, why it was that thou didst look on with the calm indifference of any unconcerned spectator, when thy holy law was violated, thy divine authority despised, and a portion of thine own creatures reduced to a state of mere vassalage and misery. (50)

And he hears God answer:

Hark! While he answers from on high hear him proclaiming from the skies — Be still, and know that I am God! Clouds and darkness are round about me; yet righteousness and judgment are the habitation of my throne. I do my will and pleasure in the heaven above, and in the earth beneath; it is my sovereign prerogative to bring good out of evil, and cause the wrath of man to praise me. (50)

What these three African American witnesses show is that two hundred years ago Big God Theology was indigenous to the African American Christian mind. It was not alien. What would have been alien is Anthony Pinn’s God-less African American humanism.

The African American recovery of this emphasis today is, therefore, not the mere echo of white, western, Big God awakenings. Instead, what’s happening, across numerous cultures and ethnicities and geographies, is that the all-sovereign God of the Bible is reasserting himself for the strength and joy of his people. And to protect us from theological ethnocentrism, he is simultaneously reminding us that he has done this before among our fathers — white and black. (And, no doubt, other ethnic groups, if I only knew the history better. But I leave that for others.)

James P Boyce - Abstract of Theology

The following is an excerpt from James P Boyce's -"Abstract of Theology". Boyce was the founder and first principal of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He attended Princeton Seminary and had the upmost respect for Charles Hodge.

CHAPTER VII.

THE IMMUTABILITY OF GOD.

By the immutability of God is meant that he is incapable of change, either in duration of life, or in nature, character, will or happiness. In none of these, nor in any other respect is there any possibility of change.

1. This is implied in his absolute perfection. Perfection permits neither increase as though he lacks, nor decrease as though he can lose. Change must be for the worse or for the better, but God cannot become worse or better.

2. It arises in like manner from the pure simplicity of his nature. That which is not and cannot be compounded cannot be changed.

3. It is expressly taught by the Scriptures in the following as well as in other particulars. A few passages out of many are referred to in support of each.

(a) They declare him to be unchangeable in duration and life: Gen. 21:33; Deut. 32:39, 40; Ps. 9:7; 55:19; 90:2; 102:12; Hab. 1:12; Rom. 16:26; 1 Tim. 1:17; 6:16.

(b) They affirm the unchangeableness of his nature: Ps. 104:31; Mal. 3:6; Rom. 1:23; James 1:17.

(c) They also assert that his will is without change: Job 23:13; Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21.

(d) His character is also said to be immutable, as for example his justice: Gen. 18:25; Job 8:3; Rom. 2:2; his mercy: Ex. 34:7; Deut. 4:31; Ps. 107:1; Lam. 3:22, 23; Mal. 3:6; his truth: Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Mic. 7:20; Rom. 3:3; 11:2, 29; 2 Tim. 2:13; Titus 1:2; his holiness: Job 34:10; Hab. 1:13; James 1:13; and his knowledge: Isa. 40:13, 14, 27, 28.

The immutability thus set forth in the Scriptures and implied in the simplicity and absolute perfection of God is not, however, to be so understood as to deny in him some real ground for the Scripture statements of emotional feeling in the exercise of love, pity, longsuffering and mercy, or of anger, wrath and avenging justice. We could as well deny some real ground for the attributes of love, justice and truth which are at the basis of these emotions. We must never forget that we know but little, if anything, of the mode of operation of the divine mind. We are sure that we have to think and speak of it erroneously when our thoughts or words involve successive emotions in God or such as have beginning or end. And yet the only way in which change in him in such emotional acts could occur would involve both beginning, and end, and succession. Wherefore, we know that whatever possibility of change in God appears is due only to our own imperfection of knowledge and in-capacity to form true conceptions.

It is also true that the unchangeableness of God is not incompatible with such outward activity and relations as exist in connection with Creation, Providence and Redemption. But as this has not been so readily admitted, it may be well to consider more particularly the objections which have been made.

I. It is objected that a change must have taken place in God in the creation of the universe. It is claimed that he must then have formed a new purpose, and must have passed from a state of rest to one of activity.

(a) But this objection is based upon a forgetfulness of the fact, that in him there is no succession, and no change of time from one moment to another. The creation of the universe is no less an outward act than is the time in which it has existence. It appears in time and with time. But with God there is no time and no relation of time, exclusive of time itself. There was not before its creation. There will not be when there shall be no more time in creation. We may not be able to understand how this is, but we know that the fact must be so.

It is on this account that the purpose of God to create was not a new one, formed at one time and not at another. On the contrary, that purpose, and, indeed, his whole will is eternal. Whatever may have given rise to that purpose, does not exclude this fact.

(b) There was nothing outside to influence him. He was moved entirely by his own will. Whether that will was altogether voluntary, or arose from some necessity in his nature, we need not now consider. If it was either the one or the other, in either event it was eternal, for if his nature be eternal, then any necessity of his nature is an eternal necessity, and any purpose he forms, whether of necessity, or voluntarily, must be eternal volition. So much for the objection, based upon a supposed new purpose.

That from a transition from rest to labour is equally baseless. It supposes labour and toil in God. But the Scripture account of creation, as well as the dictates of reason, forbid this. There was no laborious work of God. There never is; there never can be. His infinite power compasses his infinite will, in the mere wishing. Neither in the creation nor in the sustentation of the universe is there in God any of that busy, careful thought, and protracted weary effort by which man maintains government or sustains the lives of those dependent on him.

This view of God's creation accords with reason. It alone is worthy of an all-wise, all-powerful, independent and self-existent God.

It is established by Scripture. Heb. 11:3. "By faith we understand that the worlds have been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen hath not been made out of things which do appear."

 

A Biblical Theology of the Good Shepherd

As we consider the many biblical theological themes that are unfolded throughout the Scriptures, our mind ought to be drawn to many of the passages in the Prophets in which we discover a synthesis of typological imagery brought under the light of prophetical fulfillment. Ezekiel 37:24-27 is one such passage. There, we find the Lord promising to raise up a Shepherd-King–under the typical name of David–to shepherd His people in the New Covenant–to dwell with them and protect them:
David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever. Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them, and it shall be an everlasting covenant with them; I will establish them and multiply them, and I will set My sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My tabernacle also shall be with them; indeed I will be their God, and they shall be My people. The nations also will know that I, the Lord, sanctify Israel, when My sanctuary is in their midst forevermore (Ezekiel 37:24-27).
This succinct New Covenant prophecy combines the most prominent biblical-theological themes of redemptive-history (i.e.
king, land, covenant, descendants, presence of God and dwelling place) in typological prospective. What is striking is that Shepherd is included among the other well known BT themes. On one hand, this ought to be surprising to us; on the other, it ought to be one of the most naturally anticipated. Consider the following biblical-theological developments regarding the Shepherd theme in Scripture:The Scriptures draw our attention, at the beginning of redemptive-history, to the fact that the very first person martyred for his faith in Christ was a Shepherd. Abel was a righteous Shepherd who was envied, despised and murdered by his brother. Jesus is THE RIGHTEOUS SHEPHERD who was envied, despised and murdered by His brethren (Matthew 21:38; 27:18; Mark 15:10 ). Jesus is the Good Shepherd who lays down His life for the Sheep. Additionally, the fact that Shepherding was one of the very first occupations in human history shows us that it was God’s plan to set this apart for an analogy to reflect His relationship to His people.In his departing covenantal blessing pronounced on Joseph, Jacob addressed God as being his Shepherd when he said: “God, before whom my fathers Abraham and Isaac walked, the God who has fed me all my life long to this day” (Gen. 48:15). One of the chief characteristics of a Shepherd is that he feeds his sheep. God feeds His people with the rich food of His word. He feeds us also with His own flesh and blood in the Person of His Son. In the subsequent blessing on Joseph he spoke of the coming Redeemer by the name of “the Shepherd:” Again, Jacob alludes to the LORD as Shepherd when he pronounced a covenant blessing on his son prior to his death: ”But his bow remained in strength, and the arms of his hands were made strong by the hands of the Mighty God of Jacob (From there is the Shepherd, the Stone of Israel)” (Genesis 49:24).The patriarchs are said to have been shepherds. When Joseph is speaking to his brothers about what they are to say to Pharaoh, we read: “Then Joseph said to his brothers and to his father’s household, “I will go up and tell Pharaoh, and say to him, ‘My brothers and those of my father’s house, who were in the land of Canaan, have come to me. 32 And the menare shepherds, for their occupation has been to feed livestock; and they have brought their flocks, their herds, and all that they have.’ 33 So it shall be, when Pharaoh calls you and says, ‘What is your occupation?’ 34 that you shall say, ‘Your servants’ occupation has been with livestock from our youth even till now, both we and also our fathers,’ that you may dwell in the land of Goshen; for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians’ (Genesis 46:31-34). It is important to note that we are told that “every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians.” There may be an allusion there–by way of theological analogy–to the fact that God’s Messiah and His people would be despised by the world. Egypt was clearly a type of Satan’s kingdom. The twelve tribes were the federal heads of the Old Covenant church through whom the Redeemer would come.When Moses asked God to raise up a replacement for himself over Israel, He did so by appealing to the figure of a Shepherd: “Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, who may go out before them and go in before them, who may lead them out and bring them in, that the congregation of the Lord may not be like sheep which have no shepherd.” Here, as with Abel, Joshua is a type of the greater Joshua (Jesus) who would be the Good Shepherd who leads and guides God’s people so that thy are not like sheep without a Shepherd (Matt. 9:36).As redemptive history progressed, the next figure to typify the Lord Jesus as a Shepherd was David. In the most pronounced way, David was the greatest type of the Good Shepherd. He was the Shepherd-King of Israel, the mighty warrior and the man after God’s own heart. Interestingly, it was David who drew out the connection between the Shepherd/sheep relationship and Yahewh’s relationship to His people. Psalm 23 was David reflecting on this analogy from his own experience as a Shepherd. As was already noted in the prophecy of Ezekiel 37, Jesus is promised to come under the typical name of David. He is the Son of David, the great Shepherd of Israel.When the Redeemer came, the Evangelists highlight the fact that the Shepherd of Psalm 23 had arrived. Mark tells us that when Jesus “saw a great crowd, and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd. And he began to teach them many things” (Mark 6:43). In the parable of the sheep and the goats, Jesus explained that on Judgment Day, “All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a Shepherd divides his sheep from the goats” (Matt. 25:32). Jesus cited Zechariah’s prophecy about the Shepherd being struck with the sword of God’s justice when He told His disciples that they would be scattered when He was taken in judgment (Mark 14:27). Jesus gave the most explicit explanation of what it means for Him to be the Good Shepherd who gives His life for the sheep in John 10.The Apostles drew out the continuing implications of Jesus being the Good Shepherd when they tell believers that “you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls” (1 Peter 2:25), and “when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away” (1 Peter 5:4). The writer of Hebrews calls Jesus “the Great Shepherd of the sheep” who makes His people complete by working in them after being raised from the dead for them (Heb. 13:20-21). John Piper has put it so magnificently when he said, “Every soul needs a Shepherd.”In the New Testament epistles we also see that God has appointed under-shepherds to shepherd His people by feeding them with the pure word of God and with the preaching of the Great Shepherd of the sheep. The Apostle Paul uses this figure to explain what elders are to be–and to do–in the church. In Acts 20:28 we find Paul telling the Ephesian elders: “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” In Peter 5:1-4, the Apostle Peter draws together the idea of elders being under-shepherds who are to labor now in the church until the Chief Shepherd comes. He tells us what the shepherd-elders are to do when he writes: “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that will be revealed: Shepherd the flock of God which is among you, serving as overseers, not by compulsion but willingly, not for dishonest gain but eagerly; nor as being lords over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock; and when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that does not fade away” (1 Peter 5:1-4).Finally, we find that our Lord Jesus, in consummate glory, will be Shepherding His people for all eternity. The Apostle John tells us that in glory, “the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne will shepherd them [i.e. the redeemed] and lead them to living fountains of waters. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.” After all the under-shepherds have come and gone we will see that the Shepherd, who became the Lamb that was slain for the sheep, will continue to shepherd His people by giving them everlasting joy and peace in His presence. He will bring all of His flock to Himself in glorious consummation. This is the fullness of the redemptive-historical manifestation of our God as our Shepherd.This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 8th, 2014 at 6:38 am and is filed under Featured, Feeding on Christ, Headline. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
View the original article here

What is R2K Theology?

An aspiring theology wonk can often find himself swimming in a bewildering ocean of acronyms. Since we no longer debate our theology over the course of hours, but often do so using only our thumbs, shorthand is valuable, but challenging. Just when you realized the role of iaoc to npp and fv (that is, the imputation of the active obedience of Christ to the New Perspective on Paul and Federal Vision), now comes R2K.

The acronym is short for one of two things, depending on how favorable one is to the position. Some use it for Reformed Two Kingdom, others for Radical Two Kingdom. Those who embrace the Reformed Two Kingdom view insist first that their position is the mainstream of the Reformed tradition. It affirms that God’s law and His Son rule the world in two related but distinct ways. The broader reign is over the created, or natural order. The function of the state is to support and operate under “natural law.” The Bible is of little use in this context as it was given to God’s people specifically. Natural law was given for all men everywhere.

Jesus reigns in a second kingdom as well, in the church. Here His focus is more direct—the church is to be about the business of Word and sacrament. His will is that the church proclaim the good news of Jesus. The Word of God is preached, showing us our need for a redeemer. The revealed law of God, at least insofar as the third use of the law remains on the table, is for God’s people in the church, and in the church alone. What the church is not to do, however, as the church, is speak into the first kingdom. The church, according to this view, is neither called, equipped, nor permitted to prophecy against the sins of those outside the kingdom.

At their best, those who espouse R2K theology rightly reject the common temptation among evangelicals to wrap up our theological convictions in the American flag, to confuse God’s kingdom with these United States, and the temptation common to some Reformed to insist that the tiniest detail of a given government policy debate comes equipped with a peculiarly perspicuous proof-text to tell us what to do. Sometimes we end up saying, “Thus sayeth the Lord” when we ought to be saying, “Our understanding of the implication of this text leads us to believe option A is more wise than option B.”

At their worst, however, R2K theology can silence the prophetic voice of the church. While many R2K advocates would be comfortable with individual Christians speaking to the great moral issues of our day, the church is forbidden to do so. When the state punishes a landlord for refusing to rent to fornicators, the church cannot speak. When the state engages in empire building, waging unjust wars across the globe, the church cannot speak. Worst of all, when the state uses its God-given sword to protect those who murder the unborn, the church cannot speak.

The church is the bride of Christ, called to be a help suitable to the second Adam as He fulfills the dominion mandate, bringing all things under submission. She is not confined to the garden, but goes forth into the jungle, wherever He goes to glorify His name, to make visible His reign. She speaks what He speaks, to all who would stand against Him. She speaks for the downtrodden, for those unable to speak for themselves. May we who are Reformed ever affirm this radical truth—there is one King, and one Kingdom.

A Biblical Theology of Love

Love is at the heart of the Bible.

God loved us so much he sent his only be-loved Son to love us by blood, so that we would likewise love and treasure this be-loved Son (John 3:16, Revelation 1:5).

But that doesn’t tell the full story. On the cross, Christ initiated a love to break our love-less sin, to gift us with new hearts, and to make us love-givers (1 John 4:19). The Holy Spirit pours God’s love into us (Romans 5:5; Galatians 5:22).

Such love has a full-bodied Trinitarian flavor, with ancient roots dug deep in the Old Testament. And one scholar building on this theme is Jason DeRouchie, Associate Professor of Old Testament at Bethlehem College and Seminary in Minneapolis.

DeRouchie is the editor of an innovative new book: What the Old Testament Authors Really Cared About: A Survey of Jesus’ Bible, a full-color, illustrated survey of the Old Testament storyline from a distinctly Christ-centered and Christian perspective (Luke 24:44).

DeRouchie penned the notes on Deuteronomy, a book he is well versed in, and I recently asked him for a mini biblical theology of love beginning with Deuteronomy and the famous Shema, which reads: “Hear, O Israel: The L??? our God, the L??? is one. You shall love the L??? your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:4–5).

All love begins with God, DeRouchie told me, “Because in his call for us to love him, that is where we know greatest joy for eternity. God loves us by calling us to love him.” And it’s a call to an all-embracing love, to love him with our heart and soul — our desires, our will, and all our motivations.

“But bigger than that,” DeRouchie said, “it’s a love that includes all our actions, our words, how we treat others, our perception, everything connected with our being.” Our love for God is all-encompassing; it includes loving God with all our might (literally, all our ‘very-ness’), which includes all our powers, wealth, resources, everything: “our car, our wife, our social media, our clothing, our children, our house. Love for God is wholehearted, life-encompassing, and community-embracing. Everywhere we go, everything we do cries out: ‘The L??? is one in my life!’”

But such a love expressed from our lips and hearts and wallets and smartphones requires a radical heart transformation. This has always been true (Deuteronomy 10:16). To love God and to love our neighbors, like the Law commanded, requires new hearts. In the Old Testament, this is the promise of the coming New Covenant (Ezekiel 11:19–20, 36:26).

The gospel is essential for every eternal love. “All my love is a blood-bought love,” DeRouchie said. “My joy in Christ, my delight in all that God has secured for me, is now what defines me. I am in this world to magnify the greatness of God shown to me in love. And every decision I make, every encounter I have, is about loving God, which overflows in love of neighbor. The fuel for loving my neighbor in a self-sacrificial way, regardless of the cost, is my joy and satisfaction in God.”

But this is only a start. For more on how love develops in the storyline of the Bible, listen to our full 39-minute conversation. There we address some practical Christ-centered ways love gets refreshed in our lives, lessons drawn from 1 Timothy 1:5.

Building the Minister’s Library: Historical Theology

Building the Minister’s Library: Historical Theology

Historical theology is the branch of theology which examines the doctrines of the church within their historical context and development. Historical theologians investigate the theology of individuals and schools of thought, in order to determine the continuity and discontinuity within the broader Christian tradition. It is always best done when one investigates the original sources and attempts to hear the authors in their own thought-categories.

Berkhof, Louis. The History of Christian Doctrines. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1969. Not as popular as his Systematic Theology, but still good.

Congar, Yves. A History of Theology. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1968. Catholic in perspective, but still useful for the early and medieval periods.

Dorner, I. A., George Robson, and Sophia Taylor. History of Protestant Theology: Particularly in Germany, Viewed According to Its Fundamental Movement and in Connection with the Religious, Moral, and Intellectual Life. Edinburgh: T.&T. Clark, 1871. Obviously limited to Protestant thought. Exhibits the state of historical theology in the nineteenth century.

Hagenbach, K. R. A History of Christian Doctrines. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880. Like other 19th century works, Hagenbach adopts an encyclopedia-structured division of theology.

Hägglund, Bengt. History of Theology. St. Louis: Concordia Pub. House, 1968. This was a required textbook in my seminary days. Still recommended.

Harnack, Adolf von. History of Dogma. New York: Dover Publications, 1961. One may not agree with Harnack’s conclusions, but one will need to read him as an influential theologian.

Neander, August, J. L. Jacobi, and J. E. Ryland. Lectures on the History of Christian Dogmas. London: H.G. Bohn, 1858. Similar to Hagenbach’s methodology.

Pelikan, Jaroslav. The Christian Tradition; A History of the Development of Doctrine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975. Pelikan has become a standard text for many students. This is an exhaustive treatment by a prodigious scholar.

Seeberg, Reinhold. Text-Book of the History of Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1952. Find a used copy if you can.

Welch, Claude. Protestant Thought in the Nineteenth Century. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1972. Welch picks up nicely where all the 19th century textbooks leave off.