Comments on: Theology Through a Glass Darkly http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/ Serving the joyful cultivation of the theological craft for the life of the church: inquiring honestly, deliberating wisely, acting faithfully Thu, 06 Jun 2013 16:38:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Bobby Grow http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12126 Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:47:18 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12126 Thanks, I see he is still posting; I was just curious :-).

]]> By: Kent Eilers http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12121 Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:51:29 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12121 Thanks Bobby.

]]> By: Kent Eilers http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12120 Sat, 25 Jul 2009 08:49:52 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12120 James is still around; he’s just updating his profile.

]]> By: Joe http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12104 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:05:08 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12104 As you began to note in your June 11 post, on Theology vs. diffuse “spiritual”ity?

]]> By: Joe http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12103 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:59:08 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12103 It may be that the Bible itself actually contrasted “faith” and … “understanding” and “knowledge.” So that blind faith in God is good … but understanding, knowledge of God, is better?

]]> By: Kyle Strobel http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12093 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:03:14 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12093 Bobby, as I understand it, the spirituality of the two groups is based upon prior theological commitments that are not compatible. Admittedly, like with Knight, I would hesitate to call these two different groups rather than two emphases, but the emphases are strong. Knight sees Shepherd as the closest thing to forging a middle ground, and I would put Edwards under Shepherd – for the most part. I think the central issue comes in theology proper. The Intellectual Fathers failed, if Knight is right, to offer a truly trinitarian account of the essence and attributes, while the brethren, with Sibbes, focused more on God’s diffusive being (in a necessarily trinitarian fashion. I think this is the fountain of both spiritualities, making them incompatible. That is my inclination at least, I haven’t really thought much about it.

]]> By: Bobby Grow http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12081 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:02:29 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12081 Kyle,

And from what I know of Edwards, and I defer completely to your expertise, this is right on! This is why Frost (who was a mentor of mine — I was indoctrinated a bit ;-) really likes Edwards.

Beyond doing analytical work, Kyle, do you adopt the spirituality that looks more like the Spiritual Brethren’s approach; or maybe lean more Intellectual Fathers? Or do you think there is some sort of via media between the two?

And Kent,

I just thought of one more resource, which might be better, at least in providing a synopsis of where Frost is coming from on Sibbes; you can find this in the book The Devoted Life: An Invitation to the Puritan Classics eds. Kelly M. Kapic and Randall C. Gleason. Ron’s chapter is chapter 5 called The Bruised Reed by Richard Sibbes.

]]> By: Kyle Strobel http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12080 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:48:41 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12080 Bobby, yeah, that is a good point. I work with Edwards so sometimes I read a little back in the Puritans. He was not a faculty psychologist as many of them were (from what I gather), and for him, the affections were very much part of the intellect. But Edwards follows in the vein of the Spiritual Brethren, so he has a lot more in common with a Sibbes than with a Perkins or Ames.

]]> By: Bobby Grow http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12079 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:02:36 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12079 Kent,

You could read all of Sibbes’ sermons (I think 7 vol. ;-), or you could read Ron Frost’s dissertation (out of King’s College University of London 1996, I believe). Or you could get a flavor of Frost’s thoughts on Sibbes as I’ve provided many quotes (directly from his diss.) and some personal commentary in these two categories at my blog:

Ron Frost

and

Richard Sibbes

And if you’re really interested you could email Ron and ask for him to send you a copy of his dissertation via a Word file or Pdf (not sure how he has it formatted). You can email me at icor22@hotmail.com, and I will give you his email add. (not sure he wants that broadcasted on the sphere).

I think if you read Sibbes’ Bruised Reed you’ll start getting a flavor for his anthropology (i.e. see his appeal to the ‘Marriage Framework’ vs. the Federal Cov. of Works/Grace as THE framework for “framing” salvation). I have two posts that specifically deal with introducing what Frost has called ‘Affective Theology’ and then the ‘Marriage Framework’:

Marriage Framework

and

Introduction to Affective Theology

Sorry for all the links. Hope some of this info helps.

]]> By: Kent Eilers http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/2009/07/18/theology-through-a-glass-darkly/#comment-12073 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:12:04 +0000 http://theologyforum.wordpress.com/?p=2452#comment-12073 Bobby, I have not read Sibbes on this point. Where would I go in Sibbes to find it?

]]>