It was good to hear from you ,Kyle. I have been praying that you and your family would be able to have some "down time" over the summer, and it sounds like you did - and more also!. Great that you were able to study in Scotland, and that Amy was able to go too. Blessings for the coming year. Margaret
That is a fun and interesting question. I don't what he would say. I once asked him what he thought of DBH and he said, "Well, there is only so much time and you can't read everyone." Maybe he'd say something similar?
I guess I would say major points of difference are:
1. Radner is not systematician but rather a historical theological and (maybe?) does some biblical theology too, of a sort. Anytime you overlay a system on Scripture you have to go roughshod over the pieces that don't fit. Zahl admits as much in his book, but he say that his theology leaves our the least amount of scriptural witness. Radner is making fewer systematic claims.
2. Also, I think, while not Reformed, Radner has a more of recognition of the soft Calvinism (and thus kind of legalism - and I don't mean this in a pejorative sense) inherent to the prayerbook, while Zahl is reading it through a Lutheran lense.
3. I think Radner's take on creaturehood, generation, and human sexuality is not at odds with Zahl's theology, for he assumes a traditional Christian ethic (Zahl mentions in the book he would not marry a couple who were not open to the gift of children), whereas Radner tries to bring this more to the forefront and to situate it in a broader Christian and scriptural framework.
4. And finally, I think Zahl is writing with a broader audience in view, and is focused more on the pastoral utility of his theology whereas Radner is notoriously difficult to grasp and seems less concerned with a broad readership.
Anyway, that's just from the top of my head. I'd love to hear if you see it differently.
It was good to hear from you ,Kyle. I have been praying that you and your family would be able to have some "down time" over the summer, and it sounds like you did - and more also!. Great that you were able to study in Scotland, and that Amy was able to go too. Blessings for the coming year. Margaret
Thanks Margaret! I have been praying for your back regularly. I hope the pain is subsiding!
Thanks, Cole!
Best part of your “letter” for me: the pipe & the tobacco!
Question: what would Ephraim Radner say about Paul Zahl’s theology?
Peace,
Matt
Thank you sir!
That is a fun and interesting question. I don't what he would say. I once asked him what he thought of DBH and he said, "Well, there is only so much time and you can't read everyone." Maybe he'd say something similar?
I guess I would say major points of difference are:
1. Radner is not systematician but rather a historical theological and (maybe?) does some biblical theology too, of a sort. Anytime you overlay a system on Scripture you have to go roughshod over the pieces that don't fit. Zahl admits as much in his book, but he say that his theology leaves our the least amount of scriptural witness. Radner is making fewer systematic claims.
2. Also, I think, while not Reformed, Radner has a more of recognition of the soft Calvinism (and thus kind of legalism - and I don't mean this in a pejorative sense) inherent to the prayerbook, while Zahl is reading it through a Lutheran lense.
3. I think Radner's take on creaturehood, generation, and human sexuality is not at odds with Zahl's theology, for he assumes a traditional Christian ethic (Zahl mentions in the book he would not marry a couple who were not open to the gift of children), whereas Radner tries to bring this more to the forefront and to situate it in a broader Christian and scriptural framework.
4. And finally, I think Zahl is writing with a broader audience in view, and is focused more on the pastoral utility of his theology whereas Radner is notoriously difficult to grasp and seems less concerned with a broad readership.
Anyway, that's just from the top of my head. I'd love to hear if you see it differently.