# Alister McGrath's Theology



## christianyouth (Apr 4, 2008)

Does anyone know if Alister McGrath is Reformed?


----------



## servantofmosthigh (Apr 4, 2008)

He's Anglican, but in the same Anglican camp with J.I. Packer.


----------



## Jon Peters (Apr 4, 2008)

I thought that I'd heard that he was leaning in the NPP direction.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 4, 2008)

I heard he was sympathetic with those who see a radical shift away from Calvin in Beza and the protestant scholastics (a la Turretin)-- and that he is likely of the Davenant school (dual reference view) if not Amyraldian on the atonement. I suppose these views may be found in Reformed theology, I merely point them out for interest.


----------



## JohnTombes (Apr 4, 2008)

Alister was my doctoral adviser. He considers himself a Christian humanist in the Renaissance tradition of the word and within the broadest definition of reformed imaginable. His starting point for theology, as a self-professed "analytical theologian" is Luther's theology of the cross. His three volume "systematic" was published as "A Scientific Theology; Nature (vol 1, Reality (vol 2), & Theory (vol 3)." It has become quite controversial in traditional circles. As a former molecular biologist ( His first PhD, Cambridge) he is attempting to intergrate all academic disciplines around a Christian doctrine of creation. I find it too postmodern It is fascinating reading. There is very little there for a believer in the Reformed tradition, as that denominator would be understood on this board.

MTR


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2008)

It's not the he leans NPP, he just attempts to show that iustitia didn't always mean what Luther wanted it to mean. He also, in _Iustitia Dei_ tries to make the argument that Luther's nominalism affected his theology. He opens the door for the NPP argument, but does not go in. 

He is postmodern, but not the coffee-shop, _Fight Club_ nihilist sort. He does very good work on Reformation history and I thoroughly enjoyed his biography of Calvin.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 4, 2008)

He has written some good stuff on historical theology which is a delight to read. Difficult to say how Reformed he is though.


----------



## Christusregnat (Apr 4, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> It's not the he leans NPP, he just attempts to show that iustitia didn't always mean what Luther wanted it to mean. He also, in _Iustitia Dei_ tries to make the argument that Luther's nominalism affected his theology.



So, what exactly is Luther's nominalism? What exactly do you mean by nominalism? are you referring to his doctrine of the eucharist, or something else? 

Bondage of the will is definitely Augustinian / anti-nominalist (as far as I understand the term).

Interestedly yours,


----------



## JohnTombes (Apr 4, 2008)

Ivanhoe said:


> It's not the he leans NPP, he just attempts to show that iustitia didn't always mean what Luther wanted it to mean. He also, in _Iustitia Dei_ tries to make the argument that Luther's nominalism affected his theology. He opens the door for the NPP argument, but does not go in.



You are right. Alister views 'iustitia imputatis' differently than we would. It is not entirely onjective. He also sees a subjective element to justification via "iustitia inhaerens." 

However, Alister is used by Tom Wright as the historian for the NPP. I talked to Tom & Alister one afternoon about the NPP. I don't think Americans understand how much of an 'Anglican-thing' it was when it first began. I don't think Alister would be critical of the NPP, either. in my opinion

MTR


----------



## JohnTombes (Apr 4, 2008)

Daniel Ritchie said:


> He has written some good stuff on historical theology which is a delight to read. Difficult to say how Reformed he is though.



Read the apendix on his work on Calvin to see how he views Calvin on the atonement. I have almost everything he has published up to about 3 years ago. There are some 'good reads.' "The Genesis of Doctrine" is one of his best books. I wrote to him aver two years to discuss aspects of that work. Then, I went to study under him. It was great. All of a sudden, he had to read everything I wrote as I had to read none of his works. 

MTR


----------



## servantofmosthigh (Apr 4, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> I heard he was sympathetic with those who see a radical shift away from Calvin in Beza and the protestant scholastics (a la Turretin)-- and that he is likely of the Davenant school (dual reference view) if not Amyraldian on the atonement. I suppose these views may be found in Reformed theology, I merely point them out for interest.



To Gomarus: just a word of caution: Be careful of using a celebrity's picture as your id unless you, yourself, are that celebrity. In which case, can I get your autograph? I'd hate to see you get slapped with a lawsuit for using his picture without permission.

OK, back to this thread about? McGrath has also written tons on Science vs. Christianity.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 4, 2008)

JohnTombes said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> > He has written some good stuff on historical theology which is a delight to read. Difficult to say how Reformed he is though.
> ...



I take it he is a universal atonement man then?


----------



## cih1355 (Apr 4, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> > It's not the he leans NPP, he just attempts to show that iustitia didn't always mean what Luther wanted it to mean. He also, in _Iustitia Dei_ tries to make the argument that Luther's nominalism affected his theology.
> ...



Nominalists believe that universal concepts do not have real existence. They just believe that particular things exist. Allow me to give some examples of what I am talking about. Suppose that you go to a pond and see several ducks in that pond. All of those ducks have something called duckness. Duckness is what makes a duck, a duck. A nominalist would believe that the idea of duckness does not really exist. Particular ducks exists, but not duckness itself. 

Allow me to give another example. Suppose that there are some white stones on your lawn. Those stones have whiteness. A nominalist would believe that the universal concept of whiteness has no real existence of its own. A nominalist would believe that there are particular white stones, but he would not believe that whiteness actually exists. 

During the Middle Ages, there were two schools of thought that advocated nominialism- the via moderna and the schola Augustiniana moderna.

The opposite of nominialism is realism. Realists believe that universal concepts actually exist. They would believe that things like whiteness and duckness actually exist.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Apr 4, 2008)

servantofmosthigh said:


> To Gomarus: just a word of caution: Be careful of using a celebrity's picture as your id . . . I'd hate to see you get slapped with a lawsuit for using his picture without permission.



Woop, woop, woop. OK. At least this one is 50 years deceased.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 4, 2008)

cih1355 said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > Ivanhoe said:
> ...



I was merely summarizing what a lot of scholars took to be ubiquitous: McGrath, McSorley, Muller and Oberman. However, it has been a while since I have had _Iustitia Dei_ in front of me. I would have to go back and cross-reference a few things.


----------



## Staphlobob (Apr 6, 2008)

I first heard McGrath in about 1992 at a conference in Northfield, Minn. He blew me away. Being a liberal Lutheran pastor at the time, he was instrumental in getting me to become a believer. 

However, I would not follow him in his theology which I consider to be quite dangerous. His belief is that the controversy between Luther and Rome on justification by grace was nothing more than a misunderstanding of terminology.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2008)

McGrath has sometimes been accused of being a Barthian. That is not entirely accurate. It is more like he doesn't see in Barth the same demon that many Reformed folk see. McGrath also wrote a major bio on Thomas Torrance, who was a Barthian.


----------

