John Calvin

[St_Worm2]

Schaff also wrote an interesting little bio of Calvin in vol 3 of his "Creeds of Christianity" series.



I have always considered Schaff to be a Calvinist, he was a professor at a German Reformed Seminary. "Schaff's broad views strongly influenced the German Reformed Church, through his teaching at Mercersburg, through his championship of English in German Reformed churches and schools in America, through his hymnal (1859), through his labours as chairman of the committee which prepared a new liturgy, and by his edition (1863) of the Heidelberg Catechism." Eventually he landed in Union Theological Seminary (1870)..."In the 20th century, Union was world renowned as a center of liberal Christianity and neo-orthodoxy." I would like to know what the writer of the wikipedia article means by "broad views", I'd be surprised (and a little disappointed) if it turns out, Schaff was theologically liberal. Quotes from Wikipedia

Hey AW, Schaff might have been liberal for his day, but I didn't get a sense of that from the only work of his I've read, which is his multivolume history of the church. One thing that Schaff makes clear, especially in volumes 7-8, is that he does not agree with Reformed soteriology, save Perseverance (he does have a unquestioned respect for Calvin and what he accomplished however).

If I remember correctly, Schaff disagrees with parts of both Arminianism and Calvinism, but he clearly leans heavily toward the Arminian side.

Here is but one example from his history opposing part of Reformed soteriology:

"No man is saved mechanically or by force, but through faith, freely, by accepting the gift of God. This implies the contrary power of rejecting the gift. " (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, p. 571.)
​

--David
p.s. - I will definitely pick up his "Creeds of Christianity" series. Sounds interesting ..

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Hey AW, Schaff might have been liberal for his day, but I didn't get a sense of that from the only work of his I've read, which is his multivolume history of the church. One thing that Schaff makes clear, especially in volumes 7-8, is that he does not agree with Reformed soteriology, save Perseverance (he does have a unquestioned respect for Calvin and what he accomplished however).

If I remember correctly, Schaff disagrees with parts of both Arminianism and Calvinism, but he clearly leans heavily toward the Arminian side.

Here is but one example from his history opposing part of Reformed soteriology:

"No man is saved mechanically or by force, but through faith, freely, by accepting the gift of God. This implies the contrary power of rejecting the gift. " (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8, p. 571.)
​

--David
p.s. - I will definitely pick up his "Creeds of Christianity" series. Sounds interesting ..

I must confess I am disappointed about Schaff, but not to the extent I would not read history written by him. Guess I'll have to keep in mind where he is coming from, take the instances where a bias surfaced with a grain of salt.