What St. Muller Really Says
Sharing Jon’s frustration with the way that Muller is frequently used as a ‘conversation stopper’ (yes, I have read a number of his books) I am very pleased to see this post. I would also recommend that you read Joel’s older post addressing the reading of Reformed history put forward by Muller and others. Both Joel and Jon make what I believe to be a very important point about how the ease with which historians like Muller separate form and content can lead them to downplay significant developments within the tradition. I find Muller’s arguments more or less convincing in most respects. However, this has always been a niggling concern in the back of my mind, which has led me to be less than completely satisfied with the conclusions reached by Muller. It would be great to see others build on the work of historians like Muller, whilst recognizing a closer bond between form and content.