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.
Alastair's Adversaria 
Shocking how much this theological controversy has aged poor Barlow. Brings new meaning to “growing old running these fool’s errands.”
Richard Muller is a pretty good scholar. You have to appreciate his breadth if nothing else. Albeit he doesn’t read Calvin as a “sacramental” theologian but that’s probably fair enough…
Pingback: ReformedCatholicism.com » Start Here, Go There: Important Considerations
A, I had lost your blog for sometime and am glad to have it back. You have some very thoughtful postings. Can you send me your email address please.
Matthew
Daniel,
Sadly, that picture of Jonathan was taken in early 2000 before any this NPP/FV controversy erupted. 30 going on 60. Po’ bruddah.
Well, Clark keeps me young by calling me an FV boy. But you know that picture isn’t me because I can’t grow a beard worth squat.