A Brief List of Theologians

                                                                    1. Introduction

Understanding theology often means studying from a wide range of sources (as historians do in their own discipline). Usually, a great Hebrew scholar won't be a great Greek scholar and vice versa. An amazing apologist may not be a good church historian, and a strong church historian may lack knowledge of Biblical theology. There are various experts in different fields. Occasionally, there are some scholars with in-depth knowledge of several. However, I've found this commonly to not be the case. Different Christian traditions tend to emphasize certain aspects of theology more than others. For example, historically, Catholicism emphasized our relationship to God through intellectualism (very much an Aquinas thought). At the same time, Eastern Orthodoxy stressed it through the experience of mysticism and prayer (as one sees through hesychasm). Likewise, Baptists generally emphasize evangelism differently than Presbyterians. The former typically emphasizes evangelism by the magnitude of numbers (how many people were reached? How many got ''saved?''). By this approach, they are looking at a mass number of people, sometimes with disinterest to how much these converts are aware of the faith that they are professing to believe. On the other hand, Presbyterians tend to emphasize evangelism by discipleship (what evidence does this person now demonstrate of their election?). 

For the good or the bad, most Christian denominations don't look at various theological and Christian-life practices from the same angle. This is especially true for modern Evangelicals, who tend to see Mary, the Mass, and salvation very differently than Catholics or Orthodox. In many ways, the division across Christendom is even greater now than in the sixteenth century. In light of Vatican I, many Roman Catholics now see Papal infallibility as an article of the Catholic faith, which many Catholics in times past did not believe. On the other hand, many Evangelicals are far less Catholic than were the reformers or even Colonial Americans. Evangelicals have gradually shifted from early Christianity on various points of Christian doctrine. 

To make matters even more complicated, theological liberalism has settled in many denominations. The Church of England baptized transgenders (a concept that would have horrified the early Christians). Additionally, many Evangelicals themselves are liberals on issues ranging from birth control to divorce and ''remarriage.'' The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is the only major institution on earth that considers all artificial birth control morally wrong, and all those living in ''remarriage'' as adulterers by practice.  

But while the Catholic Church is morally conservative, is it theologically so? Many Anglicans and Eastern Orthodox would point to the function of the Christian Church in the first millennium and argue that the modern understanding of papal supremacy and infallibility was unknown. Catholic historians such as Brian Tierney and Kalus Schatz would also agree. 

But the standards of what most Christians do should never be the standard for the righteous theologian. He should realize that there are many wolves in sheep's clothing. A true Baptist who believes the Baptist doctrines on church government, the Lord's Table, and Baptism cannot before God excuse his own sin or those in his congregation by simply claiming that everyone else is worldly while letting his own sheep head the way of destruction. Nor can a faithful Roman Catholic claim the pope's sins as an excuse to not pray for the church as it faces excellent trials. 

Everyone should read and study theology. That is not to say that everyone should become an Augustine, but everyone should know what they believe. In the past, I've been asked who my favorite theologians are. Here are some of the ones below (for this list, I've only included those from the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries). 

                                                                     2. List

For Biblical Studies: Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic), N. T. Wright (Church of England), Michael F. Bird (Anglican), Craig Blomberg (Evangelical), Brant Pitre (Roman Catholic), Thomas Schreiner (Southern Baptist), Pope Benedict XVI (or Joseph Ratzinger) (Roman Catholic), Mitch Pacwa (Roman Catholic), and Curtis Mitch (Roman Catholic). 

For Ecclesiastical Theology: Kallistos (Timothy) Ware (Eastern Orthodox), N. T. Wright (Church of England), Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic), and Brant Pitre (Roman Catholic). 

For Theology Proper: Jordan Cooper (Lutheran) and Alister Mcgrath (Anglican). 

For Philosophical Theology: Norman Geisler (Evangelical). 

For the theology concerning the family: George Grant (Reformed Presbyterian), Jeremy Gardiner (Reformed Baptist), R. C. Sproul (Reformed Presbyterian), Doug Wilson (Reformed Presbyterian), and Scott and Kimberly Hahn (Roman Catholic). 

For Systematic Theology: Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic) and Michael F. Bird (Anglican). 

For church history: Rodney Stark (Roman Catholic), Steve Weidenkopf (Roman Catholic), Thomas F. Madden (Roman Catholic), Mike Aquilina (Roman Catholic), Alister Mcgrath (Church of England), Robert Spencer (Eastern Orthodox), Jamie Blosser (Roman Catholic), Regine Pernoud (Roman Catholic), Anthony E. Gilles (Roman Catholic), Brian Tierney (Roman Catholic ). Jimmy Akin (Roman Catholic), David W. Bercot (Mennonite), George Grant (Reformed Presbyterian), Everett Ferguson (Church of Christ), Richard William Southern (Church of England), and Klaus Schatz (Roman Catholic). 

For Historical Theology: Alister Mcgrath (Church of England) and Anthony E. Gilles (Roman Catholic). 

For Evanglisism: J. I. Packer (Anglican) and Eric Holmberg (Eastern Catholic). 

For Christian Ethics: Jerry Falwell (Southern Baptist), George Grant (Reformed Presbyterian), 

For Textual Criticism F. F. Bruce (Evangelical). 

For Apologetics: Norman Geisler (Evangelical), Scott Hahn (Roman Catholic), N. T. Wright (Church of England), and Lee Strobel (Evangelical). 

For Biblical languages: Robert L. Plummer (Southern Baptist), N. T. Wright (Church of England), Willaim D. Mounce (Evangelical), and Gary D. Practico (Evangelical). 

For prayer and Christian Counseling: John Piper (Evangelical).

                                                             3. My Final Thoughts:

Theology is complex. There is a reason that there are so many Christian traditions across Christendom. It is easy to say that it's all spelled out and the rest are wrong. However, I have found that some theologians emphasize certain truths that others lack. 

All the different types of theology have their importance. Systematic theology can help us understand theology by topic, whereas historical theology can help us see how doctrines developed over time. Biblical theology can help us examine later doctrines and whether or not they conflict with Scripture. 

The study of church history, of course, is essential to studying theology. We cannot know what books would be in the New Testament without church history, nor the many battles that past theologians engaged in for us to have the Scriptures today. We also must realize that the church preceded the New Testament, just as the Jews preceded the Old Testament. Indeed, before the New Testament was even written, there was a church for decades before the Gospels or Pauline Epistles were written. No doubt, the church is not the property of the Bible. If anything, the Bible is the property of the church. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15, Paul the Apostle told the Thessalonica Church to hold onto traditions not written in Scripture. Therefore, to say that the study of Scripture is more important than the study of church history shows either (1) the person making this claim is demonstrating their own ignorance of Scripture or (2) they plainly refuse to acknowledge the authorities in the church that Christ has established in Matthew 16-18. 

Catholics and Orthodox both often debate whose church is the true one by appealing to past papal bulls and ecumenical councils. However, some Evangelicals would argue that debating church history is nowhere and, therefore, we should appeal to Scripture. But the problem with this reasoning is that Baptists, Presbyterians, Methodists, Pentecostals, and others all argue their view of Scripture is the correct one, and they have debated the meaning of Scripture on various topics for centuries, only to still have differing views. 

It should be remembered that while the study of church history may not revolve around every issue, it seems to do so for most. The church fathers differed from each other on eschatology, but they universally believed in baptismal regeneration and that the Eucharist is the literal Body and Blood of Christ. They also believed that their views were backed by Scripture. Eastern Orthodoxy rightly points out that some issues are non-essential, but when the church has universally taught one way, it is heresy to say it contradicts established Christian doctrine. 

I don't agree with everything of the theologians that I listed above. However, I listed them for reasons which have made significant contributions to Christian theology. For those reading this, take time to explore the works of various theologians so that may not simply have more head knowledge, but to know God better.