So, given my current predelictions, how did I get here, especially given my hard-line Calvinist heritage? There’s a lot of answers to that; I suppose the best one is my readings in apologetics got me thinking on different lines.
I came from the Bahnsen-Van Til school of thought. While I felt comfortable in defending the faith, I also knew that the more familiar I was with the history of philosophy, the better I would do in apologetics (yes, I know–the Holy Spirit gives the victory et al, but it is not for nothing that people keep studying regardless of that).
So I started reading up on Medieval Philosophy. This led me to the “Radical Orthodoxy” group. I have some posts from my old blog on Radical Orthodoxy, both their strengths and weaknesses. They showed me the late-medieval philosophical presuppositions in Reformed hermeneutics (or to be more precise, modern Reformed hermeneutics).
Fast forward a few months (this is late 2007). I listened to some lectures by David Bentley Hart along the same lines. It’s not that he refuted Calvinism–he simply relativized its truth claims in light of the larger story. At this point, where do I go from here? I supposed Calvinism could still work, but I was no longer convinced (I hadn’t refuted it–I just wasn’t convinced).
Roman Catholicism was always out of the question. But, like essentially every other Protestant American, I knew next to nothing about Eastern Orthodoxy (e.g., they were Catholics with awesome beards, and had spent the last 7 centuries resisting Muslim slavery). So I started reading up on EO. I thought it was awesome and their writers were a lot better than the Calvinists I had been reading, but I never considered converting (this is the summer 2008).
Well, I realized that I needed to get straight on the doctrine of God. That’s the ultimate issue. Soteriology, liturgy, icons, beards–that’s wonderful but the doctrine of God is the real dealbreaker. That’s where I am now. I did skip a bit in this for time–stuff I might come back to later.