What do you think?
Rate this book
تاريخ الفكر المسيحي
ما الفكر المسيحي على وجه التدقيق
؟ ولماذا يجب أن نهتم ونقرأ عن تاريخ الفكر المسيحي ؟
يقول المؤلف جونثان هيل أن تاريخ الفكر المسيحي هام وجذاب . فبالنسبة للمسيحيين فهو يساعدهم على فهم لماذا تعلم المسيحية الامور التي تعلمها . وللذين هم غير معنيين بالعقيدة .
فهو مهم لأن المسيحية لعبت دوراً أساسياً في تطور الحضارة الغربية فالناس مثل أغسطينوس ، والأكويني ، ولوثر شكلوا النسيج الأصلي للمجتمع الحديث .
ويعرف كتاب " تاريخ الفكر المسيحي " القارئ بأهم اللاهوتيين المؤثرين في الايمان المسيحي واضعاً اياهم في موقعهم التاريخي ، مبيناً الأفكار الرئيسية بفكرهم
؟ ولماذا يجب أن نهتم ونقرأ عن تاريخ الفكر المسيحي ؟
يقول المؤلف جونثان هيل أن تاريخ الفكر المسيحي هام وجذاب . فبالنسبة للمسيحيين فهو يساعدهم على فهم لماذا تعلم المسيحية الامور التي تعلمها . وللذين هم غير معنيين بالعقيدة .
فهو مهم لأن المسيحية لعبت دوراً أساسياً في تطور الحضارة الغربية فالناس مثل أغسطينوس ، والأكويني ، ولوثر شكلوا النسيج الأصلي للمجتمع الحديث .
ويعرف كتاب " تاريخ الفكر المسيحي " القارئ بأهم اللاهوتيين المؤثرين في الايمان المسيحي واضعاً اياهم في موقعهم التاريخي ، مبيناً الأفكار الرئيسية بفكرهم
367 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2003
53 people are currently reading
308 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Hill
128 books15 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name. Not all books on this profile belong to the same person.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews
January 5, 2012
Hill provides an engaging overview of major Christian thinkers, spending many pages with the Byzantines, Augustine (who he seems not to like much - I would never characterize the Confessions as "morbid" and Augustine is not more focused on sex than some other church fathers), Aquinas, Calvin, Schleiermacher (rather too enthusiastic and uncritical), and Barth. Many other figures are included as well and he provides a general and opinonated introduction to their thought. His critiques of them are uneven, but fair enough. My major problem with this book though is not the foregrounded material, but the background. He does not have a deep sense of the larger history he is traveling through and mistakes are painful to read about. Who talks about the "Dark Ages" anymore in medieval history? Henry VIII was dead by the 17th century. These are some of the smaller mistakes and he is better in the modern period (though evangelical history does seem foreign ground to him) but the larger mistake is the absence of too much of the context that should provide narrative flow to this book. So read it for thoughtful, if not authoritative, introductions to thinkers. It will not add much to your sense of larger Christian history.
November 24, 2025
O carte foarte bună! Prezintă într-un mod succint modul în care marii teologi creștini au dezvoltat doctrina creștină.
August 12, 2013
An useful entry level introduction to historical theology. Jonathan Hill is knowledgeable, writes well and has a refreshing sense of humour. None the less, even an introductory book that attempts to describe every major Christian theologian is certain to be heavy going! I was disappointed with a few seemingly careless errors and controversial statements that were presented as fact. Hill appears to be a fan of modern theology, so on one hand he gives a good summary of the theologians of recent centuries, but on the other hand his own liberal theology does colour the book.
January 27, 2014
A very selective ensemble of theological writings of which some are outright heretical. Compounded by this is the author and his constant editorializing and commenting on everything in a very prejudicial light. In the end, it's really not worth the reader's time.
May 15, 2014
What follows is a comparison between this book and Roger Olson's "The Story of Christian Theology":
In his book entitled “The History of Christian Thought,” Jonathan Hill states that his goal in writing the volume was to offer an “introduction to the history of Christian thought for the completely uninitiated” (Hill 9). The structure of his book follows a chronological account of history’s most important theologians. Theologians, Hill says, are “the people who have made the history of Christian thought what it is.” His goal in writing this book, therefore, was to focus on the lives and works of these important theologians. In his most explicit purpose statement, he says, “My goal has been to bring their personalities to life in a way that will help show why they said the things they said and why we should still care about them today “(10).
Furthermore, in the introduction, Hill gives his readers two ways in which he hopes his book will influence them: First, that we would read about theologians, even theologians who we disagree with vehemently, in a charitable way. Before criticizing someone, Hill thinks that we should have analyzed why this person has said what they’re saying. In other words, before we criticize a thinker, it is simply the virtue of honesty to first walk inside of that person’s shoes; to follow their argument as it were our own; to be able to explain their position in such a way that we are not misrepresenting them or being unfair; to truly know what we are talking about.
Second, Hill wants his readers to critique, in their own words, the thought-processes of history’s great theologians. Due to the diversity (one might even say, fragmentation) that has existed throughout the history of Christian thought, one is bound to find at least one thinker to disagree with. The Lord knows how many different theological perspectives have existed over the two millennia of church history. Being critical about views one doesn’t agree with will not only help them understand those positions as they turn them over in their heads, but it will also help them develop their own theological positions on various issues.
Compared to Hill’s stated thesis, Olson’s thesis in “The Story of Christian Theology” is that the ultimate thread common to Christian theologians throughout history is “salvation—God’s redemptive activity in forgiving and transforming sinful humans.” In fact, in the preface and throughout the course of his book, Olson explains that the key to understanding the history of Christian theology is to approach it through the lens of soteriology. Furthermore, of particular interest to the overall purpose of the book is the dramatic nature of Christian history. He explicitly says that “The history of Christian theology can and should be told as a story. It is full of complex plots, exciting events, interesting people, and fascinating ideas. This book is an attempt to tell that story well, doing justice to each of its subplots” (Olson 13). What this reveals is that Olson’s intention in writing this book was not to simply add information to the database of scholasticism, but was written for “the untutored Christian layperson or student as well as for the interested Christian pastor who wants a ‘refresher course’ in historical theology” (14).
Moreover, it is significant that Olson opened the Preface of his book with the assertion, “People live from the stories that shape their identities” (11). Because of this, he has attempted to provide a very accessible yet thorough accounting of the Christian heritage, the Christian story. A thoughtful person, when he finds himself thrust into existence, will want to ask the question, From whence did I come? It is this profound and most important question that Olson seeks to answer for the Christian. Compared to other works in the field, there is a sense in which Olson’s book seeks to provide an equal balance to the particular nuances of doctrinal formulation, on the one hand, and universal coherence, on the other hand. His book attempts to stretch the course of time, going into detail when necessary.
When comparing these two works, numerous issues come to mind that will influence a critical comparison. Firstly, who they have been influenced by is important. Jonathan Hill earned a first-class degree in philosophy and theology from Oxford. He also earned an M.Phil. in theology from Oxford, specializing in the church fathers. This fact shows up all over Hill’s book. The most significant example is his section on the Byzantine theologians like, Pseudo-Dionysus, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, and Gregory Palamas. Roger Olson spends very little (if any) time writing about such thinkers. A clear distinguishing mark on their work was that Hill was more capable of diving into the thinkers of various ancient settings, while Olson focused more on the theological controversies. Although both accounts were chronological and dealt with similar issues, they highlighted different issues.
Roger Olson holds degrees from Rice University, North American Baptist Seminary, and Open Bible College. As an Arminian Baptist, we can expect to see a unique spin on his account of the history of Christian theology. And we do, in fact, see Dr. Olson’s fingertips over his work! One issue I had with Olson’s account of the Protestant Reformation was his presentation of John Calvin. In his review of Olson’s book, R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary in California argued that Olson’s bias flows out of his book when he gets to Jacob Arminius and the classic Arminianism versus Calvinism debate. “His Arminius was reacting to the five points of Calvinism! That would have surprised the international delegation to the Synod, who thought that they were responding to the five points of the Remonstrants.”
I particularly agreed with Scott’s critique of Olson on this point. Olson failed to talk about John Calvin, and surely saw an influential giant in the famous Jacob Arminius. This was one of my critiques of the book as well. In my opinion, he does not give a thorough enough hearing to John Calvin and his influence upon theology in the post-Reformation era. Olson also spends a chunk of his account of post-Reformation theology talking about the Anabaptists. One can see why, considering the fact that he is a professed Baptist. Compared with Olson, Hill was nearly silent on the Anabaptists.
Another issue that I would like to highlight is the medium through which these books were written. Both of these works attempt to give chronological accounts of Christian theology. However, there are clear distinctives. Hill’s book felt more like a history book that focused on the thought of individual thinkers rather than a story that connected across 2,000 years. He made little (if any) effort to connect thinkers across generations, revealing his intent for the book. This is not necessarily a bad thing. However, it reveals what he was doing with the book and when compared with Olson, it has clear differences on this point.
What the book lacks in its failure to connect thinkers, it makes up for it in Hill’s accessible accounts of each thinker. Besides a few thinkers, Hill was able to provide lucid, understandable, concise summaries of every thinker he referenced. Rather than referencing each thinkers most influential works, Hill decided to look at the major themes that each individual thinker decided to take up, run with, expound upon. This made for a memorable and engaging account of history’s great theologians. Rather than referencing tons of different books, Hill decided to dwell on their distinctive theological motifs. Moreover, Hill’s accounts of the theologians’ lives (especially those of the ancient church fathers) were absolutely spectacular. Whether it’s Origen’s mother hiding her son’s clothes so as not to let him leave the house, or Karl Barth’s (symbolic) ringing of the bell as young boy, Hill’s reader feels connected with these thinkers in a profound way. They’re real people, and any reader who misses that fact is simply not reading hard enough.
Olson’s book, in contrast to Hill, bears the marks of a story with immense connectivity across time and space. Olson continually references earlier thinkers, showing how this individual got his ideas from some previous thinker and is running with them in a different context. Or he will describe how this one thinker is responding (sometimes reacting) to this thinker who came earlier. In other words, Olson really does a masterful job of connecting this story into what seems to be an all-encompassing narrative. I found this distinctive of Olson’s book to be immensely helpful as an introduction. It helps his reader to understand the situatedness of theological discourse. In a sense, nobody is absolutely original with their ideas.
Another issue was the thesis statements of these two books. If I am correct about Hill’s purpose in writing his book (and I think I am), then there is strong dissimilarity between him and Olson in this regard. Olson came right out of the gate saying that he is convinced that the history of Christian theology is primarily about soteriology. Hill, in contrast, made no such claims. Hill seemed content to simply give his best account of the history of Christian theologians and their great works. This rose to the surface in their books. Hill sometimes talked about various thinkers without even referencing their views on salvation. Olson, on the other hand, might have overstated his case in regards to soteriology. He wouldn’t stop talking about it!
However, I do think that Olson had good reasons for thesis. For example, the ancient debate between the Gnostics and the Church fathers was not a disagreement over moot, esoteric semantics. Rather, as the Church fathers saw it, salvation itself was at stake. The Gnostics rejected the incarnation, saying that Jesus Christ wasn’t actually a literal human being (although he may have appeared to look like a human), but rather was only a spiritual teacher who came to reveal secret knowledge to the apostles. To the Gnostics, salvation was obtained through gnosis. This is fundamentally a different Gospel than what was handed down to the fathers through the apostles. Olson points out that it was the Church father’s responsibility to, in some sense, formalize the Christian faith and life lest heresies crept in (39).
Similarly, Cyprian of Carthage promoted Church unity for soteriological motivations. Cyprian understood that a house divided against itself cannot stand. In fact, so intense were Cyprian’s convictions about the unity of God’s people that he said “he cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ” and “he can no longer have God for his Father who has not the church for his mother” (121). During the formulation of the Council of Nicaea, Orthodox thinkers like Athanasius knew that the Arian heresy was a threat to salvation. Operating under the logic that God can only save that which He becomes, if Jesus was not fully God—but only a created creature—then he cannot bring humans to God. On Arian’s paradigm, however the atonement supposedly works, it is vain. Athanasius once said, “the Logos is not a creature but is of one substance with the Father… because only so is our salvation fully realized and guaranteed” (167). This soteriological significance can be seen throughout the whole history of Christian theology. The Reformers understood that if the Gospel salvation was truly by faith alone, then it could not be obtained by works of the Law. The Protestant Reformation attempted to reevaluate Roman Catholic dogma that was incompatible with Scripture’s message—for the sake of salvation.
When comparing these books, another issue that arises is the length of the books. Hill’s book comes in at barely over 300 pages, while Olson nearly doubles him in size. I don’t think that the size differences is a necessarily determining factor in which book is better. However, I do think that it reveals some important differences. First of all, Olson’s book is so long that it might end up 1) intimidating people, or 2) getting bogged down in too much information. I personally thought that the Christological controversies, important as they are, took up too much time in Olson’s book. If anything, I’ve learned more about how metaphysical speculation into realities that are beyond human comprehension is a vain task and less about why those debates truly matter. That might come off anti-intellectual. However, I am far from it. I’m simply trying to be realistic about the bounds of human intellectual capability.
Hill’s book, being shorter, is bound to skip over details that Olson will spend more time explaining. This is potentially a weak point, because the longer one spends discussing a thinker and his views, the more likely the reader is to understand that thinker’s particular views. Failing to spend enough time explaining a theologian’s views could mean a deficient accounting of the history of Christian theology. I don’t think that Hill is guilty of making any such mistake. However, it is a danger that one risks when writing a shorter sized volume. Volumes upon volumes have been written on the history of Christian thought, and I can’t fault someone for trying to provide an accessible, concise introductory book into the topic.
In light of all of these factors, I’m not entirely sure which book I would rather recommend to someone. I suppose, as usual, it depends on the person. Olson’s book is big, and green, and intimidating. Thankfully, it is not entitled, “An Accounting of Historical Theologians and Their Intellectual Engagements.” Such a title would surely intimidate most people (and especially those who are only looking for a beginner book that gives an accessible overview of the topic. I think that the word “Story” in Olson’s title is an important one. A story is not scary. We hear stories all the time. Most people have been hearing bed-time stories since they were younglings. Moreover, we humans love stories. We cannot get enough of them. We go to movies, read books (well, some people), listen to speakers, etc. because we love to hear the stories of struggle and victory. I think that Olson’s book does a good job of telling a story.
Hill’s book, due to its being a shorter book, it might prove more accessible to the average reader. I spoke with some people who thought the opposite was the case. I’m not sure if I agree. Some people said that it made for more difficult reading. I’m not entirely sure what they meant. Was it because he used bigger words? I didn’t feel like my vocabulary was being strained at all. In fact, I felt like it made for easier reading since it was less in-depth.
For these reasons, I cannot give a hard-and-fast answer to the question of what book was better. Overall, I think I enjoyed Hill’s book more because I experienced a profound understanding of the diversity of Christian thought the second time around. Reading Hill second probably skewed my perception of the books. Christian thought made much more sense the second time reading through it because I think that Olson gave me a solid framework to make sense of it all. In the end, both books are good. Both have their pros and cons, and as we know, nobody has the final say on how to think through Christian theology.
In his book entitled “The History of Christian Thought,” Jonathan Hill states that his goal in writing the volume was to offer an “introduction to the history of Christian thought for the completely uninitiated” (Hill 9). The structure of his book follows a chronological account of history’s most important theologians. Theologians, Hill says, are “the people who have made the history of Christian thought what it is.” His goal in writing this book, therefore, was to focus on the lives and works of these important theologians. In his most explicit purpose statement, he says, “My goal has been to bring their personalities to life in a way that will help show why they said the things they said and why we should still care about them today “(10).
Furthermore, in the introduction, Hill gives his readers two ways in which he hopes his book will influence them: First, that we would read about theologians, even theologians who we disagree with vehemently, in a charitable way. Before criticizing someone, Hill thinks that we should have analyzed why this person has said what they’re saying. In other words, before we criticize a thinker, it is simply the virtue of honesty to first walk inside of that person’s shoes; to follow their argument as it were our own; to be able to explain their position in such a way that we are not misrepresenting them or being unfair; to truly know what we are talking about.
Second, Hill wants his readers to critique, in their own words, the thought-processes of history’s great theologians. Due to the diversity (one might even say, fragmentation) that has existed throughout the history of Christian thought, one is bound to find at least one thinker to disagree with. The Lord knows how many different theological perspectives have existed over the two millennia of church history. Being critical about views one doesn’t agree with will not only help them understand those positions as they turn them over in their heads, but it will also help them develop their own theological positions on various issues.
Compared to Hill’s stated thesis, Olson’s thesis in “The Story of Christian Theology” is that the ultimate thread common to Christian theologians throughout history is “salvation—God’s redemptive activity in forgiving and transforming sinful humans.” In fact, in the preface and throughout the course of his book, Olson explains that the key to understanding the history of Christian theology is to approach it through the lens of soteriology. Furthermore, of particular interest to the overall purpose of the book is the dramatic nature of Christian history. He explicitly says that “The history of Christian theology can and should be told as a story. It is full of complex plots, exciting events, interesting people, and fascinating ideas. This book is an attempt to tell that story well, doing justice to each of its subplots” (Olson 13). What this reveals is that Olson’s intention in writing this book was not to simply add information to the database of scholasticism, but was written for “the untutored Christian layperson or student as well as for the interested Christian pastor who wants a ‘refresher course’ in historical theology” (14).
Moreover, it is significant that Olson opened the Preface of his book with the assertion, “People live from the stories that shape their identities” (11). Because of this, he has attempted to provide a very accessible yet thorough accounting of the Christian heritage, the Christian story. A thoughtful person, when he finds himself thrust into existence, will want to ask the question, From whence did I come? It is this profound and most important question that Olson seeks to answer for the Christian. Compared to other works in the field, there is a sense in which Olson’s book seeks to provide an equal balance to the particular nuances of doctrinal formulation, on the one hand, and universal coherence, on the other hand. His book attempts to stretch the course of time, going into detail when necessary.
When comparing these two works, numerous issues come to mind that will influence a critical comparison. Firstly, who they have been influenced by is important. Jonathan Hill earned a first-class degree in philosophy and theology from Oxford. He also earned an M.Phil. in theology from Oxford, specializing in the church fathers. This fact shows up all over Hill’s book. The most significant example is his section on the Byzantine theologians like, Pseudo-Dionysus, Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, and Gregory Palamas. Roger Olson spends very little (if any) time writing about such thinkers. A clear distinguishing mark on their work was that Hill was more capable of diving into the thinkers of various ancient settings, while Olson focused more on the theological controversies. Although both accounts were chronological and dealt with similar issues, they highlighted different issues.
Roger Olson holds degrees from Rice University, North American Baptist Seminary, and Open Bible College. As an Arminian Baptist, we can expect to see a unique spin on his account of the history of Christian theology. And we do, in fact, see Dr. Olson’s fingertips over his work! One issue I had with Olson’s account of the Protestant Reformation was his presentation of John Calvin. In his review of Olson’s book, R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary in California argued that Olson’s bias flows out of his book when he gets to Jacob Arminius and the classic Arminianism versus Calvinism debate. “His Arminius was reacting to the five points of Calvinism! That would have surprised the international delegation to the Synod, who thought that they were responding to the five points of the Remonstrants.”
I particularly agreed with Scott’s critique of Olson on this point. Olson failed to talk about John Calvin, and surely saw an influential giant in the famous Jacob Arminius. This was one of my critiques of the book as well. In my opinion, he does not give a thorough enough hearing to John Calvin and his influence upon theology in the post-Reformation era. Olson also spends a chunk of his account of post-Reformation theology talking about the Anabaptists. One can see why, considering the fact that he is a professed Baptist. Compared with Olson, Hill was nearly silent on the Anabaptists.
Another issue that I would like to highlight is the medium through which these books were written. Both of these works attempt to give chronological accounts of Christian theology. However, there are clear distinctives. Hill’s book felt more like a history book that focused on the thought of individual thinkers rather than a story that connected across 2,000 years. He made little (if any) effort to connect thinkers across generations, revealing his intent for the book. This is not necessarily a bad thing. However, it reveals what he was doing with the book and when compared with Olson, it has clear differences on this point.
What the book lacks in its failure to connect thinkers, it makes up for it in Hill’s accessible accounts of each thinker. Besides a few thinkers, Hill was able to provide lucid, understandable, concise summaries of every thinker he referenced. Rather than referencing each thinkers most influential works, Hill decided to look at the major themes that each individual thinker decided to take up, run with, expound upon. This made for a memorable and engaging account of history’s great theologians. Rather than referencing tons of different books, Hill decided to dwell on their distinctive theological motifs. Moreover, Hill’s accounts of the theologians’ lives (especially those of the ancient church fathers) were absolutely spectacular. Whether it’s Origen’s mother hiding her son’s clothes so as not to let him leave the house, or Karl Barth’s (symbolic) ringing of the bell as young boy, Hill’s reader feels connected with these thinkers in a profound way. They’re real people, and any reader who misses that fact is simply not reading hard enough.
Olson’s book, in contrast to Hill, bears the marks of a story with immense connectivity across time and space. Olson continually references earlier thinkers, showing how this individual got his ideas from some previous thinker and is running with them in a different context. Or he will describe how this one thinker is responding (sometimes reacting) to this thinker who came earlier. In other words, Olson really does a masterful job of connecting this story into what seems to be an all-encompassing narrative. I found this distinctive of Olson’s book to be immensely helpful as an introduction. It helps his reader to understand the situatedness of theological discourse. In a sense, nobody is absolutely original with their ideas.
Another issue was the thesis statements of these two books. If I am correct about Hill’s purpose in writing his book (and I think I am), then there is strong dissimilarity between him and Olson in this regard. Olson came right out of the gate saying that he is convinced that the history of Christian theology is primarily about soteriology. Hill, in contrast, made no such claims. Hill seemed content to simply give his best account of the history of Christian theologians and their great works. This rose to the surface in their books. Hill sometimes talked about various thinkers without even referencing their views on salvation. Olson, on the other hand, might have overstated his case in regards to soteriology. He wouldn’t stop talking about it!
However, I do think that Olson had good reasons for thesis. For example, the ancient debate between the Gnostics and the Church fathers was not a disagreement over moot, esoteric semantics. Rather, as the Church fathers saw it, salvation itself was at stake. The Gnostics rejected the incarnation, saying that Jesus Christ wasn’t actually a literal human being (although he may have appeared to look like a human), but rather was only a spiritual teacher who came to reveal secret knowledge to the apostles. To the Gnostics, salvation was obtained through gnosis. This is fundamentally a different Gospel than what was handed down to the fathers through the apostles. Olson points out that it was the Church father’s responsibility to, in some sense, formalize the Christian faith and life lest heresies crept in (39).
Similarly, Cyprian of Carthage promoted Church unity for soteriological motivations. Cyprian understood that a house divided against itself cannot stand. In fact, so intense were Cyprian’s convictions about the unity of God’s people that he said “he cannot possess the garment of Christ who parts and divides the Church of Christ” and “he can no longer have God for his Father who has not the church for his mother” (121). During the formulation of the Council of Nicaea, Orthodox thinkers like Athanasius knew that the Arian heresy was a threat to salvation. Operating under the logic that God can only save that which He becomes, if Jesus was not fully God—but only a created creature—then he cannot bring humans to God. On Arian’s paradigm, however the atonement supposedly works, it is vain. Athanasius once said, “the Logos is not a creature but is of one substance with the Father… because only so is our salvation fully realized and guaranteed” (167). This soteriological significance can be seen throughout the whole history of Christian theology. The Reformers understood that if the Gospel salvation was truly by faith alone, then it could not be obtained by works of the Law. The Protestant Reformation attempted to reevaluate Roman Catholic dogma that was incompatible with Scripture’s message—for the sake of salvation.
When comparing these books, another issue that arises is the length of the books. Hill’s book comes in at barely over 300 pages, while Olson nearly doubles him in size. I don’t think that the size differences is a necessarily determining factor in which book is better. However, I do think that it reveals some important differences. First of all, Olson’s book is so long that it might end up 1) intimidating people, or 2) getting bogged down in too much information. I personally thought that the Christological controversies, important as they are, took up too much time in Olson’s book. If anything, I’ve learned more about how metaphysical speculation into realities that are beyond human comprehension is a vain task and less about why those debates truly matter. That might come off anti-intellectual. However, I am far from it. I’m simply trying to be realistic about the bounds of human intellectual capability.
Hill’s book, being shorter, is bound to skip over details that Olson will spend more time explaining. This is potentially a weak point, because the longer one spends discussing a thinker and his views, the more likely the reader is to understand that thinker’s particular views. Failing to spend enough time explaining a theologian’s views could mean a deficient accounting of the history of Christian theology. I don’t think that Hill is guilty of making any such mistake. However, it is a danger that one risks when writing a shorter sized volume. Volumes upon volumes have been written on the history of Christian thought, and I can’t fault someone for trying to provide an accessible, concise introductory book into the topic.
In light of all of these factors, I’m not entirely sure which book I would rather recommend to someone. I suppose, as usual, it depends on the person. Olson’s book is big, and green, and intimidating. Thankfully, it is not entitled, “An Accounting of Historical Theologians and Their Intellectual Engagements.” Such a title would surely intimidate most people (and especially those who are only looking for a beginner book that gives an accessible overview of the topic. I think that the word “Story” in Olson’s title is an important one. A story is not scary. We hear stories all the time. Most people have been hearing bed-time stories since they were younglings. Moreover, we humans love stories. We cannot get enough of them. We go to movies, read books (well, some people), listen to speakers, etc. because we love to hear the stories of struggle and victory. I think that Olson’s book does a good job of telling a story.
Hill’s book, due to its being a shorter book, it might prove more accessible to the average reader. I spoke with some people who thought the opposite was the case. I’m not sure if I agree. Some people said that it made for more difficult reading. I’m not entirely sure what they meant. Was it because he used bigger words? I didn’t feel like my vocabulary was being strained at all. In fact, I felt like it made for easier reading since it was less in-depth.
For these reasons, I cannot give a hard-and-fast answer to the question of what book was better. Overall, I think I enjoyed Hill’s book more because I experienced a profound understanding of the diversity of Christian thought the second time around. Reading Hill second probably skewed my perception of the books. Christian thought made much more sense the second time reading through it because I think that Olson gave me a solid framework to make sense of it all. In the end, both books are good. Both have their pros and cons, and as we know, nobody has the final say on how to think through Christian theology.
March 7, 2017
Breaking Church history into eras (Early Church Fathers, Byzantine Empire, Middle Ages, Reformation, Modern Era, and 20th Century), this book introduces the reader to many of the most important thinkers in the Christian tradition. The author summarizes each of the major thinkers, examining their life, thought and influence, reflecting upon their over all contribution in its context and throughout history. Parallel to the individuals and theological movements covered, the author maintains a running context of church and historical events so as to orient the reader, with some of the more important historical events or theological/philosophical movements getting their own summary discussions. While there is solid scholarship (both theological and historical) behind the introductory level discussion in this book, this work is aimed at lay readers. The writing is crisp and accessible, with a light dusting of humour throughout which prevents this from becoming just a dry "ideas" book. Recommended for introductory courses on the historic development of Christian thought, or just for personal study for anyone wishing a better orientation in the key thinkers and progression of Christian thought throughout church history. See further the endorsements by Mark Noll and John Webster on the back cover.
April 14, 2022
pffff this is just not my cup of tea. literally had a paragraph on how “it’s so sad no women were mentioned here!! aww!! boo!!” & then continued to mention 0 women. like I know the history of theology has barely any women but we were in the 20th century…there’s at least some!! other than that it was just dreadfully boring.
November 18, 2017
This is a lively and highly readable record of the history of Christian thought. Jonathan Hill introduces readers to the key theologians who have shaped doctrine and dogma, such as Origen, Pseudo-Dionysius, Martin Luther, Friedrich Schleiermacher, Karl Rahner and (the recently departed) Wolfhart Pannenberg. In between, he also discusses events (e.g. the ecumenical councils, the rise of Islam) and concepts (Romanticism, existentialism, etc...) that have affected how culture, and particularly Christians, have viewed reality. Hill writes succinctly, only drawing out the major contributions and key themes in each thinker (along with quirky historical tidbits about them). Hill writes sympathetically, ensuring that mischaracterizations of these thinkers and their beliefs and movements are evaluated fairly (for instance, Hill is astute in pointing out that most notable aspect of early Pentecostal meetings on Asuza Street was the crossing over of racial barriers, although this, unfortunately, would soon end). Hill pays particularly attention to modern theology and praises ideas found in process and liberation theology. Although it's impossible to provide an entirely satisfactory overview of Christian thought, there ARE some key figures who are skimmed over (Ulrich Zwingli) or entirely overlooked, such as modern Orthodox theologians. The Arminian in me is miffed Jacob Arminius does not get mentioned at all (indeed, Hill characterizes John Wesley's theology as '"nice" Calvinism' when it is well-known the Anglican revivalist had a strong affinity for the Dutch theologian).
May 23, 2018
Brilliant super accessible overview of who, what, and how ideas developed in Christian thought, as far as we have recorded to the early church fathers. When supplemented with historical context, this book really rounds out the shape of religious movements in the Christian faith.
March 10, 2013
Meh. Funny at times, but I could use with less humor and more objectivity.
April 26, 2020
An overall readable and enjoyable book, but not necessarily what one expects for an in-depth analysis of the 'Christian thought'. I had the sensation that the author tried to 'fast-forward' the highlights and the core of almost every theologian's message while mingling it with too many not-so-important facts.
Of course, there's no way to expose 2000 years of Christian thinking in some more than 350 pages, but for me, it felt that concerning some theologians, Hill quite missed the point. This might also be due to his too obvious subjectivism in some parts of the book. For me it often was a little bit too clear which theologians he liked and which ones not so much. I would have expected a higher degree of objectivism.
But it can be enough for getting a taste of how Christian doctrine was shaped over time, pointing to the major works and historical events that marked Christianity.
Of course, there's no way to expose 2000 years of Christian thinking in some more than 350 pages, but for me, it felt that concerning some theologians, Hill quite missed the point. This might also be due to his too obvious subjectivism in some parts of the book. For me it often was a little bit too clear which theologians he liked and which ones not so much. I would have expected a higher degree of objectivism.
But it can be enough for getting a taste of how Christian doctrine was shaped over time, pointing to the major works and historical events that marked Christianity.
April 11, 2023
I felt like this book was too broad and shallow to truly see any trends in the Christian thought movements over the years. Each section depended too much on the author's summary of said theologian's works and had very few direct references to their writing. Also, it seemed somewhat random regarding which theologians were included in the book. Some weren't theologians at all, but more politicians or activists.
I would have benefitted more from a work that was less abstract, less broad, and more focused on a few significant thought movements.
I would have benefitted more from a work that was less abstract, less broad, and more focused on a few significant thought movements.
June 1, 2025
Overall a comprehensive narration of what the prominent figures in Theology history. The author allocated appropriate portions to each of the mentioned figures and gave fair summary to both their lives and thoughts. Though some of the refections seem not very deep, the author does give a good presentation for the reader.
May 6, 2020
A birds-eye view of the formulation of Christian-thinking from 20 centuries. Very informative but not so much as to take away from the survey style that the author uses to bring a well rounded general idea of what, why, and how we as Christians think today.
April 24, 2024
I greatly appreciated this book. It is, in my humble opinion, an excellent introduction to Christain thinking (theology, philosophy, social issues) throughout the centuries. I highly recommend it to the students of same.
May 8, 2017
used in the assignment on the doctrine of the person of christ. Detailed and i got lost in the wood.....
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
December 1, 2018
Enjoyable, accessible, and humorous at times.
February 14, 2021
I agree with many of the critiques in the reviews here, but still think it’s worth the read for a broad overview.
May 23, 2025
i like how the author bullied saint augustine
August 29, 2010
Hill, Jonathan. The History of Christian Thought. Downers Grove, Il: InterVarsity Press. 2003.
This book is a survey of Christian Thought, but more of Christian thinkers. It is a history of the important theologians and writers who influenced Christianity, from the early Greek fathers to the end of the 20th Century(although it covers up to the late 20th C, it doesn't cover many specific thinkers past the 1970s). Interspersed are short essays on the larger philosophical and political movements of the time, to provide a context for the religious thinking.
Despite, or perhaps because of the publisher, there is not much really said about the modern fundamentalist evangelical movement, but the coverage of the early fathers is quite good, explaining some of the earliest stages of the evolution of doctrine like the trinity. One thing I am not able to judge is whether any important people were omitted, but it seems all the names I recognize were included.
One critical flaw in the book is a failure of editing. There are multiple errors I caught in the text, including a paragraph that was printed twice, on pp. 102-103. There is a more underlying flaw, and that is the way the sections on schools of philosophy, cities or other background information. These are inset at gray boxes, which is a fine way to separate them from the text, but are simply dropped in the text, sometimes interrupting a sentence for 2 entire pages. It is quite distracting, you either interrupt the topic at hand, or jump ahead and then jump back, neither being quite satisfactory.
Though the book is not footnoted at all, there is a good "further readings" section at the end, with both general purpose titles and more specific titles by category. There is also a short glossary and an index, though a short cross reference of thinker to timeperiod would have been nice.
All told a good introduction to the foundational theologians of Christianity and though it doesn't quite delve into the current generation of thinkers, it provides a basis for understanding the evolution of Christianity that led to them. A second edition, with some of the editorial issues remedied would be quite an excellent book
A
This book is a survey of Christian Thought, but more of Christian thinkers. It is a history of the important theologians and writers who influenced Christianity, from the early Greek fathers to the end of the 20th Century(although it covers up to the late 20th C, it doesn't cover many specific thinkers past the 1970s). Interspersed are short essays on the larger philosophical and political movements of the time, to provide a context for the religious thinking.
Despite, or perhaps because of the publisher, there is not much really said about the modern fundamentalist evangelical movement, but the coverage of the early fathers is quite good, explaining some of the earliest stages of the evolution of doctrine like the trinity. One thing I am not able to judge is whether any important people were omitted, but it seems all the names I recognize were included.
One critical flaw in the book is a failure of editing. There are multiple errors I caught in the text, including a paragraph that was printed twice, on pp. 102-103. There is a more underlying flaw, and that is the way the sections on schools of philosophy, cities or other background information. These are inset at gray boxes, which is a fine way to separate them from the text, but are simply dropped in the text, sometimes interrupting a sentence for 2 entire pages. It is quite distracting, you either interrupt the topic at hand, or jump ahead and then jump back, neither being quite satisfactory.
Though the book is not footnoted at all, there is a good "further readings" section at the end, with both general purpose titles and more specific titles by category. There is also a short glossary and an index, though a short cross reference of thinker to timeperiod would have been nice.
All told a good introduction to the foundational theologians of Christianity and though it doesn't quite delve into the current generation of thinkers, it provides a basis for understanding the evolution of Christianity that led to them. A second edition, with some of the editorial issues remedied would be quite an excellent book
A
December 15, 2015
Broad but not deep
This book presents an overview of this history of Christian thought through short biographical sketches of the author's selection of representative, important theologians through the course of the centuries. Each theologian's biography is followed by a synopsis of his distinctive contributions to Christian thought. It's a helpful approach that makes the book very easy to read.
The problem with this approach, however, is that it leaves little space for development or deeper exploration of ideas. If you're looking for an overview, this is a fine starting point. If you want a book to prepare for teaching a class, or writing a paper, on a number of theologians, this book wouldn't provide enough material on anyone to take you very far.
One comment on the author's perspective. Hill keeps his views out of the book in any overt way because of the lack of significant analysis. Clearly, however, he is more interested in the new developments of theology than in some of the more practical teachers in the church who spend their theological energies equipping the church to read the Bible, understand it, and apply it despite the latest trends in academic circles. Thus, Hill spends no time on figures like Edwards, Spurgeon, Stott, Packer, Kaiser, Boice, Machen, Lewis, or others in the evangelical tradition who didn't invent new approaches to Christian thought but who, in my view, have had a more profound influence on everyday Christian life than the German professors who have dominated academic seminary thought for the last 200 years.
This book presents an overview of this history of Christian thought through short biographical sketches of the author's selection of representative, important theologians through the course of the centuries. Each theologian's biography is followed by a synopsis of his distinctive contributions to Christian thought. It's a helpful approach that makes the book very easy to read.
The problem with this approach, however, is that it leaves little space for development or deeper exploration of ideas. If you're looking for an overview, this is a fine starting point. If you want a book to prepare for teaching a class, or writing a paper, on a number of theologians, this book wouldn't provide enough material on anyone to take you very far.
One comment on the author's perspective. Hill keeps his views out of the book in any overt way because of the lack of significant analysis. Clearly, however, he is more interested in the new developments of theology than in some of the more practical teachers in the church who spend their theological energies equipping the church to read the Bible, understand it, and apply it despite the latest trends in academic circles. Thus, Hill spends no time on figures like Edwards, Spurgeon, Stott, Packer, Kaiser, Boice, Machen, Lewis, or others in the evangelical tradition who didn't invent new approaches to Christian thought but who, in my view, have had a more profound influence on everyday Christian life than the German professors who have dominated academic seminary thought for the last 200 years.
April 8, 2013
Many times while reading The History of Christian Thought I found myself laughing, as Jonathan Hill has quite the sense of humor. Indeed, were I to have his ear I would recommend he consider a career in stand-up comedy and leave academia alone, for humor is where his qualities end.
The History of Christian Thought is written as an introductory text, and so of course is pitched to those without knowledge of the subject. This would be fine, of course, if Hill presented that information well. Instead, the text is brimming with arbitrary evaluative judgments, rampant disrespect for the fathers of the faith, and frequent factual errors.
I learned nothing of any appreciable value from The History of Christian Thought, worse still, however, I fear that those not already familiar with the subject matter are being done a huge disservice by this travesty of a book.
The History of Christian Thought is written as an introductory text, and so of course is pitched to those without knowledge of the subject. This would be fine, of course, if Hill presented that information well. Instead, the text is brimming with arbitrary evaluative judgments, rampant disrespect for the fathers of the faith, and frequent factual errors.
I learned nothing of any appreciable value from The History of Christian Thought, worse still, however, I fear that those not already familiar with the subject matter are being done a huge disservice by this travesty of a book.
June 2, 2012
A wonderful overview of theological development, spanning the 1st to 20th century. The book is a series of sketches of those who have contributed to the discussion of Christian doctrine. Each sketch includes a brief biography, a systematic look at their theological contributions, and the impact these views have had through history.
Despite the heavy subject matter, Hill writes on a level that should be accessible to most readers, even if you are unfamiliar with Christan history or doctrine; this book provides a great framework for understanding both.
Despite the heavy subject matter, Hill writes on a level that should be accessible to most readers, even if you are unfamiliar with Christan history or doctrine; this book provides a great framework for understanding both.
December 10, 2017
الكتاب يعرض مسار الفكر المسيحى من القرن الاول الى القرن العشرين مركزا على اهم اللاهوتيين الذين شكلوا الفكر اللاهوتى على مدار التاريخ
ولكن يغلب عليه النظرة الغربية الى اللاهوت والتوسع فى اللاهوت الغربى وكان الفكر الغربى هو اللاهوت المسيحى فقط
فبخلاف بعض الشخصيات فى الكنيسة الارثوذوكسية لا يذكر اى اسهام لها فى التاريخ
الكتاب منحاز وبشدة لفكر الكاتب
ايضا عرض المواضيع فيه بعض التشويش والارباك الغير لازم دون التوسع فى فكر الكاتب او ترتيب افكاره
لم استمتع كثيرا بالكتاب لانه يحتاج الى تنظيم وان كان مفيدا فى بعض النقاط
كتاب جيد الى حد ما ولكنه غير مشبع وغير منصف للارثوذوكسية
ولكن يغلب عليه النظرة الغربية الى اللاهوت والتوسع فى اللاهوت الغربى وكان الفكر الغربى هو اللاهوت المسيحى فقط
فبخلاف بعض الشخصيات فى الكنيسة الارثوذوكسية لا يذكر اى اسهام لها فى التاريخ
الكتاب منحاز وبشدة لفكر الكاتب
ايضا عرض المواضيع فيه بعض التشويش والارباك الغير لازم دون التوسع فى فكر الكاتب او ترتيب افكاره
لم استمتع كثيرا بالكتاب لانه يحتاج الى تنظيم وان كان مفيدا فى بعض النقاط
كتاب جيد الى حد ما ولكنه غير مشبع وغير منصف للارثوذوكسية
July 23, 2014
A helpful survey on the development of Christian thought for courses related to historical theology. I will definitely reference some of the chapters in the future as concise overviews of key figures in the development of Christian theology. I read the book for potential use in future classes as well as to consider it as a volume for doctoral students to peruse for their PhD comprehensive exam preparation. I'll probably add it to the list of supplemental readings. Overall, an easy and helpful read. The small boxes on a variety of interesting persons and places are I think especially useful.
January 8, 2008
Excellent summaries of the lives and thought of Christian thinkers from the early church through 20th century. Enough detail to get the gist of the content and influence of people like Augustine, Calvin, and Barth, without being either tedious or skimpy. The author also includes helpful overviews of movements or historical context. I go back to this book surprisingly often--a great reference!
February 13, 2023
Fantastic book! Modern theology stands on the shoulders of giants. When we forget where we have come from we will fall into the traps of the past, and worse yet, believe that we have arrived theologically and intellectually. A must read for anyone who is serious about church history or theological history.
August 27, 2017
One of the best balanced survey of Christianity by a Protestant scholar. It is good to use "Readings in Christian Thought" by Hugh Kerr. The two together gives you an orderly review of context along side a sample of original writings.
January 14, 2008
Good history, just not too fun to read!
January 14, 2010
amazing brief histories of important theologians. explores via negativa and orthodox as well as more local sources. it always pleasantly surprises me to see kant in christian literature.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 36 reviews