I wrote some time ago on something that stuck me as off about Bavinck’s Prolegoumena:

One of the astounding oddities of the beginning of the English translation of Bavinck’s first volume of Reformed Dogmatics (pp. 34, 35) is that he lists William Ames as a bad guy for defining theology as “the art of living to God.” He also mentions as a danger a man name Calovius who argued that claiming God is the object of theology is as wrong as making “a prince instead of the commonwealth the object of the study of politics.” To me, that sounds quite compelling. But for Bavinck it only leads to Kant: “Thus, step by step, the subjective practical notion of theology began increasingly to find acceptance.”

via William Ames, Post-Modernist? » Mark Horne.

Now I wonder where Turretin fits in. True, Turretin says that God is the “object of philosophy.” But his labeling theology as a “habit” sounds a lot like Ames. Of course, I’m pretty ignorant of the philosophical background: Aristotle’s discussion of how “habits” are behind various sciences, and the full meaning of the Latin habitus.  Perhaps I shall do some more reading.

I believe Turretin also insisted Theology was both theoretical and practical.

But I continue to love Ames’ definition of theology as “the art of living to God.” And if we only know God “in relation” then I fail to see how Theology can claim to have God as its object and not God in his regal and redemptive relationships with us.

To put it controversially, I think Theology has to be about Christendom if it is ever to tell us anything true about God.