Zwingli’s theology is a system of rational supernaturalism, more clear than profound, devoid of mysticism, but simple, sober, and practical. It is prevailingly soteriological, that is, a doctrine of the way of salvation, and rested on these fundamental principles: The Bible is the only sure directory of salvation (which excludes or subordinates human traditions); Christ is the only Saviour and Mediator between God and men (which excludes human mediators and the worship of saints); Christ is the only head of the Church visible and invisible (against the claims of the pope); the operation of the Holy Spirit and saving grace are not confined to the visible Church (which breaks with the principle of exclusiveness). — Philip Schaff
Zwinglius Redivivus
Do not grovel to the foolish, do not show partiality to the influential. – Sirach
Zwinglius Redivivus 
I have always liked Philip Schaff, it is interesting in his last statement here…”the operation of the Holy Spirit and saving grace are not confined to the visible Church (which breaks with the principle of exclusiveness)”. The fulness of his meaning here is in question, but if we look at his Mercersburg Theology.. we can see that his view and vision of the Church was well beyond that of a mere Evangelicalism, to a more real Catholicity that included both. Btw, the book: The Mercersburg Theology and the Quest for Reformed Catholicity, by W. Bradford Littlejohn, with forward by Peter Leithart; is a nice read here!
LikeLike
leithart is impossible to read without ending up greatly annoyed. it’s like reading a more polished rick warren but with the same depth of thought.
LikeLike
Jim,
Leithart is always a theological and pastoral person of great depth, one must read him and do some thinking! And of course we all have feet of clay. To put him in with Rick Warren would be complete ignorance to my mind. But read him, is what I say! 🙂
LikeLike
ive read 3 of his things and that has well broken me of either desire for more or intention to subject myself again.
LikeLike
Jim,
Of course Leithart is no Barth, but he sort of reminds me of his nature theologically, in that when ya read him, it makes you think..and then go back to both Scripture and historical theology. Indeed he can be a challenge! And as I said, we all have feet of clay, but we need those pastor-theolog’s like Peter Leithart. Making us both think and think from the place of our norm and comfort is always good…to my mind at least. Thanks to moderate! 🙂
LikeLike
Jim,
Btw, it would be nice if you shared what are you Reformed theological standards, if I could ask? Are yours more Federal Calvinist? i.e. Westminister? You appear to be somewhat eclectic in your theological methods, but again perhaps that is just “my” preception. Since I am eclectic somewhat myself, but as you know my presuppositions are conservative and traditional, and have always for the most part been Catholic or Anglo-Catholic; and now again Anglo-Orthodox. Though certainly none of that alone makes one a Christian by itself. We will have to wait until the glory and judgment for that. But Christianity can only live and grow in the soil of God’s place and providence. So what is passing today as Christianity, or Christian doctrine, may sadly be not planted by God? We must “test” the spirits and the doctrines about (1 John 4:1-6 / 2 John 7-11).
LikeLike
i am a zwinglian vonradian with overtones of bultmannian schlatteronian brunnerianism
LikeLike
Jim,
Yeah, that’s eclectic and very soupy! lol How about Calvin in there? Though he is much more mystical in the doctrine’s of grace to my mind. Though Law and Gospel is certainly a place we must see some aspect of eclecticism in Calvin. Since the Bible or scripture itself is full of it also. And Vod Rad takes us into the depth of the OT God for certain!
LikeLike