Here Richard Muller describes, briefly, both Luther and Calvin’s thinking on the relationship of ‘faith’ and ‘reason’ (what hath ‘Jerusalem to do with Athens’, eh):

“Assuredly, no one can be a theologian except he become one without Aristotle.” So wrote Martin Luther his Disputation against Scholastic Theology of 1517. According to Luther, philosophical knowledge was, at best, superficial: it discerned the one God but knew nothing of his identity as Trinity; it examined essences but failed to perceive either the present purpose or the end of man as ordained by God. Calvin also was profoundly aware of the limitation of human reason and of the danger of placing too much confidence in the product of reason or philosophy: “one can read competent and apt statements about God here and there in the philosophers. . . . But they saw things in such a way that their seeing did not direct them to the truth, much less enable them to attain it.” Luther, Calvin, and the other early Reformers had little interest in elaborating a positive relationship between faith and philosophy. This is, of course, not to say that there was total antipathy to philosophical learning or, indeed, to the entirety of the scholastic past on the part of either Luther or Calvin. . . . (Richard A. Muller, “After Calvin,” 122)

This is the kind of stance that both Karl Barth and T. F. Torrance took seriously in their theologizing, and what Karl Barth’s analogia fidei (‘analogy of faith) was on about, in the main. That is that we must engage in theological knowledge through looking at Christ. There are clearly differences, developments, and even points of departure between Luther/Calvin and Barth/Torrance; nevertheless, the basic contours are the same. We don’t want to engage in a ‘negative’ speculative theology that thinks of God through ‘essences’ ‘accidents’ etc. We want to approach the Holy of holies through the unveiling of God’s life through the torn veil of Jesus’ body, and remember that He alone — He who dwells in the bosom of the Father — explains God to us.

This is the approach that EC seeks to harbor, to one degree or another, and I would encourage all of you to likewise engage in theological thinking that starts in the center of God in Christ’s life, and works out from there towards a knowledge of God that is robustly Trinitarian; and thus, is also pervasively ‘Evangelical’ in orientation.