Notable Baptists and Fundamentalists

No Lee Roberson?

 

It appears that the list was made prior to this year. Tom Malone is not listed either. It will be interesting to see if Jerry Falwell makes the list when it is updated.

 

Notable for what?

 

Since the SOTL has always had as its themes evangelism, revival and Fundamentalism, I'm sure that those are the criteria for being included on the list.:type:

 

Great resource!

No Dr. John Gill !!!!

 

John Gill was exactly who Fullerites like Spurgeon were reacting against. So Gill very naturally has no place on this list, since he was not evangelistic.

 

Pastor Bob, who on that list should be excluded and who included, in your opinion.

 

Have you studied John Gill? Have you read what Spurgeon wrote of Gill?

Here are a few quotes:

"“A man of profound learning and deep piety, he was notable as a divine for the exactness of his systematic theology in which he maintained the doctrines of grace against the innovations of Arminian teachers. His Body of Divinity has long been held in the highest repute. As the fervent exposition of an entire and harmonious creed, it has no rival. His famous treatise entitled The Cause of God And Truth, obtained for him the championship of the Calvinistic School of Divinity.”

"Many sneer at Gill, but he is not to be dispensed with. In some respects, he has no superior. He is always worth consulting." - C. H. SPURGEON Autobiography (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1897) Volume 1, Page 220.

And you want to know in detail about such an eminant Baptist you can go here: http://www.reformedreader.org/rbb/gill/summary.htm

Dr. Tom Nettles wrote of him, ""He has doubtless been judged more harshly and even maliciously than any man of comparable repute in Baptist history." I suggest one reads what Dr. Nettles wrote in his book, By His Grace and For His Glory to get a balanced view of Gill.

Gill once wrote, ""Souls sensible to sin and danger, and who are crying out, What shall we do to be saved? you are to observe, and point out Christ the tree to live to them; and say, as some of the cherubs did to one in such circumstances, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved, Acts 16:31. Your work is to lead men, under a sense of sin and guilt, to the blood of Christ, shed for many for the remission of sin, and this name you are to preach the forgiveness to them."

Seems the calumny that Gill was not evangelistic is misdirected. Maybe because of those who followed Gill. In an article written on Gill we read:

"He was the first Baptist to write a complete systematic theology and the first to write a verse-by-verse commentary of the entire Bible. Gill wrote so much that he was known as Dr. Voluminous. Tom Nettles writes. "His loss was felt keenly by the whole denomination of Baptists, a group still small and despised ... His outstanding scholarship, zeal for truth and pious polemics had greatly encouraged Baptists ..."


The article also said, "There is no doubt that his followers so emphasized God’s sovereignty that they forsook evangelism and missions. Spurgeon rightly saw that as a travesty to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time, Gill’s powerful presentation of the God with Whom we have to do is needed in every generation."

You may read it here in its entirety for our edification http://www.siteone.com/religion/baptist/baptistpage/Portraits/gill.htm

It seems the aforementioned website has done a great disservice in leaving out Dr. John Gill.

 

So much more beneficial to study about a living Christ in His Word that dead men in textbooks.:thumbs:

 

The Apostle Paul might disagree- 1 Corinthians 11:1; Phil. 3:9,17; 4:9; 2 Timothy 2:2.

Not to mention the numerous accounts of missionary biographies that the Lord has used to call others to His harvest fields.

 

I see nothing but loss in ignoring some of the most eminant preachers God has gifted His church with (and those not so eminant) in times past. I think those who so love the Living Christ and His Word, will love those, in any age, whom the Living Christ wrought through mightly by His Word and Spirit.

 

The dead men that wrote the Word were inspired of God to do so.

The Word was to honor and glorify Christ, not Paul, Matthew Mark, Luke, John, Peter, James...

I think some people think they are impressing others by dropping names.
Well here's a Name for ya, Jesus Christ.

Acts 4:11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

 

I have run into this kind of thinking before, and find it to be quite silly. Many who make such comments concerning the preaching and works of commentary of others, do themsleves like to preach and give commentary on Holy Scripture. I had a preacher once, who was my pastor for a time, say to me "You should stop reading those commentaries and read the Bible!" To which I answered, "My dear pastor, would that include the commentary you make each Lord's Day when you preach?"

But better than I can say, did Spurgeon comment to his students when he spoke of commentaries to commend some:

 

I quote scripture, you quote a dead man. :laugh:

Why am I not surprised.

 

Did you read the quote?

 

Yea, it's a great quote! No argument about that. I just do not understand the painstaking lengths that seminaries and Minsters take to study these men. I admire them and like their works, but to elevate them the way some do, imo, borders on idol worship.

Luke 11:31 The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with the men of this generation, and condemn them: for she came from the utmost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon (Spurgeon)[is] here.

Luke 11:32 The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas (Calvin) [is] here.

 

You mean Jesus is greater than Spurgeon and Calvin????? Say it ain't so!!

LOL. Do you really think we believe this?

 

While I understand where all are coming from, here, aren't you, maybe, being just a little harsh on some who have gone before?? I wonder if all the writers of some Scriptures would fully agree, here, as to ignoring all books, but Scripture?

The writer tells where David's history can be found.

The writer appeals to some other books as evidence, to back up his own statements.

Paul wanted the church at Colossae to read an epistle that is not Scripture, the Epistle from Laodicea.

Paul wanted Timothy to bring him his books, even while he was imprisoned, and awaiting the end of his own life. (II Tim. 4:6)

Luke even had 'outside' sources for his gospel, and did not dismiss other gospels, even when writing his own gospel to Theophilus. (Lk. 1:1-4).

Your suggestion just seems overly 'restrictive', to me. Have you ever used any of these Scripture versions at any time - the KJV, ASV, Darby, YLT, Mof., Geneva, Great, Wesley, Williams, or Wycliffe, to name 10? Those translators are all dead guys - every one of 'em. Ever use a Strong's or Young's concordance? They are both dead, as well. How about Halley's or Unger's Bible handbooks? You guessed it, both dead.

Many, including all these I've mentioned, "being dead, yet speak!"

Ed