Who is Seen being The Baptist Theologian equivalent To Augustine/Calvin Then?

I love the Doctor, though I wouldn't agree with his rebuke of Warfield's pneumatology on all points. His "Preaching and Preachers" is must read material and I re-read it at least once or twice a year.

Is it true that there is a statue of Lloyd-Jones near Churchill's at the entry to the House of Commons?

BTW, I defended (if you will) Lloyd-Jones as an expository preacher against Iain Murray's criticisms in a chapter in my dissertation.

 

Jerome Come on, everybody knows that Grudem

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iconoclast
re wrote and re-defined things in opposition to the historic faith.


Thanks Jerome..... Tom....Grudem takes existing works....and tries to put them in todays english which is helpful. He writes in a way contempory people can better understand.....those who enjoy parts of His work enjoy this aspect.
That being said.....he departs in several places from the historic faith.
one example can be found on page 1057.....read his description of prophecy found under the diagram.....and the rest of the page and footnote
is not really coming from scripture, but from him.
it gets worse on page 1058 ,59 "conscience reflections" etc. he quotes from extra biblical belief systems as if they are mainstream.

His ideas on Spirit Baptism are way off[775-780].and listing heretical teaching with true teaching leads to people embracing the error...I have seen this happen first hand, then the people say...wayne grudem said....

 

Very few since SBC strayed from the DoG.

I don't know of any REAL theologians in Baptist History who were not DoG.

 

Icon,
The deficiency you pointed out in Grudem's pneumatology particullarly relative to his his understanding of the gift of prophecy, is hard for many to reconcile with an orthodox doctrine of Scriptural sufficiency. Grudem thinks there is no break here. MacArthur and a few others disagree. I don't think this makes Grudem's work a wholesale flop. I guess I follow the example of (ironically) Lloyd-Jones, who might agree more with Grudem than with me on this particular doctrinal point

Some would point to Conner, Mullins, and Garrett as SBCers, but I've already addressed their deficiencies. They were theologians....they just had their weaknesses soteriologically, and in other spots as well.

 

For a baptist theologian, I will remain firm with the 1907, three volume Systematic Theology by Agustus Hopkins Strong of the Rochester Theological Seminary.

The OP did say baptist theologians and not all the non-baptists listed.

The hard part of finding baptist theolgians down through the years is because they were pastors first and theologians secondly. Consider Gill, who was deemed to be a theological scholar. I can think of a number of pastors who also taught in seminaries part-time, but they were quite scholarly.

Cheers,

Jim

 

No one here isn't saying Dr. Mohler isn't intelligent and a good leader. However when I read him he's just not producing the kind of scholarship that leads people outside the SBC tradition to see him as a useful scholar.

When I read him he's more about politics and positions than carefully nuanced theological discussion. That's a fine place to be but in seeing what he's produced and producing he, again, is no where near the theologians in the OP. I like Dr. Mohler and appreciate his work. But I also recognize his limitations.

 

First of all, we've already been through this in an old thread...the SBC was never predominately DoG. I gave you a thorough list of resources about this and you disappeared.

There are plenty of REAL theologians in Baptist history who were not and are not DoG devotes. If you don't read broadly you'll miss a lot of people, this is an example of that too.

 

I did read the OP, but thanks for asking. I offered the other two as a reply to your suggestion. Not so much in line with the strictly "Baptist" offering of the OP.

 

This is a good suggestion imho. Particularly because AH Strong is considered to be a Baptist theologian by a lot of people.

Two others, actually Baptist, for suggestion that might qualify.

Stanley Grenz
Hans Frei

Both have written extensively but are not well known. Also, given the proliferation of post-foundationalist and non-foundationalist epistemologies that are forming theological prolegomena Grenz and Frei may well continue to develop. Grenz probably has more theological possibility, given that he still attaches to traditional evangelical horizons.

Frei is less known on this side of the puddle, but has been rather influential in theological circles.

I don't know, maybe just some food for thought. I think the OP is a good question, but think that by limiting the field to Baptist (which neither Augustine or Calvin were) makes it difficult.

 

I'm kinda curious myself who they are could you name any (perhaps I just have blinders on).

 

I am a little confused here. In a very recent thread it was asked if a person could be a "true Biblical scholar without knowing Greek and Hebrew".

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=71827&highlight=scholar

Most agreed that a knowledge of the original languages was necessary. From what I have read, Augustine did not know Greek. So, why should his theology be trusted? And it is well known that Augustine was Calvin's greatest influence, so why should his system be trusted as well?

 

Lloyd-Jones understanding of Holy Spirit baptism is IMO his Achilles' heel, but nonetheless he was a very great man.

I would love this to be true, but alas, it isn't.

Steve

 

You're reaching.

Agreed. Tony Sargent tried to help the Doctor (as if he needed it) with The Sacred Anointing. Dick Lucas and Iain Murray both called it an unqualified failure to justify the Doctor's pneumatology. (Side note: I'm presenting a new ordinand with a copy of Preaching and Preachers this week).

AH Strong was mentioned by me (I thought). Most will not find his yield of ground pertaining to creationism to be appealing. However, his work was a standard for many years (W.A. Criswell cited it as influential upon him).

I don't think these are particularly appropriate in that Frei is not really a systematic theologian.

Grenz puzzles me a bit (and I think the broader faith as well). His "Primer on Postmodernism" is a goldmine. His desire to make theology appeal to the masses can't be faulted. However, when consensus builders like Dockery and Erickson question your theology, that says something. His unofficial dubbing as the father of the emergent movement (at least, theologically) also is off-putting to many. (Note to self: time to re-read his Theology for the Community of God).

One thing is sure. We lost him way too soon.

 

That statue is of WWI Prime Minister David Lloyd George, also Welsh, but unlike Lloyd-Jones, his heritage was Disciples of Christ(aka Reformed Baptist).

 

A.H. Strong became a theistic evolutionist later in life. The edition I mentioned does not include this.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Not at all. Simply pointing out an inconsistency. Calvinists especially put so much emphasis on scholarship, yet Calvin's greatest influence was Augustine who did not know Greek. So, why are they considered great theologians?

In fact, I would argue what I believe to be serious error in Augustine's theology (which Calvin accepted and also taught) was partially due to him not knowing Greek and relying on the interpretations of others, the interpretation of Romans 5:12 being an important example.

The only alternative is to argue that a knowledge of the original languages is not necessary to properly interpret the scriptures and arrive at correct doctrine.

You tell me, which is it?

 

Calvin didn't buy into everyting Augustine wrote. John Calvin was his own man. He freely disagreed with the Bishop from Hippo on a number of occasions.

 

I think D.A.Carson is the man who most quailifies for the position. Although,as J.I.Packer and others have said:He stands on the shoulders of giants.

Carl Henry would have been #2.

 

True, but I have read Augustine primarily formed the doctrine of original sin on a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 which incorrectly said "sinned IN HIM" refering to Adam which is not in the Greek. Calvin accepted and taught Augustine's interpretation of this verse.

So, if Augustine erred here, so did Calvin. This is not minor, the doctrine of Total Depravity as Calvinism understands it is not identical to Original Sin, but is nevertheless absolutely dependent upon it.

And if this interpretation is error, then all scholars who have relied upon this error and expanded upon it have only deviated farther from the truth.

It would be the blind leading the blind.