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

I've never been a fan of the label "Bapticostal." It smacks of trying to play to the crowd of Pentecostals, being apologetic for being Baptist all at the same time. That said, if you're a Baptist who is more open to sign gifts, etc., then that's your privilige.

Your estimation of Grudem is quite accurate. However, some would indeed believe that the sufficiency of Scripture is under attack the moment you say that "God can still instruct/edify/confirm/give guidance etc by spiritual gifts still operating today within the Church" and that this is contradictory to the statement that says the "Bible is SOLE and infallible authority." I'm not saying that's my view, just saying that's the view of some. It has nothing to do with the canon of Scripture being still open, just that the closed canon is not enough.

I think that's a vast over-simplification, and not entirely accurate at worst. Calvin indeed stood on his own. It would be hard not to find some resonance between patristic fathers and the Reformers, just as there would be some between the patristic fathers and the Anabaptists.

Bifurcation fallacy, and a very poor attempt also at the fallacy of poisoning the well. Also, assuming facts not in evidence.

Using your logic, we should avoid Augustine because Calvin may have been influenced by him, thus both are in error. Would that error apply to their similar Bibliology as it pertains to infallibility? It would be the same theological source. So do you believe the Bible to be infallible? If you do, then you agree with Calvin who agreed with Augustine. :smilewinkgrin:

Augustine argued for the primacy of Biblical languages, as well as the knowledge of Latin. That he may have not lived up to his claim is unfortunate but not crippling, and no one has said otherwise. That said, Augustine would've been better served by his own admission, and so would we all.

What do you think of Louis Sperry Chafer as a theologian? He didn't know the Biblical languages.

 

A great dispensationalist!

Cheers,

Jim

 

You have read wrong. Augustine in his "Confessions" spoke of the brutality of his first Greek teacher, and his vow to not learn the Greek language. He later recanted of this, and did engage in study of the Greek language.

What you are failing to realize, is that understanding the Greek language in the fourth century, is not what we consider "knowing" Greek today. Today, if you know all of the words that occur fifteen times or more in the New Testament, have a decent understanding of Greek Grammar, the verbal system, etc., you are considered to have a working knowledge of Greek.

However, in Augustine's day, if you could not pick up a book on Greek philosophy, and read it from cover to cover (the way we might pick up a Magazine), then you did not "know" Greek.

Nevertheless, He had a good enough knowledge in his letters, to compare translations of the Vulgate to Greek translations (as much or more knowledge than a present day Intermediate to Advanced Greek Student).

Ironically, the point you are trying to make actually argues AGAINST you. It was actually later in Augustine's career that his theological views approached the reformed position that Calvin later held in small part. So one could well say that as Augustine's knowledge of Greek increased, he inched closer and closer to a reformed position.

 

Several church historians such as Meyendorff and Schaff have written that Augustine used a Latin Vulgate translation while forming his doctrine of original sin, which incorrectly translated Rom 5:12. This was the primary verse Augustine formed this doctrine upon and he appealed to it many times.

I cannot post links, as I am on a mobile phone, but you can find this yourself if you Google "Augustine Latin Romans 5:12" without the quotes.

 

I am mostly concerned with Augustine's doctrine of original sin which many scholars agree was derived from Augustine using a Latin translation that improperly translated Rom 5:12. Calvin agreed with this interpretation.

I would think that this verse, being the very foundation of your personal doctrine, would be very important to get right.

 

As both Tom and many other scholars have pointed out, this is a vast oversimplification. Original sin is clearly taught throughout scripture, though his mistake might make one lean toward the Seminal view (which he did), rather than the Calvinist view, which is the Federal headship view (that Adam represented humanity). No way could this misunderstanding be used to support the Calvinist/reformed viewpoint.

So your argument is moot anyway.

 

No one disappeared but you. I was the last one to speak on the matter.

None of your resources prove that SBC was anything other than predominantly reformed in her early days.

Tom Nettles proves the calvinistic origins of the SBC unequivocally in By His Grace and for His Glory.

Research some reputable sources and get your facts straight here, bro.

 

I have never heard of "Reformed Baptist" being used as a homonym for the Campbellite "Disciples of Christ". Indeed, I don't think the two can possibly be the same. I found on the official website of the "Disciples of Christ" several things which all reformed baptists I know would not agree with, including:

Ecumenism. "the Disciples’ commitment to and place within the universal and ecumenical church."


Baptismal Regeneration: "Through baptism into Christ we enter into newness of life and are made one with the whole people of God."
​

On several sites, I have found that the Campbellites were totally against creeds and statements of faith. (That would explain why I couldn't find anything giving a "run-down" of their beliefs ). Reformed baptists, on the other hand, are rarely ecumenical, do not believe in baptismal regeneration, and do see the importance of statements of faith.

I'll leave it there - I don't want to derail the thread.

 

Marty M (Steve) comments "Lloyd-Jones understanding of Holy Spirit baptism is IMO his Achilles' heel, but nonetheless he was a very great man."

Thanks for qualifying Steve that it's you opinion....In America we have a saying about opinions....

At least you ID that he was a great man....Must have something to do with his being Welsh, as was Williams & others (blood will out)

 

I agree with what you wrote ^^^.

His ability to process information is astounding, and that from my first-person experience with the good Doctor. There would be no problem for him to issue a comprehensive systematic theology, if that is what he intended.

Also, we should consider Jonathan Edwards in the mix. He was most influential for modern era theologians and his work is the bedrock for most current Baptist scholars.

Other names that I've not seen are Bruce Ware, Thomas Schreiner, Mark Seifrid, Gregg Allison (just completed a systematic historical theology that is most excellent!), and Russell Moore. All of these men are advancing the cause of Baptist theology in remarkable ways. Ware has led the charge against open theology. Schreiner has done groundbreaking work with Paul, and especially concerning the New Perspective of N.T. Wright, Seifrid is pushing justification heavily (his work is highly advanced), Allison just did the magnus opus of historical theology that stands hand-in-hand with Grudem's work, and Moore is doing cutting edge work with the Kingdom of God.

 

I was going to post a very similar comment.

I thought I did mention most of these.

This is touchy, primarily because there's such a tendency to devalue Scripture and replace it with experience, reason, tradition, etc. I have no problem saying that those four are vital to the faith (that's the Wesleyan quadrilateral) but that Scripture is primary and all else must be judged in accordance with that. If it contradicts Scripture, anything even confirmed by the other three must be rejected. There is such a sensitivity about devaluing or even appearing to devalue Scripture one scintilla, that anything that would even smell like it was close to doing it must be taken out behind the barn and shot. So that's why people pounce so much. I can understand the concerns and am sympathetic to them. I don't want Scripture replaced by or devalued with anything.

Another thing concerns many. They believe that people have an experience and then look for a theological plank to codify it with. This has been a criticism, right or wrong, of Lloyd-Jones, Grudem, and others. Obviously, we don't want to judge Scripture by experience, but we want to evaluate our experiences by Scripture. The problem is, no one can prove this is what Grudem did or Lloyd-Jones tried, but they can allege it. I know in years past that Grudem was critiqued on this in "The Coming Evangelical Crisis" (forgive me if I'm wrong on that one...I'm not in my office) and I believe he responded. I don't know if he's ever really satisfied his critics, and frankly, I don't know if they can be. And, maybe they shouldn't be to boot. Maybe they're right and Grudem's wrong.

You make the call

 

Speaking of Chafer:

Some would say that's an oxymoron, my friend :tongue3:

Always good to converse with you on here, my friend. :applause:

 

I am sorry, but that is an absurd statement. Almost all of the early SBC theologians were DoG people...even those who weren't were four pointers...

In fact, I cannot think of more than 3 or 4 that even denied L.

 

I can name a couple of baptist theologians who led many students who became baptist pastors in Canada. They were Dr. G.B. Fletcher of Newport News, Virginia (Toronto Baptist Seminary) and Dr. C.D. Cole of Kentucky (Toronto Baptist Seminary). Both these were absolute scholars in theology and excellent teachers. I don't know of any students from TBS who wouldn't bow before these men and give full credit for their appreciation for theology throughout their pastoral lives.

Yet, neither man is noted in history, but played a vital role in making that baptist history in Canada.

Cheers,

Jim

 

To save needless confusion, can I point out that in Tom's post 72, only the first quote, the one with my name over it, is mine. (It might look as if the other two were also mine, because there is no name over them).

 

You are correct. Sorry.

JesusFan wrote:

Depends on what you mean. I don't believe that those who argue tooth and nail for sufficient Scripture alone (the first paragraph of yours) would say they deny that God is interacting. They would say He is interacting through the Holy Spirit to bring people into the Word of God. Nor would they deny that God leads and guides, but He does so through the Spirit's application of the Word, not through any other revelation.

I am having difficulty interpreting the paragraph about "Church in Acts." Please help me understand.

 

Grudem wouldn't claim revelation as a function of HS, save for the gift of prophecy. Erickson would likely be as close to a mediating position as you'll find.

That said, it's hard to have a mediating position.