his big book would be the God, Revelation, And Authority
He basically said in 6 volumes that ONLY in the Bible can we be sure about anything concerning God, as God would have to chosde to reveal Himself to us, and He did in the Bible...
was one of the fathers of "new Evangelism" movement, which was fundemenalism willingto take on issues of social ills, science, critical thinking etc
Basically, set up Christianity to be able to respond to those issues raised by faith/science/education etc!
Who is Seen being The Baptist Theologian equivalent To Augustine/Calvin Then?
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, May 20, 2011.
Page 2 of 4
-
preachinjesus Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Boyce and Dagg are okay but again its like comparing a nightlight to a floodlight. :) -
-
-
It's not fair to call Piper and Mohler systematic theologians. They have not published a systematic theology. Mohler speaks to theological issues in an academic setting, and Piper is a pastor/theologian. Both are theologians to be sure, but you simply cannot compare them to those who have published full systematics.
Erickson's work is a goldmine and he interacts with....well, almost any theologian who has ever lived :) It is a standard choice among many Baptist seminaries today because it strikes a mediating Calvinism and yet retains a full innerantist view (ironically, his doctoral mentor was Pannenberg). Back in the day, his larger work was green, and it was nicknamed the Green Monster!
Grudem is a wealth of information too. His strength is two-fold: One, he interacts significantly with biblical data. Not to say Erickson doesn't. Grudem just approaches it differently. Two, at the end of every section, Grudem gives you title and page numbers of various books from various segments to find their views. Wanna read what Charismatic theologians have written about spiritual gifts but don't know where to look? Grudem will point you there. What about the Methodist view of sanctification? His end of chapter bibliographies are worth the price of the book. He also includes major theological statements as well as Scripture memory passages and hymns that correspond with the doctrines. Some disagree with his Calvinism and his continualist views, but this should not dissuade you from owning this gem.
Garrett is worth reading. He seems to interact heavily, but at times leaves you wondering just what he actually thinks. For some reason, most moderate leaning Baptist schools I know utilize(d) this work.
Paul Enns has a work (Moody Handbook of Theology) that has a chapter on everything. However, it's a mile wide and an inch or two deep at best. If you want a 10 minute introducton to anything theological, get it. It's supplemental reading at best. It is heavily dispensational, fwiw.
A scant few used Theissen before the smaller Grudem and Erickson came along (there is even a condensation of the condensation of Grudem) but I wouldn't waste my time.
Daniel Akin recently edited A Theology for The Church. I love Dr. Akin, but the problem with this book is various authors address the various viewpoints.
As for the dead guys, Boyce and Dagg are as good as you can want. Are they as large as Grudem/Erickson? Of course not. That's common sense. They are significant reads.
Non-Baptist theologians (living and dead) who are must reads: Thomas Oden. His 3 volume work on theology has now been condensed into one helpful volume called Classic Christianity. Like Garrett and somewhat like Erickson, he interacts heavily with those who have gone before him. An evangelical Methodist, Arminians will likely welcome him
From a Dutch Reformed perspective, Bavinck's magesterial "Reformed Dogmatics" is classic. It has now been heavily edited down to one volume. It's a good starter, but the 4 volume is better (condensations usually are lacking, in my view). Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology is free with the Online Bible package (so is Boyce) or you can get the print version for $19.99 from CBD. Watch out: Hodge thinks you know Latin (because you usually did back in his time). It was abridged into one volume but I don't recommend that one.
Warfield never produced a full systematic, but he is must-read.
And of course, there's Calvin's Institutes. If you don't want to tackle the full work (and why not?), get the one volume edited by Lane and Osborne. You'll get a good taste. If you go for the full meal, don't worry a ton about the Battles edition vs. Beveredge.
Reymond's New Systematic Theology is good. Turrentin's 3 vol Elenctic Theology is worth reading. -
Thanks!
have read the works of Calvin/Theissen/Erickson/Hodge/Enns
Should read Grudem, as I am a 'bapticostalist"....
To me , Calvin was "easier" to read with understanding than Hodge was, at least easier tio try to track where he was going!
have you read the Carl Henry 6 volumes on God, revelation, And Authority?
Worth a read? -
I think the thread is poorly worded. There are Baptist whose theological knowledge and ability are equal to Calvin or Augustine. But they were not in the same situation as these men.
For example, I object to previous posters classification of Al Mohler. Dr. Mohler is probably one of the most intelligent theologians who has ever lived. He is very systematic in his presentations. He is capable of thinking through all levels of an issue in a way that even most pastors cannot always follow.
Now, has he written an expansive Systematic theology? Well, no. But one must ask, is there a pressing need for such? I do not believe there is; in terms of such works, I believe that the present works are sufficient, and time is much better spent investigating narrower fields.
Now, you must ask the question, if Al Mohler was placed in Calvin's position, in an era that was (nearly) completely lacking of such works, would he be capable of producing such? I think there is little doubt that he would be well able of producing something on the order of the Institutes. Perhaps he could even do a better job.
So, were/are there Baptist theologians with the capability of Calvin/Augustine? You bet there are. Have any produced works equivalent to these great men?
Not even close. -
I'd agree about Calvin vs Hodge. I'd start with Calvin.
I should also add A.A. Hodge, R.L. Dabney as well under the non-breathing, non-Baptists.
Grudem was influenced by those who influenced/were influenced by the Vineyard/Toronto movement. Just FYI. Grudem's work is a must-read. Like Erickson, whether you start with the slightly abridged edition or no, you eventually need to own/read the larger volume. It's just too good to pass up. There is now a somewhat companion volume on Historical Theology by Gregg Allison, a professor at SBTS. The vol is a companion in that the chapters closely mirror Grudem's (the two are buddies). Instead of the normal way you classify historical theology by eras, you can instead open Allison's book and read in one chapter what the church has taught concerning inerrancy, creation, baptism, etc., rather than having to piece it together through McGrath's, Bromiley's, or those kinds of works.
Just a side note. -
-
I say that to say this: I would argue that Dever, Mohler, or Moore could fill a very needed gap in Baptistic thought - one that is more thoroughly Calvinistic, yet accessible (think of a Baptist version of Michael Horton's A Christian Faith (also a very good theological read). This is a view shared by theology professor friends of mine in ETS. And, FWIW, also shared by the publishing houses. Grudem has been condensed twice. So has Erickson. Oden has been condensed. So has Berkhof. Now Bavinck has been condensed to get him off the seminary library shelves into the hands of those in the pulpit and the pew. So there seems to be a pattern here. Let me point out: It's not as if the works of Grudem/Erickson/Horton are lessers of evils, but each could be strengthened. Then again, you can mildly make that argument against almost any work.
Grudem brought Reformed theology to those eager to be less Reformed in their Pneumatology, and has also found a niche among those wishing to be Confessional yet contemporary. Horton has given Covenantal Paedo-type Reformed folks their answer to Grudem and Erickson, but Baptists will be strained to find him palatable for this reason. Yet, he could be this generation's PCA/RPC/OPC answer to the Princetonians who provided the veritable fountainhead of conservative evangelicalism in this country. -
Let me add Berkhof to the list of must reads. Can't believe I left him out. Too good not to read (dead Presby). I thought Culver avoided too much to be comprehensive though he could've filled a great niche. It's not bad, but not great either. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Dr Lloyd-Jones was, and still is, hugely influential in Britain. He was not a Baptist as such, but he practised adult baptism only (though by sprinkling).
He was largely responsible for a renaiscence in expository preaching, in the re-discovery of the Puritans, in inter-denominational cooperation among conservative churches, and in Reformed thinking generally.
For someone living, I would nominate John Piper and/or Al Mohler. They are the two guys largely responsible for the New Calvinism, whatever you think of it.
Steve -
Liked the fact that he did not "seem to have all the answers", that he does interact with other theologies and the bible, but did not seem like his answers were the "only" way to see the questions...
is the basic reason why there has been no 'theologian" or Systematic work like other traditions have produced is that we Baptists being a diverse body would have a hard time seeing 1 athor/work as being prepresenative of baptist theology on the whole? Think that others such as Reformed, Luthern/catholic etc have a much "tighter" view on what is considered to be "official" theology within their ranks... I of course refer to the equivalent of the evangelical/Fundementalist in their ranks! -
2. You make a good point about "official" theology works of the various denoms. In print, Baptist theology seemed a bit more unified until Conner, Mullins, etc. came along. And it's not as if Hodge, Warfield, Dabney, and others in the Presby and Reformed tradition agreed on everything.
Everyone is going to have their all-star, their pope, their theological True North. (see how I slipped that middle one in there? :laugh:) Some will quote Barth as definitive, likely mainliners. PCAers will always perk up at the sound of Warfield or Berkhof. Reformed Baptists will hear Boyce and amen before a word is uttered. It just happens that way. So in one sense, I'd disagree. I think even Baptistshad their official versions, especially so in the standard seminary or college level works. But they were unique to the various strains. That's where I think you hit the nail with the hammer pretty square. With the re-emergence of Reformed theology in Baptist life, there is a chance we could see more splintering as some run to Grudem, while others clutch Erickson (see a previous post above for why I think this provides room for someone to come in and steal the niche). -
-
Iconoclast Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Grudem is the last person you want to read JF. -
-
Come on, everybody knows that Grudem
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Clever play on words Bat Man.:laugh:
-
Earth Wind and Fire Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 2 of 4