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

[JesusFan]

What era did he live in and now that I see you say he wrote somethings I think in the books I inherited from a pastor there may be one or two of his.

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!

 

[preachinjesus]

here are a few

http://www.founders.org/library/dagg_vol1/all.html

http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/toc.html

Honestly if you're going to choose a reformed theologian, which is perfectly acceptable, I'd start with Bavinck and go to Kuyper from there.

Boyce and Dagg are okay but again its like comparing a nightlight to a floodlight.

 

[JesusFan]

Honestly if you're going to choose a reformed theologian, which is perfectly acceptable, I'd start with Bavinck and go to Kuyper from there.

Boyce and Dagg are okay but again its like comparing a nightlight to a floodlight.

What about lewis Chafer, would he be considered a baptist theologian?

 

[revmwc]

What about lewis Chafer, would he be considered a baptist theologian?

DTS - Was Chafers school and it is considered Presbytern I believe.

 

[TomVols]

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.

 

[JesusFan]

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?

 

[Havensdad]

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.

 

[TomVols]

have you read the Carl Henry 6 volumes on God, revelation, And Authority?
Worth a read?

Yes, very much so. Read whatever you can by Henry, written or edited.

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.

 

[JesusFan]

Yes, very much so. Read whatever you can by Henry, written or edited.

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.

Would Grudem work be comparable/similiar to that of J. Rodman Williams Renewel Theology, which is a systematic Theology for Charasmatics?

 

[TomVols]

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.

If this is directed at me, I never intended to imply Dr. Mohler was a dummy. I just merely pointed out that, to compare him and his works to those of Calvin, Origen, Augustine, etc., is apples to oranges in that we do not have a systematic bearing the names of Piper or Mohler. Could Mohler produce a systematic theology? Yes, probably in his sleep - by lunch time tomorrow - in four volumes....footnoted from memory. The man's a freak (and I mean that in the good way). He just hasn't. It's not that he hasn't had to or that it wouldn't be welcomed. It's just the he hasn't. That was my point.

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.

Hard to quantify theological aptitude, but their contexts had dissonance as well as similarities. Prima facie, as well as in terms of motive, you may be right. To wit:

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.

I disagree. There's never a bad time for good theology. Erickson is weak in spots, and so is Grudem. I'd prefer not to nitpick, especially since I probably already have :laugh: (Incidentally, I have been guest lecturing on for an undergrad systematic theology class that is using Erickson's abridged version and the Enns volume I referred to. I keep thinking that, had I been the prof, I don't know if I would've picked those two, yet I am hard pressed to come up with better alternatives that wouldn't involve a trade-off at some point).

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.

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 appreciate the tenor and spirit of this thought. On one hand I agree. But, we don't know enough to say one way or the other on either count. We don't have the Wonderlic scores of Calvin for comparison :laugh: Where the works of Grudem and company may be somewhat similar is in their seminality. Erickson gave many Baptists, Amyraldianists, etc. some cover, and provided a breath of inerrantist fresh air. He also was a welcomed alternative to the Strong weaknessses (just had to use that pun!) and an improvement over Garrett.

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.

 

[TomVols]

Would Grudem work be comparable/similiar to that of J. Rodman Williams Renewel Theology, which is a systematic Theology for Charasmatics?

I've only skimmed that work. Gut level? Not really. Grudem is more expanisve in my mind. And bear in mind: I'm not trying to imply Grudem is the patron saint of TBN. I just think on one or two areas, some Baptists would be uncomfortable with him at best. So on a substantive level, there would be enough dissonance for the two to recoil at the comparison. Again, gut level, but Williams is for people whose pneumatology tends to drive their theological framework. Grudem is for those whose theology as been affected by their experience of a work of the Spirit, and for those who feel traditional pneumatology is too rigid. (That may be an awful oversimplification).

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]

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

 

[JesusFan]

If this is directed at me, I never intended to say Dr. Mohler was a dummy. I just merely pointed out that, to compare him and his works to those of Calvin, Origen, Augustine, etc., is apples to oranges in that we do not have a systematic bearing the names of Piper or Mohler.

Hard to quantify theological aptitude, but their contexts had dissonance as well as similarities. Prima facie, as well as in terms of motive, you may be right. To wit: I disagree. There's never a bad time for good theology. Erickson is weak in spots, and so is Grudem. I'd prefer not to nitpick, especially since I probably already have :laugh: I would argue that Dever, Mohler, or Moore could fill a very needed gap in Baptistic thought - one that is more thoroughly Calvinistic, yet church-focused and 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. It's not as if Grudem/Erickson/Horton is a lesser of two evils, but each could be strengthened. Then again, you can mildly make that argument against almost any work. I appreciate the tenor and spirit of this thought. On one hand I agree. But, we don't know enough to say one way or the other on either count. We don't have the Wonderlic scores of Calvin for comparison :laugh: Where the works of Grudem and company may be somewhat similar is in their seminality. Erickson gave many Baptists, Amyraldianists, etc. some cover, and provided a breath of inerrantist fresh air. He also was a welcomed alternative to the Strong weaknessses (just had to use that pun!) and an improvement over Garrett.

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.

that is why I appreciated reading Ercickson, as he took a more "mediating" stance on the various theological issues that were surveyed in his book...

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!

 

[TomVols]

that is why I appreciated reading Ercickson, as he took a more "mediating" stance on the various theological issues that were surveyed in his book...

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!

1. Erickson almost always finds a mediating view, and some love him for it while others find this a flaw. I do think he's a bit more firm that what you'd think, but he (like Grudem) is unwilling to divide as easily as some are. Again, some see this as a strike against him.

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).

 

[JesusFan]

I've only skimmed that work. Gut level? Not really. Grudem is more expanisve in my mind. And bear in mind: I'm not trying to imply Grudem is the patron saint of TBN. I just think on one or two areas, some Baptists would be uncomfortable with him at best. So on a substantive level, there would be enough dissonance for the two to recoil at the comparison. Again, gut level, but Williams is for people whose pneumatology tends to drive their theological framework. Grudem is for those whose theology as been affected by their experience of a work of the Spirit, and for those who feel traditional pneumatology is too rigid. (That may be an awful oversimplification).

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.

read Berkhof... very good, but as you stated, is definitely for Baptists an "aquired" taste!

 

[Iconoclast]

Honestly if you're going to choose a reformed theologian, which is perfectly acceptable, I'd start with Bavinck and go to Kuyper from there.

Boyce and Dagg are okay but again its like comparing a nightlight to a floodlight.

Did you read the original post? I like both those men,but did not see where they adopted credo baptism

Grudem is the last person you want to read JF.

 

[TomVols]

Grudem is the last person you want to read JF.

Why? Just curious.

 

[Jerome]

Come on, everybody knows that Grudem

re wrote and re-defined things in opposition to the historic faith.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Clever play on words Bat Man.:laugh:

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

M L-J one of the last of my peoples Welsh Calvinistic Methodist Heroes .... Very loved for his intellectual prowess.