A lack of Baptist scholarship?

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by OldRegular:
Good point Mark. However, Baptist doctrine should be expressed in a systematic manner such as the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith. Baptists ought to know what Baptists believe. Most Christians will claim they believe the Bible. The question is: Do they interpret it properly?

Response by Mark:
By the way, the 1689 London Confession is not really a Baptist confession of faith. It is a Baptist modification of the Presbyterian Westminster Confession of Faith. For that matter, the few "Baptist" theologies that exist are little more than Baptist rehashes of Presbyterian theology.

You correctly note that the 1689 Baptist Confession had much in common with the Westminister Confession. That being said the essential doctrines of the 1689 Confession were no different than those of the 1644 London [Baptist] Confession, which was published by the Particular Baptists in London before the Westminister Confession.

Response by Mark:
You will note that many of the Baptist "scholars" of the 19th century were educated in Presbyterian schools. They then sought to inject Presbyterian theology into the Baptist churches.

The first writer I mentioned, John Dagg, was not educated at a Presbyterian school, in fact He had little formal education according to Nettles. It is true that Boyce was educated at Princeton but his theology of the Doctrines of Grace were the same as historic Baptist doctrines. That Presbyterian doctrines were similar to the Baptist doctrines speaks well of the Presbyterians, since as you correctly state the writers of the new Testament were Baptistic.

Conner was not educated at a Presbyterian school. I doubt that Strong or Henry were and Nettles certainly was not. Perhaps the greatest of all Baptist theologians, the Englishman John Gill, was not educated at a Presbyterian school. Certainly the greatest of all Baptist preachers, the Englishman Charles Spurgeon, was not educated at a Presbyterian school.

As for modernism entering the Baptist Churches one might argue that it started with the introduction of the Scofield Reference Bible into Baptist Churches.

 

[Major B]

More of Gill's dripping calvinism...

I. First, in 1 Thessalonians 5:12,13 “We beseech you brethren to know
them”, etc.
1. First, it is the duty of church members to know their pastors; which is
not to be understood of a bare knowledge of their persons; for it cannot be
supposed, that there can be such a relation between pastors and members,
and yet the members not know their pastors; the sheep know their
shepherd and his voice.
(1.) To know them is to be acquainted with them; to make themselves and
their cases known unto them; for sometimes to “know” signifies to make

known; as in 1 Corinthians 2:2. Members of churches should freely
converse with their pastors, and make known the state and condition of
their souls; and especially when they have any matter of difficulty and cases
of conscience to be resolved, or are in any soul trouble and distress; they
should open their minds to them, and declare their case, that they may
speak a word in season to them; for though their cases may sometimes be
hit upon and reached in the general ministry of the word, yet this is owing
to an extraordinary direction of providence, and cannot in common be
expected by all; at least it cannot be assured of, unless persons unbosom
themselves to their ministers, and tell them their case.
(2.) To know them is to acknowledge them as their ministers and pastors.
Not to know is not to own and acknowledge; as in Luke 13:27. It is for
members so to know their pastors, as to own them as such; as theirs in a
peculiar sense, in which other ministers are not; as in a special relation to
them, and under their particular care; and this acknowledgment of them
should be testified by their submission to them in their ministerial services
and pastoral acts; of which more hereafter.
(3.) To know them is to take notice of them, to show respect to them, to
“hold such in reputation”, as the apostle advises, Philippians 2:29 to
give them the honour that is due unto them; not to know Christ, his
ministers, and his people, is to despise them, and to treat them in a
disrespectful manner, 1 John 3:1 Luke 10:16.
(4.) To know them is to love them; for words of knowledge oftentimes
connotate love and affection, 2 Timothy 2:19 and so the apostle
explains this of members knowing their pastors, by esteeming them “very
highly in love”, 2 Timothy 2:13 such as the Galatians expressed to the
apostle Paul, though they afterwards became cool and indifferent to him;
yea, the reverse of their former love.
(5.) To know them is to show a concern for their comfort and welfare,

 

[Major B]

Mark,

Name one Baptist church which existed in Calvin's day. Where did it meet? What language did it use? Just name one.

By Jewish literature, I mean the Old Testament and historical and cultural writings which help us to understand it.

Gill's scholarship was commonly attested by those in his day.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally posted by EdSutton:
I might offer one little bit of insight or not. I suggest there has maybe never been but one theologian really worthy of the title, in the human sense, at least since the days of the NT writers. He happens to carry the moniker of a 'Baptist', I believe, and did live and die, long before 1900 as well. Theologian comes from two root words, theos (God); logoia (words); and a suffix that means relating to. Hence, 'theologian' is one relating to the words of God. That said, IMO, only John Gill could qualify. As I understand it, he, to this day, is the only individual to ever write commentary on each and every verse in the entire Bible. Absent having received faulty info, I suggest he qualifies; the rest are only pretenders.
In His grace,
Ed

You correctly state that John Gill is the only person to write a commentary on every verse of Scripture. He certainly was the greatest Baptist theologian and perhaps as you say the best period.

I have Gill's commentary on the Online Bible program. Also have his book on theology Body of Divinity by sovereign Grace Publishing Co.. I am sorry to say that I have read little of it since the print is so small.

Whether correct or not I don't know but Jay Green, the publisher at Sovereign grace, translator of the Modern KJV, and Greens Interlinear, states in the intro to the above book that Gill wrote over ten million words, and that with a quill pen. I can manage a few with a word processor but then I am no John Gill.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Major B:
Name one Baptist church which existed in Calvin's day.

I don't have to name any church that existed in that day. I know that the Lord said His churches would exist in all ages and I know that those churches were "Baptist" in character.

If Calvin had really loved the Lord he would have joined one of the Lord's churches, not tried to reform the Devil's or start his own.

By Jewish literature, I mean the Old Testament.....

So you examined all the Old Testament scholars who lived in Gill's day and found at that none of them excelled him in understanding of it?

.....and historical and cultural writings which help us to understand it.

Hmmmmm......and here I thought I had a pretty good understanding of the Old Testament and yet I never could muster up enough interest in Maccabees or Josephus to get a good start reading them, much less finish them.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
[ I can say that had Calvin really loved the Lord the first thing he would have joined a Baptist church rather than trying to reform the Catholic church and then starting his own church when the Catholics booted him....If Calvin had really loved the Lord he would have joined one of the Lord's churches, not tried to reform the Devil's or start his own.

Wow. I must say that this is one of the most amazing and arrogant things I have ever read here on this board. You do not know the man at all, you admit to not reading his work. But yet you are qualified to make this judgement about him? Goodness.

 

[Major B]

Oh, well, this is great fun, but I have to take a two-month vacation from the BB. I have until the last of March to finish my portfolio for National Board Certification for Teachers (which brings with it around a 25% raise next year). So, I will take my leave of all of you until then. All off-duty typing will either be sermon notes or my NBCT stuff.

In the words of that Austrian Baptist Ahhhnold,

I'll be back...

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by PastorSBC1303:
I must say that this is one of the most amazing and arrogant things I have ever read here on this board. You do not know the man at all, you admit to not reading his work. But yet you are qualified to make this judgement about him? Goodness.

A. You are not supposed to make personal attacks. Saying that I am arrogant is a personal attack. Not that I care if you make personal attacks against me, but since the recent fiasco in the Baptist Colleges forum, I intend to make a note of it every time someone personally attacks me.

B. I know enough about Calvin to know He didn't join one of the Lord's churches. People who don't join one of the Lord's churches don't love Him, at least not very much.

C. Add to that the fact that Calvin not only did not join one of the Lord's churches, he actually persecuted the Lord's churches. Do you believe that people who persecute the Lord's people love the Lord?

Mark Osgatharp

 

[tinytim]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gb93433:
I learned many years ago that if I quit spending money on theology books and bought good reference books it required more study but I learned much more about the Bible and who God is.

Amen! I commited a bunch of theology books to the flames when I realized they were useless. I might also add that even "reference" books - though there are some useful ones - are many times only theology books in disquise.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Hey Mark, before you throw any more away or burn them, mail them to me, I'll even pay postage. One of my favorite pastimes besides BB, is collecting books (my wife hates it!!!!). So.... just PM me and I'll give you my add.

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

TinyTim,

I wouldn't wish those books on anyone. In fact, a couple of days ago I started to donate a Scofield Bible to the local thrift store. Then I thought, why would I want anyone to have their mind perverted by reading that tripe? So in the trash it went.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[Mark Osgatharp]

Originally posted by Artimaeus:
I think the reason there are not many scholarly Baptists books is because Baptist Theology is just plain too simple for "real" theologians.

Read Bible...Believe Bible...Do Bible (End of Baptist theology lesson)

But that is just not good enough for those who believe more is better.

Amen to that! But if every followed that advice the theological education and book publishing industries couldn't rape the churches for multiplied millions of dollars annually.

Mark Osgatharp

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:

B. I know enough about Calvin to know He didn't join one of the Lord's churches. People who don't join one of the Lord's churches don't love Him, at least not very much.

C. Add to that the fact that Calvin not only did not join one of the Lord's churches, he actually persecuted the Lord's churches. Do you believe that people who persecute the Lord's people love the Lord?

Eccl. 7:20, "Indeed, there is not a righteous man on earth who continually does good and who never sins."

James 2:21-23 "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? You see that faith was working with his works, and as a result of the works, faith was perfected; and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness," and he was called the friend of God."

Abraham did not always do right. Not one of the apostles always did right. Moses killed a man. David did too. Peter cut off a man's ear.

 

[tinytim]

Yeah, but none of them were Baptists!

 

[gb93433]

Originally posted by tinytim:
Yeah, but none of them were Baptists!

That's true they preceded the Baptists. The first Baptist was baptized by a non-Baptist.

 

[PastorSBC1303]

Originally posted by Mark Osgatharp:
A. You are not supposed to make personal attacks. Saying that I am arrogant is a personal attack. Not that I care if you make personal attacks against me, but since the recent fiasco in the Baptist Colleges forum, I intend to make a note of it every time someone personally attacks me.

No, actually it was not a personal attack on you. I did not call you arrogant. I called the reply that you posted as arrogant. And I would venture to say that there are many on here that agreee with me. Your reply was arrogant.

B. I know enough about Calvin to know He didn't join one of the Lord's churches. People who don't join one of the Lord's churches don't love Him, at least not very much.

How do you know anything about him? You admitted you had not read his work? Did you know him personally? How do know that the church(es) he was a part of was not one of the Lord's churches?

C. Add to that the fact that Calvin not only did not join one of the Lord's churches, he actually persecuted the Lord's churches. Do you believe that people who persecute the Lord's people love the Lord?

All are sinners. All do things that are wrong at times. Even Christians do things that do not honor the Lord.

 

[EdSutton]

"That's true they preceded the Baptists. The first Baptist was baptized by a non-Baptist."

So help me out there, gb9xxxx. Who Did baptize John the baptizer?

Ed

 

[Ransom]

Mexdeaf said:

In another Baptist forum, a statement similar to this was made- 'the reason we have so many Protestant/Presbyterian books in our libraries is due to a lack of serious Baptist scholarship.'

This leads me to ask two or three questions-

1. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?

I don't, for two reasons.

One, as I survey the set of books I have on my shelves, it appears to me that the majority of theological authors are, in fact, Baptist: Millard Erickson, John Piper, Timothy George, Richard Longenecker. This is not a truly representative sample of my library, most of which is in storage and inaccessible to me. However, I know that I have a good number of scholarly materials written by Baptists. This is an accident, in that for the most part I was not selecting specifically Baptist authors, excepting those books where I was seeking material on specific Baptist-related issues. It seems to me, therefore, that Baptist scholarship is well represented in the book market.

Second, there are many biblical/theological/moral issues where there isn't a distinctly "Baptist" take. It occurs to me that Baptist scholarship on some issues would be a reinvention of the wheel; hence, in my mind at least, there is no need for Baptists to be represented in those areas.

2. Who would you consider as true Baptist scholars, modern age- say 1900 onward?

Millard Erickson is an excellent systematician. So, for that matter, is Wayne Grudem: the seminary where I have taken some courses has used both their systematic theologies as texts for their theology survey courses. John Piper is better known as a pastor or devotional writer, but works of his such as The Justification of God prove he is more than capable of interacting with "state-of-the-art" technical exegesis. D. A. Carson's commentaries on the Gospels are top-notch, as are his more pastoral-oriented or popular works. Richard Longenecker is a good tecnical exegete, as is Timothy George though the works of his that I have used are somewhat more at the popular level than Longenecker's.

 

[Ransom]

Modern day Baptists don't need to write theology books.

I can say that had Calvin really loved the Lord the first thing he would have joined a Baptist church rather than trying to reform the Catholic church and then starting his own church when the Catholics booted him.

Yeesh!

My kingdom for a killfile . . .

 

[Mexdeaf]

Originally posted by Ransom:
Mexdeaf said:

In another Baptist forum, a statement similar to this was made- 'the reason we have so many Protestant/Presbyterian books in our libraries is due to a lack of serious Baptist scholarship.'

This leads me to ask two or three questions-

1. Do you agree with this assessment? Why or why not?

I don't, for two reasons.

One, as I survey the set of books I have on my shelves, it appears to me that the majority of theological authors are, in fact, Baptist: Millard Erickson, John Piper, Timothy George, Richard Longenecker. This is not a truly representative sample of my library, most of which is in storage and inaccessible to me. However, I know that I have a good number of scholarly materials written by Baptists. This is an accident, in that for the most part I was not selecting specifically Baptist authors, excepting those books where I was seeking material on specific Baptist-related issues. It seems to me, therefore, that Baptist scholarship is well represented in the book market.

Second, there are many biblical/theological/moral issues where there isn't a distinctly "Baptist" take. It occurs to me that Baptist scholarship on some issues would be a reinvention of the wheel; hence, in my mind at least, there is no need for Baptists to be represented in those areas.

2. Who would you consider as true Baptist scholars, modern age- say 1900 onward?

Millard Erickson is an excellent systematician. So, for that matter, is Wayne Grudem: the seminary where I have taken some courses has used both their systematic theologies as texts for their theology survey courses. John Piper is better known as a pastor or devotional writer, but works of his such as The Justification of God prove he is more than capable of interacting with "state-of-the-art" technical exegesis. D. A. Carson's commentaries on the Gospels are top-notch, as are his more pastoral-oriented or popular works. Richard Longenecker is a good tecnical exegete, as is Timothy George though the works of his that I have used are somewhat more at the popular level than Longenecker's.

Ransom,

THANK YOU for a thoughtful reply!

Mexdeaf

 

[Craigbythesea]

Over the past 100 years the expression Baptist scholars has become more and more an oxymoron. One obvious reason for this is that Baptist seminaries have not, for the most part, kept up with the best of modern scholarship, and they are not, therefore, producing the caliber of scholars being produced by the best seminaries and universities today. The subject of Greek grammar, however, is still attracting Baptist scholars—perhaps because they find it necessary to write their own grammars in order to make Baptist theology tenable.