Greatest Baptist Theologian of the 20th C

Squire,

My deepest apologies. When I said "northern Baptist" I had in mind the ABC.

Mark Osgatharp

 

A. Pink's theology stinks.

B. The Lord made heavy theology accessible for the "common folk" when He inspired His prophets and apostles to write the Scriptures.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Then Rice is out as well. </font>[/QUOTE]I'll choose to laugh at this and say, yep, he was not universally loved.

In particular, the liberals hated him, and heretics loathed him! Oh, okay, and he didn't get along with hard core Calvinists. And Billy Graham and his friends broke his friendship with Rice because Rice couldn't learn to accept modernists.

The fact remains that Rice wrote and sold a lot more books than Pink, and IMO was popular among a broader spectrum than Pink.

 

What part? Pink was an orthodox believer in every way, inerrancy, the Trinity, Substitutionary Atonement, Justification by Faith, Salvation by Grace, Eternal Security, holy living, experiential reality in salvation. He was a calvinist, as are many on this board, but so were all of the old line Baptists except the general baptists. Every great Landmarker you cite in your posts was a calvinist in his doctrine of salvation. Boyce Taylor, one of the landmark giants (pastor of FBC Murray, KY from 1897-1937) was a calvinist, and often had Pink to preach there. And our mutual companions "J.R. Graves" and Charles Blair (personal friends of mine) are five pointers all the way--I've preached in both their pulpits, and when I was a pastor, Blair, and maybe "Graves" --at my age, the memory fails--they preached in mine (landmark stuff notwithstanding).

So, what part of Pink stunk?

 

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ died for all men and offers salvation to all. All who receive it are etenally secure in Christ. All who reject it will be damned.

That is the message of salvation I preach. Pink called this "mongrel Calvinism." I'd sure hate to face the Lord having so written of His blessed gospel.

Mark Osgatharp

 

Then Rice is out as well. </font>[/QUOTE]Even Paul is not influential among all Baptists! I have heard men (and especially women, up North in ABC circles) say, "Paul was off here." Now, you won't hear that nonsense among conservative Baptists, reformed Baptists, Fighting Fundies, etc., which makes the point--I doubt if any baptist theologian was universally influential in the 20th century.

 

The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ died for all men and offers salvation to all. All who receive it are etenally secure in Christ. All who reject it will be damned.

That is the message of salvation I preach. Pink called this "mongrel Calvinism." I'd sure hate to face the Lord having so written of His blessed gospel.

Mark Osgatharp </font>[/QUOTE]Your view is an amalgam of arminian and calvinist, hence the term. In your theology, Christ died to save no one, but to make salvation possible if man does thus and so. In your atonement idea, the Cross saves no one, it only makes salvation possible. I suppose that is enough of that, since we are in another forum.

However, strange that you should be a landmarker, since all the prominent gentlemen of your stripe in earlier generations would (and did) agree with Pink on the atonement, not you.

 

A. It doesn't matter if ever Landmarker in the world advocates Calvinism, it (Calvinism) is still wrong. I don't base my beliefs on what some Landmarker of the past (or present) said or did; I base my beliefs on the Bible.

B. There are surely some Calvinists who have held to a Landmark ecclesiology. But there have just as certainly been those who did not. You said J.R. Graves was a Calvinist but he said he wasn't. So who should I believe?

C. The gospel I preach is the gospel of Jesus Christ. It has no relationship to Arminianism or Calvinism, other than that both of them are perversions of it.

D. Though I would certainly not venture to guess who was the "greatest theologian" of any time (which to me borders on the same folly in which the apostles engaged when the debated who among them was greatest), I will say that I have great respect for the memory of J.N. Hall, who was a stalwart western Kentucky Landmarker who fought the Calvinist heresy along with many others in his day (late 19th and early 20th century).

Mark Osgatharp

 

Bro. Mark O.

Just a little historical note on J.N. Hall, as I live in the very county (Fulton) in which he pastored and is buried. If you check J.B. Moody's little book on gospel missions (the name escapes me) he says that although he and Hall disagreed on gospel missions and although Hall believed Moody stood so straight on grace he went backwards, Hall supported Moody as a teacher in the Hall-Moody Institute in Martin, TN. Hall personally gave the first $100 pledge to pay his salary. Moody as seen in his books on Grace, and Sin, Salvation, and Service, was a calvinist. Hall fought the Primitive Baptist hard, but this quote by Moody shows how he was willing to work together with calvinstic landmark Baptists.

By the way, this past December 4 was the 100 year anniversary of the death of Hall.

 

I think it's called Missions Versus Anti-Missions.

 

J.R. Graves,

One of my best friends is a Landmark Baptist preacher and J.N. Hall's grandson. He once told me that J.N. Hall was a Calvinist. I took him to J.N. Hall's biography and showed him his debate with Lemuel Potter, a Hardshell preacher.

Though the debate is captioned "Preparation on Hardshellism" there is nothing in it that addresses the distinctive Hardshell peculiarities per se. It is a straightforward attack on on the whole idea of unconditional election and a defence of God's love for all men and Christ's sacrifice on behalf of all men. Here is just a sampling of his words:

If Hall countenanced real Calvinists (I say "real Calvinists" because I know that by saying "Calvinist" some of the old writers simply meant someone who believed in total depravity and eternal security), all I can say is that he bid godspeed to those who preached a doctrine that he himself asserted to be,

Mark Osgatharp

[ January 05, 2006, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: Mark Osgatharp ]

 

Well, Mark, you are preaching modified Arminian ideas, whatever you want to call it. Everybody's ideas are biblical--if you don't believe it, read a few thousand posts on this board.

My pastor says, that of the following groups, the really dangerous ones are the ones who "just want to follow Jesus."

1 Cor 1:12 Now I say this, that each of you says, "I am of Paul," or "I am of Apollos," or "I am of Cephas," or "I am of Christ."

 

I agree. In my opinion I have yet to find one of those who claims to just follow Jesus who really does.

 

You know what, Major B? You're probably right here. Maybe we Baptists are too individualistic to put any one theologian up as most influential.

Of course we could debate about anyone doubting Paul actually being a true Baptist, since a universal Baptist distinctive is the Bible as the sole rule of faith and practice.

 

Unfortunately, brother Cole is a mostly-forgotten man except among Grace people. He spent his retired years teaching a Sunday School class at First Baptist Madisonville, and was tolerated because of his stature, but other than by his students, was ignored. FB Madisonville is now pretty much a CBF church, and I doubt if anyone there recalls him.

 

The question may be moot by now, but I'm not sure anyone can pick just 'one', with any real credibility.
If I had to, I would probably say B.H.Carroll, because of the large lingering influence of SWBTS.
Others that come to mind are (granted as one from a So. Baptist background, I am not as informed as I could be, not being a great student of all Baptists) would have to include A.T.Robertson, John R. Rice, A.W.Pink, and some names that have not yet been brought up including E.Y.Mullins and Herschel Hobbs, who were the 'leads' with the BFM in 1925 and 1963 respectively, L.R. Scarborough, Carl F.H.Henry, the two back to back 'Senior Pastors' of FBC Dallas for a century, G.W.Truett and W.A.Criswell, Billy Graham, Harold Lindsell with "The Batttle for the Bible", J.R.Graves, the aforementioned Strong and Erickson, R.G.Lee- and on we go. Can you ignore the influence of the ultra-modernist Harry Emerson Fosdick? Who decides? Does 'greatest'='better'? If "greatest"="most influential", I'd say my list would cover several of those. I could be a better 'theologian' than any of the above, (I'm not but putting out a hypothetical example.) but I seriously doubt my 'influence' will ever be 1% of any of the above.
Something to consider.
My second choices would probably be Truett and Criswell, collectively, with a touch of R.G.Lee. Without the influence of first, Truett at FBC Dallas, and especially then Criswell, you do not have the germ of the conservative resurgence of the SBC. No Criswell- no Patterson; no R.G.Lee- no Rogers, etc.
Third would have to be A.T.Robertson, to me.
Fourth, John R.Rice, the 20th century's 'mightiest pen'.
Fifth- I don't know- All is somewhat subjective. I guess it all depends on what an individual thinks equals 'important'.
In His grace,
Ed