Greatest Baptist Theologian of the 20th C

[EdSutton]

Someone mentioned John A.Broaddus previously, and his well known book, "On the Preparation and Delivery of Sermons". It is my understanding that this book was compiled from the Homiletics class that Broaddus taught just after the Civil War, and the 'reopening' of SBTS at Louisville. He had but one student that year, and the student was blind. Broaddus, although not a 'slacker' by any stretch, felt compelled to teach the class, because of the student's handicap, in a more 'organized' fashion than he might have otherwise. Hence the extremely organized outline and presentation. That student, who was in a sense, the genesis of 'OtPaDoS' never preached the first sermon outside of any he may have done as a student, for he contracted a disease and died, before his graduation. He, being dead, yet lives to this day.
In His grace,
Ed

 

[Joseph M. Smith]

It is interesting to me that no one has mentioned any of the greats of Southern Seminary since the Broadus and Robertson days. John R. Sampey certainly exerted an influence beyond SBTS and Southern Baptist circles. Edgar Young Mullins wrote books that reached far into influential circles. And to go to the 20th Century part of the question, what of Dale Moody, Eric Rust, William Mueller, and, most of all, of Wayne Oates, whose pastoral theology is world-recognized? I think the question about "greatness" really asks us to evaluate the persistence, consistency, and wide influence of their work.

 

[EdSutton]

Actually, Joseph, I did name E.Y.Mullins, and should have mentioned John Sampey and Oates, among others, but had to stop the list somewhere.
Ed

 

[Rhetorician]

Bro. Ed,

Actually John A. Broadus was in the 19th Century.

sdg!

rd

 

[EdSutton]

Bro. Ed,

Actually John A. Broadus was in the 19th Century.

sdg!

rd

I'm a little slow, tonight, I guess. What is your point?

In His grace,
Ed

 

[PastorSBC1303]

The point is the topic is the "greatest baptist theologian of the 20th C"

 

[EdSutton]

I did mention an anecdotal story about Broaddus, but did not bring up his name, to start with, as one of the theologians. MY point, in asking the question immediately above was that the name of John A. Broaddus was, in fact, brought into this thread by none other than Rhetorician.
Ed

 

[Rippon]

I will affirm Major B's nomination of A. W. Pink . He has had plenty of influence . His articles and books are read and applied to millions more than the few hundred who received his ' Studies in the Scripture " . Iain Murray says he might be considered as a modern day Matthew Henry . BTW , read Murray's and Belcher's bios -- they are wonderful . I have personally been blessed by the ministry of Mr. Pink . Dr. David M. L-J ( a real , and not honorary designation ) used to have a subscription to his magazine . I think Pink was, in many ways , a man in the mold of Spurgeon . If not in an oral ministry ( Pink's Australian experience lasting several years was his last sustained stint as a minister ) , certainly his writings carried on the work of C.H.S.

 

[John of Japan]

Nope, God broke the mold when he made Spurgeon. There's never been another in his mold, IMO.

I have to say I don't get the big fuss over Pink. Near as I can tell (forgive me, I don't have any of his works), the thing he's most useful for is making people into Calvinists. Seems like each person who mentions him is a made Calvinist!?!

 

[Rippon]

Hi John . Perhaps I should have used another word . Pink was working along the same lines as Spurgeon . He was heavily influenced by him , moreso than any other Christian of the past . Shall we say he was following the contours of C.H.S. ? Pink certainly quoted him more often than any other .

What is all the fuss over Pink ? Well , you conceded that you don't have any of his books . You needn't fuss over him . However , if you begin to read this servant of God you will be edified and convicted and in-short , experience a deepening love for the Word and of course God Himself . If you never pick up Pink the Lord will see to it that these same things will take place . He is just a blessing , that's all .

So everyone who mentions him is a made Calvinist ? Did you mean one becomes a Calvinist as a result of his writings ? I am sure not . But some of his most caustic critics grew to appreciate A.W.P.

 

[John of Japan]

Okay, Rippon. I admit I am quite ignorant (I'm ashamed!

) about Pink, so I've been frankly surprised at the respect given him on this thread. When he comes up in my mind, all I can think of is "5 points." When I say "made Calvinist," that means I've known people who became Calvinists through his books. Sorry, that doesn't impress me much. I really know almost nothing about his accomplishments as a Baptist theologian. In fact, I can't even find anything on the Internet saying he was a Baptist!

So here is a challenge. I've put forth John R. Rice as a candidate. I'm going to list his major accomplisments. I hope you or someone else will do the same thing for Pink using the same categories. I won't mind if you add a category, and I'll then match it for Rice. Here we go.


John R. Rice's Qualifications:
1. Writing: wrote over 200 books and pamphlets, some of which were translated into various languages. His bestseller was Bible Facts About Heaven, which has sold over 500,000. Prayer: Asking and Receiving has also sold several hundred thousand.
2. Church ministry: started at least 12 churches (11 in Texas and 1 in Wheaton IL)
3. Editing: founded the "Sword of the Lord," one of he longest-lasting Christian newspapers ever (1936 to present day). At its peak, it went to over 300,000 subscribers. The SOTL Foundation was a Christian publishing company, still doing a great ministry.
4. World missions: wrote tract, "What Must I Do to Be Saved?" which was translated into 40 languages and printed in 40,000,000 copies (I've just been asked by the SOTL to edit a reprint in Japanese of this tract.); supported individual missionaries and visited several mission fields for conferences (came to Japan twice).
5. Conferences: founded the SOTL conferences on revival and soul-winning (still going), which in the national version sometimes had up to 6000 in attendance.
6. Baptist credentials: father Joe was a Southern Baptist lay preacher; John R. and both his brothers were Baptist evangelists; John R. graduated from Decatur Baptist College and Baylor U., and also went to Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary.


A. W. Pink's Qualifications:

1. Writing:
2. Church ministry:
3. Editing:
4. World missions:
5. Conferences:
6. Baptist credentials:

 

[Faith alone]

I suppose something to be considered might be if the person has chaired the SBC at one time or another.

Well, Charles Stanley is not generally considered a theologian, but IMO his theology is more biblical than any others of which I am aware, and also better represents the typical Baptist church than most theologians who may be named, so that qualifies him in my book. And he has chaired the SBC.

And IMO you cannot consider a Reformed Baptist theologian as representative of the Baptist theology, since in general it is not Reformed, though it ranges fairly wide, of course, and a large segment of Southern Baptist is Reformed. Regardless I can't consider any Reformed theologian when considering Baptist theologians, FWIW, as representative.

The issue I have with naming a Baptist theologian is that every "confession of faith" throughout Baptist history has been Reformed to a degree. Yet most Baptists are not Reformed and believe in a free will which simply would not align with such confessions or statements of faith.

I suppose that some will mentioned Jerry Falwell, and he certainly cannot be ignored, and again he's not really a theologian, though his theology is fairly sound IMO, political issues aside. But I would choose Stanley over him.

Of course, if we go back to the 19th century there's John Leadley Dagg - the first Baptist systematic theologian, as well as being an apologist. He was I suppose Reformed as well, having signed that "Abstract of Principles," which is somewhat Reformed in nature. But historically we'd have to at least consider him.

Perhaps modern day Baptist theology (not just Southern Baptist, which is more Reformed) would be represented by Dr. Herschel Hobbs, who chaired the committee which wrote the 1963 Confession of Faith. He spoke of what Baptists refer to as "soul copmpetency"...

They [Baptists] insist on the lordship of Jesus Christ and the authority of the scriptures. But they also insist that every man shall be free to decide for himself [in matters of religion."

Still, gotta vote for Dr. Charles Stanley.

FA

 

[Rippon]

Hi JOJ . I would have to say do not despise the day of small things . Someone who consistently ,and steadfastly does one thing well is deserving of consideration . A.W.Pink was a man of great spiritual penetration . He was devoted to his Lord . He desired to nuture Christians with his articles . Since his death many of his longer articles have been put in book form .

Arthur was primarily an author . I believe that that was the station the Lord intended him to man . His writings compass a wide variety of biblical subjects . He did not ride a hobby-horse , and he chided those who did so .

He wrote many things to edify the Body of Christ . Try " Comfort For Christians " for starters . He wrote a great deal on the walk of Christians . He wrote many shorter tracts as well .

Now we have to put some things in perspective . He started out as a dispensationalist and wrote a couple books that were of that cast such as " The Antichrist " which he later said he would not advise anyone to read .

He went to Moody Bible College but stayed only several weeks because the program was not as helpful or challenging as he had hoped . But he was not suspended or anything like that . He received Gray's recommendation to pastor in Colorado in 1911 . He held several pastorates in America . He spoke at large conferences . He was engaged in a tent ministry in California with Ironside in a nearby tent ministering . They did not see eye to eye even when Pink was a dispensationalist .

At Bob Jones two retired teachers had significantly diferent views of AW . Stewart custer called him " Pink the punk . " While Edward Panosian called him " that noble exegete . " I definately agree with the latter view .

In Australia between 1925-1928 he had a very powerful oral ministry . It is interesting how different the perceptions of people are . He was lambasted as being a hyper-calvinist by some and and as a rank Arminian by others . I'd say he had a rather good balance as Spurgeon was treated the same way .

He does not rank as high as a BB Warfield theologically . he would have considered himself as a theologue more than a theologian . That's what Dr. L-J considered himself BTW .

So he labored in America , Britain and Australia and was given speaking opportunities up through the early 30's . However his oral ministry faded and he concentarated soley on his magazine : " Studies In The Scriptures " . And from that vantage point he labored for the Lord until dying in Stornaway , Scotland on July 15, 1952 .

 

[John of Japan]

Agreed, Rippon. Some "small" people have had great influence spiritually by their deaths! David Brainard and Jim Elliot come to mind.

However, my request for information on Pink is based on the OP, which says, "Who do you consider the greatest Baptist theologian of the twentieth century?"

I guess "greatest" can be interpreted more than one way, here, but in my mind it meant "widely influential among Baptists." So maybe I'm missing something, but I don't know of much Pink influence in the 20th century other than a few of his books.

I also question Pink's Baptist credentials. Maybe he influenced and continues to influence Baptists (in particular Reformed Baptists, I'm sure) through his writings, but was he himself Baptist? I can find nothing on the Internet that says he was--not that the Internet is conclusive!

Did Pink pastor any Baptist churches, teach at any Baptist institutions, preach in Baptist conferences? What are his Baptist credentials?

 

[Mexdeaf]

I am probably a little biased, but I agree with John of Japan that Dr. John Rice would qualify as the 'greatest', at least in Fundamental circles. The two things I always admired most about him- he never took the popular position on things (If he were alive today, he would be giving the KJVO crowd fits!); and, he was gracious with even those he disagreed with. Just a true all-around Man of God- a title he is eminently qualified for without a doubt.

 

[Rippon]

Regarding Pink's Baptist credentials -- I will attempt to answer that one . He was , in his earlier years influenced by the Plymouth Brethren ( they were and are Baptistic even though Darby was not ) . He still had ties with them periodically through much of his life . But in Murray's bio of Pink he mentions a letter AW wrote in 1920 . In it he says that some PB were flabbergasted when he told them he was a member of a Baptist Church , and furthermore , that Baptists were more scriptural as well .

I had mentioned his first pastorate in Colorado in a previous post . The year he began there was 1910 , not 1911 . It was a Congregational Church but it hasn't been established if they insisted on paedo-baptistim .At that time pink probably came to his baptistic convictions .

Later , sometime before September of 1917 -- March of 1920 he pastored Northside Baptist Church in Spartanburg , South Carolina .

In June of 1925 , while in Australia ,he was doing a series of six 3 week campaigns for the Baptist Tabernacle in Ashfield .

He was pastor of Belvoir Strict and Particular Baptist Church in Sydney for about 2 years . Before this charge he had spoken at least 300 times in his campaigns .

There was a split because he did not realize that their church confession was hyper-calvinistic . About 40% of the members resigned ( without his involvement ) and for the next 7 months he pastoed this group .

In America he spoke at the Rocky Mountain Bible Conference in Denver , Colorado . It was held at Galilee Baptist Church ( the pastor was Dr. Gravett ) . Pink spoke about 2 or 3 times a day for the huge gathering . During the same time he addressed a group of pastors from the city and suburbs on the subject of expository preaching .

All together Pink estimated that he pastored 12 years in total in his life .

I certainly think that Pink was much more of a theologian than Rice and Stanley -- that's not even close . Just compare their writings . Rice was epecially non-scriptural in his articles and books . There is no contest .

In his lifetime Pink was marginal at best in his influence among Christianity at large . But I must say he infuenced many pastors with his "Studies in the Scriptures" publication over the course of 30 years . He also corresponded with them .

However , since his death in 1952, Pink's works are tremendously influential . And he goes way beyond the territory of Baptists . Many Presbyterians have been blessed by his writings . The Banner of Truth publishing house sells a lot of AW Pink material -- it always does well . The Lord ultimately determines who has done most for the Kingdom of God . Pink was a choice instrument of His .

[ February 14, 2006, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Rippon ]

 

[John of Japan]

Hi, Rippon.

Thanks for the informative lesson on Pink's life. In particular, I could find nothing on the Internet that said he was Baptist.

As for Rice being "epecially non-scriptural in his articles and books," I assume you mean by this that he was not a Calvinist.

Concerning Rice not being a theologian, I have to think you've not read much of his work. In the first place, he had a much better theological education than Pink, and his theology was much on the line of the SBC of his younger years. (For example, he was not a Dispensationalist.) Again, while many of Rice's over 200 books and pamphlets were on issues of Christian living or were sermon compilations, he met every standard for a popular theologian, IMO. He wrote commentaries on Genesis, Matthew, Luke, John, Acts, the Corinthian epistles and Revelation. For examples of his theological writing, see: Bible Doctrines to Live By, Is Jesus God, Earnestly Contending for the Faith, Our God-Breathed Book the Bible, Bible Baptism, etc., and a ton of pamphlets such as Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, Churches and the Church, Christ is Coming Signs or no Signs, Jesus May Come Today, Hell: What the Bible Says About It, Can a Saved Person Ever Be Lost and many, many more.

 

[Rippon]

John , I only own one book of Rice's , and that's his classic : " Predestined For Hell ? No ! " You have to watch out or it sounds like cursing the way it is put .

I bought it knowing that he would do his best to distort the Word of God . After reading it , I concluded that the man was deliberating lying , because one in the ministry as long as he was could not have been so much in the dark on doctrinal truths . You can object with the teaching of someone -- but please do not attribute things to them they have never taught or believed just to appear brillant to your even less informed followers .

I have that booklet marked up more than any other book or pamphlet that I have . It is ridiculous how ill informed he was at best . He should not have written about something he didn't have a scintilla of knowledge about . Many times he would put out a challenge and state things like " Show me where in the Bible it says ... ? " And I gave the scriptural reply in my margin .

Distorting Scripture is my #1 complaint re John Rice . He also displays an ignorance of history . I don't have his classic before me now -- but one thing in particular was his brash " Tell me of one missionary that John Calvin sent out . ?!" Well he sent several out . In one case he sent a number to Brazil where Catholic missionaries were delivering their brand of heresies . Rice did not bother to check facts , he just asserted things as if people should take him at his word . Dave Hunt falls into the same category these days with some help from Norm Geisler .


He is really deficient when it comes to knowing what Spurgeon believed and taught . He seeks CHS out as an ally but distorts the pulpit giant at every turn . ( Just like Dave Hunt does now )

I looked at his work called : " Hyper-Calvinism : a False Doctrine " . It is littered with untruths and evidences no concern with facts . He says that anyone believing in the propositions known as TULIP is a hyper-Calvinist . That is just so much nonsense . He knew it was but he put out these " publications " nevertheless . I do not respect someone like that . I am glad that he was not a KJV'er and called others to restraint on that issue . He may have had some helpful and more biblical things to say in other realms -- but if what I have read of some of his works are any indication -- there are far , far better Christians to read with much more maturity and biblical insight .

 

[John of Japan]

Rippon, I have read every single one of his books, and gotten great blessing from many of them, in particular his works on prayer and the Holy Spirit, which I read many times each.

I worked for John R. Rice in the same office and saw how he treated his employees. I know his family intimately and how all of his six daughters and almost all of his grandchildren live for the Lord. I lived with John R. Rice while I was on deputation to come to Japan. I watched his walk with the Savior. I had family devotions with him and prayed with him often. He was the most gracious, loving Christian I've ever known.

Yes, he was rigidly anti-Calvinist, as you have found out. But he was never, ever lied, was never dishonest, and he never, ever, knowingly distorted Scripture. You may disagree with his doctrine, but please don't accuse him of these things. You do not know what his heart was like.

Now I have not insulted A. W. Pink, your choice for this thread. Please don't insult mine. Thank you.

 

[MikeinGhana]

Again the BB has digressed into a charcater smearing name calling vehicle. Again, the issues in the original post have been ignored in order to bash someone. I find this very disturbing.