History Recommendations

Daniel, rlv & Jeff

Thanks for the comments.

Daniel: You have brought up some issues that I hadn't thought of. I am currently writing a summary of critiques on Barth's work. I will do a little research on any other theologians who have thought similarly to you. After I write out my paper for my seminar on Barth, would you be willing to read it? Maybe I could email it?
Ooh, yes please

I am relatively unfamilar with Schlatter's thought, but I met a guy yesterday (an irishman who just finished his doctorate at Oxford) who did his disertation on him. Covet covet

rlv: I realized that they were not taking the liberal view of denying the scriptures. What they believe is probably the "non-scholastic" equivalent to what Gosden taught.

Yes; it should be emphasised that it is non-scholastic, and non-liberal - there is no denying that it is God's word; but it is still sub-Christian in that it does not do justice to the the fact of God's revelation. I was recalling what I had read in Heppe's Dogmatics, that there was this tension even in the Reformers - on the one had, accepting a full propositional revelation of the scriptures, but on the other noting that it was not the Word of God without the indictment of the Spirit to the believer. I suppose our side has fallen to one side in this, hence we end up with text based experimental preaching that often does violence to the historical context, treating every text as on a level wherever it appears.

Speak to you soon

God bless

[ January 29, 2003, 03:07 AM: Message edited by: Solly ]

 

To understand Barth, you must understand Schleiermacher and the theological climate that Barth comes from. Certain baggage comes along with the theologians of Germany and Western Europe. Many theologians of his time would consider Barth to be a fundamentalist. Then he did couch much of his thinking in evangelical terminology, but with distinctive Barthian concepts. One must tred cautiously with Barthianism.

Cheers,

Jim

[ January 29, 2003, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

So right Jim.

I don't lean on him too much. His Shorter Commentary on Romans is good, and his writings on preaching - which is why I like him: he found out by experience that Liberalism had nothing to offer, and thought "What do I say to these people". but there are definitely some bones that need spitting out, such as his doctrinal universalism.

I particularly like the fact that he went back to the Reformers, which was something new and radical in his day, even in the Reformed Churches. I'm looking forward to reading his books on Calvin and the Reformed Confessions.

I would read more Schlatter, if it was translated.

 

Solly,

Mate, that's one of the problems with the continental theologians, much of their writing remains in German and has yet to be published in English.

When I was doing my studies, I had to engage a translator to assist me. It was like reading a "new theology" however, and was fascinating reading. Barth went farther than any other, and many in America swallowed his teaching such as the Fuller seminary in California. They have since reversed their opinions and back to a sound theology.

Caution must be taken whenever one is endorsed by the likes of Paul Tillich and Union Seminary, New York, and Chicago Divinity School of the University of Chicago.

Barth essentially replaced the objective scriptures with subjectivism.

Cheers,

Jim

[ January 29, 2003, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: Jim1999 ]

 

Forgive me brethren, but I find the more I learn the more I need to learn and so on.

In regard to Doctrinal Succession.

Do you believe to hold to the depravity of man and the sovereignty of God will keep one from substantial error?

It seems to me that this would perhaps be a key.

Further, though I have not studied to the degree of the posts I have read, I believe proper Scriptural Baptism would be a big factor in the Successionist debate.

(Bro. Jeff I just finished a book by Webb Garrison; The Lincoln No One Knows

In this work he brings up alot of Questions. I know perhaps this is not the place for this kind of post, sorry.)

God Bless.
Bro. Dallas

 

Bro. Dallas noted:

I think it would go a long way in that direction, but I am sure those of an Arminian bent would disagree.

It is a big factor in the debate, I think. However, some of the groups which practiced immersion baptism of adult believers had some severe doctrinal errors in other facets of their life. Again, that is just my opinion and open to debate.

I suppose it would boil down to a ranking of which doctrinal issues were considered more important than others. I know that could become a hairy debate, and isn't my purpose in the reply. I think it would be difficult (actually impossible) to find any church without some points of truth and some points of error. The mix of truth and error is entirely subjective and would be difficult (impossible) to come to any consensus on those sticky points. The devil is in the detail of figuring out what they are. That is why we have these discussions I suppose.

I haven't read that one. I haven't done much reading specifically on Lincoln since college, when I took a course specifically about him.

Bro. Dallas, I am not a moderator, but it didn't bother me in the least. You are always charitable even when we disagree. If Bro. Glen or Bro. Robert disagree, they can delete what they find offensive, but I can't see anything here that would fit that category.

Hope all is well in Kentucky.

Jeff

[/QUOTE]

 

I see nothing wrong with it if it is pertenent to the discussion at hand... If you read the book and want an opinion I suggest you go to the books and publications forum or better yet email Brother Jeff in private. Sometimes we do derail and get off a subject but try not to as baptist history has many paths and detours. I would also say some of these brethrens shoes I don't feel worthy to wear. We seem to have so many experts on here and not like other forums where they think they are. I myself am just a layman that loves Baptist History and am just along for the ride. If I need to say anything or something is on my mind I will pipe up... I pipe up a lot and since I joined the Baptist History Forum I've noticed a change... Not only are we getting more quantity of brethren but by far we are getting more quality of brethren and articles!... IMHO... I know Brother Robert and Brother Jeff are also pleased!... Enjoy it all brethren!... I also would like to welcome Solly and Danny to our forum... Brother Glen

[ January 29, 2003, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: tyndale1946 ]

 

On the subject of succession; we are looking for the perfect copies of the modern Baptist churches. This is just not to happen. Think about the anecdote that is told to one and then to another and yet another. How many changes take place in the story.

In the beginning, they did not have a printing press and exact copies of what is to be said. Then there was independent thinking and hence we will have doctrinal error in light of what we know and have in our possession to-day.

We are not looking for mirrored images, but similar traits, and overall, we can find these. Enought to say we trace the Baptist "church" back to New Testament times.

How many differences do we have to-day, despite all of modernity? The old saying holds true; where you have two Baptists in the same room you have three opinions.

That is my understanding of successionism and why I lean to the landmarkist position.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Only three? ... Brother Glen

 

so long as you remember, I am right!

I sure don't want to be left!

Cheers,

Jim