John Dagg

[Marooncat79]

Thoughts on John Dagg and his works esp Manual of Theology?

Thanks

 

[AustinC]

Who?

 

[Marooncat79]

John Leadley Dagg. He is considered the 1st writing Southern Baptist. He wrote a couple of very good books. He ia most known for his work A Manual of Theology

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I picked up a copy of his Manual of Church Order second hand some years ago. Is that the same as his Manual of Theology?
I'm ashamed to say that I found it very hard to read and have not got past the first chapter. I suspect the fault may be more mine than his ; he has a very good reputation.

 

[Marooncat79]

Different books. Agree on Church Order

 

[rsr]

Manual of Theology is two books: The first is A Treatise on Christian Doctrine; the second is A Treatise on Church Order.

I have found Dagg's explication of the Church Universal (in response to the Landmark movement) to be very helpful.

 

[Iconoclast]

Dagg is a go to kind of teacher. You can find His writings on founders.com
or here;
Manual of Theology, John L. Dagg | The Reformed Reader

 

[Jerome]

There are three parts to Dagg's 'complete system of divinity':

I. A Treatise on Christian Doctrine

II. A Treatise on Church Order

III. The Elements of Moral Science

The Southern Baptist Publication Society published the first two together in 1859 under the title Manual of Theology in Two Parts.

In 1860 it published the final work: The Elements of Moral Science.

In his preface to The Elements of Moral Science, Dagg's explained how essential he considered the third volume:

"In the 'Manual of Theology', recently published, the externals of religion are discussed only so far as they relate to ceremonies and church order. To render that work a complete system of divinity, a supplement is needed on Christian Morals."

[This final volume has been largely suppressed by Dagg's modern-day boosters as it features his foul defense of Slavery.]

 

[Jerome]

Evaluation of Dagg's teaching found in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (eds. Timothy George & David Dockery):

"His Manual of Theology and all of his expressly theological writings were 'designed for the use of those who have not time and opportunity to study larger works on theology'....it is not an adequate introduction to the theological science for the student of theology."

"we should also note Dagg's ethical teachings—the source of his infamy....Dagg's Elements of Moral Science (1859) was the last major defense of slavery published in book form. While Dagg's ethics deserve a more extensive treatment, such must be left to the reader through perusing the work for oneself."

"Dagg makes no distinctive contributions to those engaged in the theological task today. His expositions of doctrine were typical of historic Christian positions formulated initially by others. However much it may be felt that the biblical orthodoxy of Dagg's theology must be recovered today, if theology is to avoid suicide and to express the true gospel of Christ, it must be admitted that, in most ways, it is better learned from others with more searching presentations of Scripture"

 

[rlvaughn]

Interesting that Dagg's supporters are running from The Elements of Moral Science. Nathan A. Finn and Keith Harper edited Domestic Slavery Considered As A Scriptural Institution, a collection of letters between Richard Fuller and Francis Wayland. Of course, that was printed by Mercer University Press.

The Elements of Moral Science is available on Hathi Trust. I have A Treatise on Church Order and have found it useful. I don't have part one. I have read A Decisive Argument Against Infant Baptism: Furnished by One of Its Own Proof-texts, but don't own a copy. A Treatise on Church Order can also be read at Founders.org.

 

[rsr]

As a practical matter, it is wise to "run from" false doctrine and attempts to justify sin by clothing it in social advancement. I am glad Finn and Harper have edited the papers for historical research and I hope to read them.

But I have no reason to recommend writings (for practical purposes) that engender hateful prejudices. Baptists, in the South especially, but not exclusively, defended slavery when it wsas clear the institution in its fullness had no place among Christians. Brown University, the first Baptist college in America, was built upon profits from the slave trade. Richard Furman, first president of the Triennial Convention and namesake of Furman University, published a pro-slavery tract that set the pattern for justifying chattel slavery biblically for the next 40 years and thereafter. Fuller was as bad. Wayland, though no abolitionist, understood that slavery as it was practiced in the South was immoral and would have to be eliminated eventually.

Justification of the evils of slavery was not confined to Furman and Fuller. Throughout the South prominent Baptists eagerly enlisted in the cause. Even John Leland, champion of religious liberty, fell silent after his early anti-slavery protestations and decided to go along to get along.

So, I urge people like Robert and I, who are Baptist history addicts, to read everything. But if you're not a junkie, there are things to be avoided because they are of not practical benefit.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Evaluation of Dagg's teaching found in Theologians of the Baptist Tradition (eds. Timothy George & David Dockery):

"His Manual of Theology and all of his expressly theological writings were 'designed for the use of those who have not time and opportunity to study larger works on theology'....it is not an adequate introduction to the theological science for the student of theology."

"we should also note Dagg's ethical teachings—the source of his infamy....Dagg's Elements of Moral Science (1859) was the last major defense of slavery published in book form. While Dagg's ethics deserve a more extensive treatment, such must be left to the reader through perusing the work for oneself."

"Dagg makes no distinctive contributions to those engaged in the theological task today. His expositions of doctrine were typical of historic Christian positions formulated initially by others. However much it may be felt that the biblical orthodoxy of Dagg's theology must be recovered today, if theology is to avoid suicide and to express the true gospel of Christ, it must be admitted that, in most ways, it is better learned from others with more searching presentations of Scripture"

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." [E.P Hartley]
Future generations (if the Lord tarries) will look in horrified amazement at ours, which condemns long-dead people for their undoubted sins, whilst overlooking the 45 million unborn children done to death each year worldwide.

Also, I very much doubt that anyone will be reading Timothy George's theology in 150 years time.

 

[rlvaughn]

As a practical matter, it is wise to "run from" false doctrine and attempts to justify sin by clothing it in social advancement. I am glad Finn and Harper have edited the papers for historical research and I hope to read them....

My point is that what J. L. Dagg believed is what J. L. Dagg believed, and "Dagg's modern-day boosters" (and everyone else) must accept that as historical fact (since he wrote it down). Whatever he believed about slavery is what he believed about slavery, and we should acknowledge that -- at the same time acknowledging that what he believed about slavery does not cancel what he believed about the Scriptures or baptism, for example. Those can stand on their own bottom and will be true or false based on what he said about those subjects.

 

[rsr]

Fair enough.

 

[Van]

My point is that what J. L. Dagg believed is what J. L. Dagg believed, and "Dagg's modern-day boosters" (and everyone else) must accept that as historical fact (since he wrote it down). Whatever he believed about slavery is what he believed about slavery, and we should acknowledge that -- at the same time acknowledging that what he believed about slavery does not cancel what he believed about the Scriptures or baptism, for example. Those can stand on their own bottom and will be true or false based on what he said about those subjects.

Yes it does. To believe in slavery, you must believe in compulsion, and therefore to attribute that horrific behavior to God compelling belief is scriptural corruption to the core.

Dagg's writings should be looked at as a case study in scriptural corruption, of reading into scripture rather than discerning scriptural truth.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I've read some of his broadsides (not a "theology" per se) and saw their historical significance in the split of Baptists in 1845 and as part of the rationale behind disunion of the nation as well. Viewing it as history and false promotion of error in "white" Baptist circles is no different that the writings of the 1960's and false promotion of error in "black" Baptist circles. It is a part of our national religious history.

 

[Reformed]

My point is that what J. L. Dagg believed is what J. L. Dagg believed, and "Dagg's modern-day boosters" (and everyone else) must accept that as historical fact (since he wrote it down). Whatever he believed about slavery is what he believed about slavery, and we should acknowledge that -- at the same time acknowledging that what he believed about slavery does not cancel what he believed about the Scriptures or baptism, for example. Those can stand on their own bottom and will be true or false based on what he said about those subjects.

The same goes for R.L. Dabney on the Presbyterian side. Dagg's writings on theology and church order are excellent and a trove of good information. However, we must be careful to elevate any man. Dig thoroughly enough in any of our closets and you are sure to find skeletons we prefer to have buried.

 

[kyredneck]

Dig thoroughly enough in any of our closets and you are sure to find skeletons

...zactly... points of disagreement at the very least ...