Who is Seen being The Baptist Theologian equivalent To Augustine/Calvin Then?

[TomVols]

From my understanding on what Grudem wrote related to the concept of the Holy Spirit in current Christianity...

Wouldn't his stance be akin to mine as a "bapticostalist?"
That the canon of scripture IS indeed closed off, NO more additional revelation from God ever forthcoming again... BUT

that though sign gifts ceased their revelatory aspect/function as in early Church...

that God can still instruct/edify/confirm/give guidance etc by spiritual gifts still operating today within the Church BUT that at all times Bible is SOLE and infallible authority?

I've never been a fan of the label "Bapticostal." It smacks of trying to play to the crowd of Pentecostals, being apologetic for being Baptist all at the same time. That said, if you're a Baptist who is more open to sign gifts, etc., then that's your privilige.

Your estimation of Grudem is quite accurate. However, some would indeed believe that the sufficiency of Scripture is under attack the moment you say that "God can still instruct/edify/confirm/give guidance etc by spiritual gifts still operating today within the Church" and that this is contradictory to the statement that says the "Bible is SOLE and infallible authority." I'm not saying that's my view, just saying that's the view of some. It has nothing to do with the canon of Scripture being still open, just that the closed canon is not enough.

True, but I have read Augustine primarily formed the doctrine of original sin on a Latin translation of Romans 5:12 which incorrectly said "sinned IN HIM" refering to Adam which is not in the Greek. Calvin accepted and taught Augustine's interpretation of this verse.

I think that's a vast over-simplification, and not entirely accurate at worst. Calvin indeed stood on his own. It would be hard not to find some resonance between patristic fathers and the Reformers, just as there would be some between the patristic fathers and the Anabaptists.

The only alternative is to argue that a knowledge of the original languages is not necessary to properly interpret the scriptures and arrive at correct doctrine.

You tell me, which is it?

Bifurcation fallacy, and a very poor attempt also at the fallacy of poisoning the well. Also, assuming facts not in evidence.

Using your logic, we should avoid Augustine because Calvin may have been influenced by him, thus both are in error. Would that error apply to their similar Bibliology as it pertains to infallibility? It would be the same theological source. So do you believe the Bible to be infallible? If you do, then you agree with Calvin who agreed with Augustine. :smilewinkgrin:

Augustine argued for the primacy of Biblical languages, as well as the knowledge of Latin. That he may have not lived up to his claim is unfortunate but not crippling, and no one has said otherwise. That said, Augustine would've been better served by his own admission, and so would we all.

What do you think of Louis Sperry Chafer as a theologian? He didn't know the Biblical languages.

 

[Jim1999]

A great dispensationalist!

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Havensdad]

I am a little confused here. In a very recent thread it was asked if a person could be a "true Biblical scholar without knowing Greek and Hebrew".

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=71827&highlight=scholar

Most agreed that a knowledge of the original languages was necessary. From what I have read, Augustine did not know Greek. So, why should his theology be trusted? And it is well known that Augustine was Calvin's greatest influence, so why should his system be trusted as well?

You have read wrong. Augustine in his "Confessions" spoke of the brutality of his first Greek teacher, and his vow to not learn the Greek language. He later recanted of this, and did engage in study of the Greek language.

What you are failing to realize, is that understanding the Greek language in the fourth century, is not what we consider "knowing" Greek today. Today, if you know all of the words that occur fifteen times or more in the New Testament, have a decent understanding of Greek Grammar, the verbal system, etc., you are considered to have a working knowledge of Greek.

However, in Augustine's day, if you could not pick up a book on Greek philosophy, and read it from cover to cover (the way we might pick up a Magazine), then you did not "know" Greek.

Nevertheless, He had a good enough knowledge in his letters, to compare translations of the Vulgate to Greek translations (as much or more knowledge than a present day Intermediate to Advanced Greek Student).

Ironically, the point you are trying to make actually argues AGAINST you. It was actually later in Augustine's career that his theological views approached the reformed position that Calvin later held in small part. So one could well say that as Augustine's knowledge of Greek increased, he inched closer and closer to a reformed position.

 

[Winman]

You have read wrong. Augustine in his "Confessions" spoke of the brutality of his first Greek teacher, and his vow to not learn the Greek language. He later recanted of this, and did engage in study of the Greek language.

What you are failing to realize, is that understanding the Greek language in the fourth century, is not what we consider "knowing" Greek today. Today, if you know all of the words that occur fifteen times or more in the New Testament, have a decent understanding of Greek Grammar, the verbal system, etc., you are considered to have a working knowledge of Greek.

However, in Augustine's day, if you could not pick up a book on Greek philosophy, and read it from cover to cover (the way we might pick up a Magazine), then you did not "know" Greek.

Nevertheless, He had a good enough knowledge in his letters, to compare translations of the Vulgate to Greek translations (as much or more knowledge than a present day Intermediate to Advanced Greek Student).

Ironically, the point you are trying to make actually argues AGAINST you. It was actually later in Augustine's career that his theological views approached the reformed position that Calvin later held in small part. So one could well say that as Augustine's knowledge of Greek increased, he inched closer and closer to a reformed position.

Several church historians such as Meyendorff and Schaff have written that Augustine used a Latin Vulgate translation while forming his doctrine of original sin, which incorrectly translated Rom 5:12. This was the primary verse Augustine formed this doctrine upon and he appealed to it many times.

I cannot post links, as I am on a mobile phone, but you can find this yourself if you Google "Augustine Latin Romans 5:12" without the quotes.

 

[Winman]

I think that's a vast over-simplification, and not entirely accurate at worst. Calvin indeed stood on his own. It would be hard not to find some resonance between patristic fathers and the Reformers, just as there would be some between the patristic fathers and the Anabaptists.Bifurcation fallacy, and a very poor attempt also at the fallacy of poisoning the well. Also, assuming facts not in evidence.

Using your logic, we should avoid Augustine because Calvin may have been influenced by him, thus both are in error. Would that error apply to their similar Bibliology as it pertains to infallibility? It would be the same theological source. So do you believe the Bible to be infallible? If you do, then you agree with Calvin who agreed with Augustine. :smilewinkgrin:

I am mostly concerned with Augustine's doctrine of original sin which many scholars agree was derived from Augustine using a Latin translation that improperly translated Rom 5:12. Calvin agreed with this interpretation.

I would think that this verse, being the very foundation of your personal doctrine, would be very important to get right.

 

[Havensdad]

Several church historians such as Meyendorff and Schaff have written that Augustine used a Latin Vulgate translation while forming his doctrine of original sin, which incorrectly translated Rom 5:12. This was the primary verse Augustine formed this doctrine upon and he appealed to it many times.

I cannot post links, as I am on a mobile phone, but you can find this yourself if you Google "Augustine Latin Romans 5:12" without the quotes.

As both Tom and many other scholars have pointed out, this is a vast oversimplification. Original sin is clearly taught throughout scripture, though his mistake might make one lean toward the Seminal view (which he did), rather than the Calvinist view, which is the Federal headship view (that Adam represented humanity). No way could this misunderstanding be used to support the Calvinist/reformed viewpoint.

So your argument is moot anyway.

 

[Luke2427]

First of all, we've already been through this in an old thread...the SBC was never predominately DoG. I gave you a thorough list of resources about this and you disappeared.

There are plenty of REAL theologians in Baptist history who were not and are not DoG devotes. If you don't read broadly you'll miss a lot of people, this is an example of that too.

No one disappeared but you. I was the last one to speak on the matter.

None of your resources prove that SBC was anything other than predominantly reformed in her early days.

Tom Nettles proves the calvinistic origins of the SBC unequivocally in By His Grace and for His Glory.

Research some reputable sources and get your facts straight here, bro.

 

[David Lamb]

That statue is of WWI Prime Minister David Lloyd George, also Welsh, but unlike Lloyd-Jones, his heritage was Disciples of Christ(aka Reformed Baptist).

I have never heard of "Reformed Baptist" being used as a homonym for the Campbellite "Disciples of Christ". Indeed, I don't think the two can possibly be the same. I found on the official website of the "Disciples of Christ" several things which all reformed baptists I know would not agree with, including:

Ecumenism. "the Disciples’ commitment to and place within the universal and ecumenical church."


Baptismal Regeneration: "Through baptism into Christ we enter into newness of life and are made one with the whole people of God."
​

On several sites, I have found that the Campbellites were totally against creeds and statements of faith. (That would explain why I couldn't find anything giving a "run-down" of their beliefs ). Reformed baptists, on the other hand, are rarely ecumenical, do not believe in baptismal regeneration, and do see the importance of statements of faith.

I'll leave it there - I don't want to derail the thread.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Marty M (Steve) comments "Lloyd-Jones understanding of Holy Spirit baptism is IMO his Achilles' heel, but nonetheless he was a very great man."

Thanks for qualifying Steve that it's you opinion....In America we have a saying about opinions....

At least you ID that he was a great man....Must have something to do with his being Welsh, as was Williams & others (blood will out)

 

[JesusFan]

I've never been a fan of the label "Bapticostal." It smacks of trying to play to the crowd of Pentecostals, being apologetic for being Baptist all at the same time. That said, if you're a Baptist who is more open to sign gifts, etc., then that's your privilige.

Your estimation of Grudem is quite accurate. However, some would indeed believe that the sufficiency of Scripture is under attack the moment you say that "God can still instruct/edify/confirm/give guidance etc by spiritual gifts still operating today within the Church" and that this is contradictory to the statement that says the "Bible is SOLE and infallible authority." I'm not saying that's my view, just saying that's the view of some. It has nothing to do with the canon of Scripture being still open, just that the closed canon is not enough.

THIS IS WHERE MY POST STOPPED!

I think that's a vast over-simplification, and not entirely accurate at worst. Calvin indeed stood on his own. It would be hard not to find some resonance between patristic fathers and the Reformers, just as there would be some between the patristic fathers and the Anabaptists.Bifurcation fallacy, and a very poor attempt also at the fallacy of poisoning the well. Also, assuming facts not in evidence.

Using your logic, we should avoid Augustine because Calvin may have been influenced by him, thus both are in error. Would that error apply to their similar Bibliology as it pertains to infallibility? It would be the same theological source. So do you believe the Bible to be infallible? If you do, then you agree with Calvin who agreed with Augustine. :smilewinkgrin:

Augustine argued for the primacy of Biblical languages, as well as the knowledge of Latin. That he may have not lived up to his claim is unfortunate but not crippling, and no one has said otherwise. That said, Augustine would've been better served by his own admission, and so would we all.

What do you think of Louis Sperry Chafer as a theologian? He didn't know the Biblical languages.

Thanks for answering post on Grudem theology...
the rest of your response was directed to some one else I think, as I was just seeking to clarify the teaching of wayne grudem as regarding Charisma and Spiritual gifts opeation in the Church as of today!

Just wondering, as many times on both the puritan Boards and here on the BB, see where many take the position that IF a Baptist was to even allow for the Gifts to still be operationally/functioning in Body today, that you MUST be saying that revelation from God still is happening...

do NOT say their revelatory aspect is still on today, Canon is indeed closed, just that the Holy Spirit can still edify/uplift/direct etc by them...

Bible is ONLY authoritative source/final authority, but don't we teach that still can have other sources, just Bible final authority superceded judges all other ones?

Why does it ALWAYS sem that this point of Canon being under attack , that we have "addition new revelation: always brought up ?

 

[glfredrick]

I think the thread is poorly worded. There are Baptist whose theological knowledge and ability are equal to Calvin or Augustine. But they were not in the same situation as these men.

For example, I object to previous posters classification of Al Mohler. Dr. Mohler is probably one of the most intelligent theologians who has ever lived. He is very systematic in his presentations. He is capable of thinking through all levels of an issue in a way that even most pastors cannot always follow.

Now, has he written an expansive Systematic theology? Well, no. But one must ask, is there a pressing need for such? I do not believe there is; in terms of such works, I believe that the present works are sufficient, and time is much better spent investigating narrower fields.

Now, you must ask the question, if Al Mohler was placed in Calvin's position, in an era that was (nearly) completely lacking of such works, would he be capable of producing such? I think there is little doubt that he would be well able of producing something on the order of the Institutes. Perhaps he could even do a better job.

So, were/are there Baptist theologians with the capability of Calvin/Augustine? You bet there are. Have any produced works equivalent to these great men?

Not even close.

I agree with what you wrote ^^^.

His ability to process information is astounding, and that from my first-person experience with the good Doctor. There would be no problem for him to issue a comprehensive systematic theology, if that is what he intended.

Also, we should consider Jonathan Edwards in the mix. He was most influential for modern era theologians and his work is the bedrock for most current Baptist scholars.

Other names that I've not seen are Bruce Ware, Thomas Schreiner, Mark Seifrid, Gregg Allison (just completed a systematic historical theology that is most excellent!), and Russell Moore. All of these men are advancing the cause of Baptist theology in remarkable ways. Ware has led the charge against open theology. Schreiner has done groundbreaking work with Paul, and especially concerning the New Perspective of N.T. Wright, Seifrid is pushing justification heavily (his work is highly advanced), Allison just did the magnus opus of historical theology that stands hand-in-hand with Grudem's work, and Moore is doing cutting edge work with the Kingdom of God.

 

[TomVols]

I have never heard of "Reformed Baptist" being used as a homonym for the Campbellite "Disciples of Christ". Indeed, I don't think the two can possibly be the same. I found on the official website of the "Disciples of Christ" several things which all reformed baptists I know would not agree with, including:

Ecumenism. "the Disciples’ commitment to and place within the universal and ecumenical church."


Baptismal Regeneration: "Through baptism into Christ we enter into newness of life and are made one with the whole people of God."
​

On several sites, I have found that the Campbellites were totally against creeds and statements of faith. (That would explain why I couldn't find anything giving a "run-down" of their beliefs ). Reformed baptists, on the other hand, are rarely ecumenical, do not believe in baptismal regeneration, and do see the importance of statements of faith.

I'll leave it there - I don't want to derail the thread.

I was going to post a very similar comment.

Other names that I've not seen are Bruce Ware, Thomas Schreiner, Mark Seifrid, Gregg Allison (just completed a systematic historical theology that is most excellent!), and Russell Moore. All of these men are advancing the cause of Baptist theology in remarkable ways. Ware has led the charge against open theology. Schreiner has done groundbreaking work with Paul, and especially concerning the New Perspective of N.T. Wright, Seifrid is pushing justification heavily (his work is highly advanced), Allison just did the magnus opus of historical theology that stands hand-in-hand with Grudem's work, and Moore is doing cutting edge work with the Kingdom of God.

I thought I did mention most of these.

Bible is ONLY authoritative source/final authority, but don't we teach that still can have other sources, just Bible final authority superceded judges all other ones?

Why does it ALWAYS sem that this point of Canon being under attack , that we have "addition new revelation: always brought up ?

This is touchy, primarily because there's such a tendency to devalue Scripture and replace it with experience, reason, tradition, etc. I have no problem saying that those four are vital to the faith (that's the Wesleyan quadrilateral) but that Scripture is primary and all else must be judged in accordance with that. If it contradicts Scripture, anything even confirmed by the other three must be rejected. There is such a sensitivity about devaluing or even appearing to devalue Scripture one scintilla, that anything that would even smell like it was close to doing it must be taken out behind the barn and shot. So that's why people pounce so much. I can understand the concerns and am sympathetic to them. I don't want Scripture replaced by or devalued with anything.

Another thing concerns many. They believe that people have an experience and then look for a theological plank to codify it with. This has been a criticism, right or wrong, of Lloyd-Jones, Grudem, and others. Obviously, we don't want to judge Scripture by experience, but we want to evaluate our experiences by Scripture. The problem is, no one can prove this is what Grudem did or Lloyd-Jones tried, but they can allege it. I know in years past that Grudem was critiqued on this in "The Coming Evangelical Crisis" (forgive me if I'm wrong on that one...I'm not in my office) and I believe he responded. I don't know if he's ever really satisfied his critics, and frankly, I don't know if they can be. And, maybe they shouldn't be to boot. Maybe they're right and Grudem's wrong.

You make the call

 

[TomVols]

Speaking of Chafer:

A great dispensationalist!

Cheers,

Jim

Some would say that's an oxymoron, my friend :tongue3:

Always good to converse with you on here, my friend. :applause:

 

[Havensdad]

First of all, we've already been through this in an old thread...the SBC was never predominately DoG. I gave you a thorough list of resources about this and you disappeared.

There are plenty of REAL theologians in Baptist history who were not and are not DoG devotes. If you don't read broadly you'll miss a lot of people, this is an example of that too.

I am sorry, but that is an absurd statement. Almost all of the early SBC theologians were DoG people...even those who weren't were four pointers...

In fact, I cannot think of more than 3 or 4 that even denied L.

 

[Jim1999]

I can name a couple of baptist theologians who led many students who became baptist pastors in Canada. They were Dr. G.B. Fletcher of Newport News, Virginia (Toronto Baptist Seminary) and Dr. C.D. Cole of Kentucky (Toronto Baptist Seminary). Both these were absolute scholars in theology and excellent teachers. I don't know of any students from TBS who wouldn't bow before these men and give full credit for their appreciation for theology throughout their pastoral lives.

Yet, neither man is noted in history, but played a vital role in making that baptist history in Canada.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[David Lamb]

I was going to post a very similar comment.
I thought I did mention most of these.

To save needless confusion, can I point out that in Tom's post 72, only the first quote, the one with my name over it, is mine. (It might look as if the other two were also mine, because there is no name over them).

 

[JesusFan]

I was going to post a very similar comment.
I thought I did mention most of these.


This is touchy, primarily because there's such a tendency to devalue Scripture and replace it with experience, reason, tradition, etc. I have no problem saying that those four are vital to the faith (that's the Wesleyan quadrilateral) but that Scripture is primary and all else must be judged in accordance with that. If it contradicts Scripture, anything even confirmed by the other three must be rejected. There is such a sensitivity about devaluing or even appearing to devalue Scripture one scintilla, that anything that would even smell like it was close to doing it must be taken out behind the barn and shot. So that's why people pounce so much. I can understand the concerns and am sympathetic to them. I don't want Scripture replaced by or devalued with anything.

Another thing concerns many. They believe that people have an experience and then look for a theological plank to codify it with. This has been a criticism, right or wrong, of Lloyd-Jones, Grudem, and others. Obviously, we don't want to judge Scripture by experience, but we want to evaluate our experiences by Scripture. The problem is, no one can prove this is what Grudem did or Lloyd-Jones tried, but they can allege it. I know in years past that Grudem was critiqued on this in "The Coming Evangelical Crisis" (forgive me if I'm wrong on that one...I'm not in my office) and I believe he responded. I don't know if he's ever really satisfied his critics, and frankly, I don't know if they can be. And, maybe they shouldn't be to boot. Maybe they're right and Grudem's wrong.

You make the call

Think that it all comes to striving to keep maintaining a christian balance in these things...

We should not be seeing that God has throught he closing of the canon decided to be "completely silent" to not be interacting at all through his Body save for the sacred text..
Nor should we see that God has decided to bring back "Church in Acts" as the sacred text are all we really need to learn teach study grow up in etc...

is there any Theologian that you know that tries to seek a mediation between these two points within Christian Theology?

 

[TomVols]

To save needless confusion, can I point out that in Tom's post 72, only the first quote, the one with my name over it, is mine. (It might look as if the other two were also mine, because there is no name over them).

You are correct. Sorry.

JesusFan wrote:

Think that it all comes to striving to keep maintaining a christian balance in these things...

We should not be seeing that God has throught he closing of the canon decided to be "completely silent" to not be interacting at all through his Body save for the sacred text..
Nor should we see that God has decided to bring back "Church in Acts" as the sacred text are all we really need to learn teach study grow up in etc...

is there any Theologian that you know that tries to seek a mediation between these two points within Christian Theology?

Depends on what you mean. I don't believe that those who argue tooth and nail for sufficient Scripture alone (the first paragraph of yours) would say they deny that God is interacting. They would say He is interacting through the Holy Spirit to bring people into the Word of God. Nor would they deny that God leads and guides, but He does so through the Spirit's application of the Word, not through any other revelation.

I am having difficulty interpreting the paragraph about "Church in Acts." Please help me understand.

 

[JesusFan]

You are correct. Sorry.

JesusFan wrote: Depends on what you mean. I don't believe that those who argue tooth and nail for sufficient Scripture alone (the first paragraph of yours) would say they deny that God is interacting. They would say He is interacting through the Holy Spirit to bring people into the Word of God. Nor would they deny that God leads and guides, but He does so through the Spirit's application of the Word, not through any other revelation.

I am having difficulty interpreting the paragraph about "Church in Acts." Please help me understand.

was just saying there there seems to be 2 extremes within the Baptist Churches, and Christian Churches overall...

First camp would say that ALL we need is the Bible for today, that there would be NO operations of the Holy Spirit occuring other than conviction/empowering/teaching Bible etc

other camp would say, yes, all the above, but would see God as still opearional in all of the Spiritual Gifts today, just ceased having them function in revelatory way...

"Church in Acts" referred to those extreme groups who see a "NT Church" for today doing exactly what was recorded in acts on a regular basis..
Every service, healing tongues signs wonders etc!

have read Millard Erickson "Big Book" would you say a combo of him and wayne Grudem would cover a mediating position between these 2 held positions?

Know Dr Erickson has his "edited" version, does Dr Grudem has his "edited" Theology also?

 

[TomVols]

Grudem wouldn't claim revelation as a function of HS, save for the gift of prophecy. Erickson would likely be as close to a mediating position as you'll find.

That said, it's hard to have a mediating position.