Friday, December 21, 2012

New resources at "Theological Compositions"



There are a variety of relatively recently posted resources at my “Theological Compositions” website that I thought you might find of interest.  These include:

1.) In the Bibliology section, a work entitled “Texts Where the Deity of Christ is Attacked or Denied in Modern Bible Versions Because of Corruptions in the Greek Critical Text, with a Brief Defense of the Textus Receptus in These Passages,” the significance of which is self-explanatory.  Another new self-explanatory study in the Bibliology section is:  “Daniel 3:25: ‘the Son of God’ or ‘a son of the gods’?”

2.) In the Theology Proper, Christology, and Pneumatology section, I have added about 47 pages of material to the “Objections to the Trinity Answered” work.  Now not just the objections of Arians/the Watchtower Society are detailed and refuted, but a careful study of and refutation of the modalist/Sabellian/“Jesus only” doctrine of the Oneness Pentecostals—who are, by the way, more numerous than the Watchtower Society—has been added.  It is one of the most, if not the most, detailed study refuting “Jesus only” Christology that is available free online.  I have also updated the work of the same name at the evangelistic “What Must I Do to be Saved?” website.

I have also linked to E. W. Hengstenberg’s 4 volume Christology of the Old Testament. Although a Lutheran, for a scholarly and Hebrew-text based OT Christology, his work is very valuable.

3.) In the Soteriology section, the study:  “‘The just shall live by faith’— A Study of Faith’s Connection with Salvation in All Its Justifying, Sanctifying, and Glorifying Fullness” has been added.  It is a portion of my (in progress) Ph. D. dissertation on the doctrine of sanctification in historic Baptist perspective.  The study took me a number of months to complete.  I believe it will strengthen your knowledge of God intellectually and refresh your soul also.  I am likely, Lord willing, to post material associated with this study on “What is Truth?” in the relatively near future.

I have also linked to David Cloud’s refutation of John Piper’s “Christian Hedonism,” and posted links to two great devotionals, Charles Spurgeon’s Morning and Evening and the lesser known but still Christologically rich The Poor Man’s Morning and Evening Portions by Robert Hawker.  The book received its name because it was originally published in cheap editions so that the poor could purchase them.  Hawker is great at seeing Christ in the Scriptures, although sometimes he waxes a little allegorical and I don’t agree with his Calvinism.

4.) In the “Politics” section, I have linked to Randy Alcorn’s work Does the Birth Control Pill Cause Abortions?  Scripture teaches that children are a reward from God and a blessing (Psalm 127:3), and believers should seek to have as many blessings and rewards from the Lord as possible rather than preventing God from rewarding them by limiting their family size.  Today, many believers would be horrified to receive the blessing Rebekah received, instead of rejoicing in it:  “And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them” (Genesis 24:60).  If believers in the USA had generally maintained a Biblical perspective on family size, instead of adopting the mentality of our contraceptive, anti-child culture, Obama would not be sitting in the gate now—someone far, far more righteous would be.  However, if you are determined that you want God to reward you less and to raise fewer children for His kingdom, please do not do so with the birth control pill, for then you are almost surely not just preventing God’s blessing, but are actually involved in murder, as the Pill does not always prevent conception but with some frequency results in the early death of an already conceived person bearing the image of God.

5.) In the new section entitled “Family,” I have linked to some great material by Pastor Brandenburg defending a courtship/betrothal pattern for obtaining a spouse, rather than the world’s dating pattern, and added an excellent tract by Pastor David Sutton on the Biblical basis for and practice of spanking.

6.) In the “Our Other Websites” section, on the “Literary Compositions” page, a number of well-written plays by my wife Heather, appropriate for performance by Christian schools and in a variety of other settings, have been added.  If you need a play, you can use one of them as written, tweak one of them, etc. instead of having to start all over from scratch.

7.) In the “Material for College and Seminary Courses” section, a goodly number of new resources have been recently added, including a link so that you can learn 1st year Greek online from Dr. D. A. Waite.  If you do know Greek, you might salivate at the fact that you can download free copies of the Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon, A. T. Robertson’s massive Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, and Alford’s 4 volume Greek Testament Commentary, along with other valuable original-language based commentaries.

-TDR

28 comments:

Bill Hardecker said...

Thanks for the recommendations, Tom. Also, ironic how expensive Hawker's books are today. :-)

The Salters said...

The links for John Piper and Christian Hedonism is mis-linked. Just so you are aware. Thanks for posting these great resources.

KJB1611 said...

Dear Bill,

Thanks. Yes, it is ironic.

Dear Salters,

Thank you for the information. I have fixed the link.

KJB1611 said...

Hawker has an OT/NT commentary that also has great applications, but I didn't link to it because it is too Calvinistic for me to feel like I can recommend it. You can find it free on the web if you search.

Colin Maxwell said...

Hi Kent,

I hope that you are having a good Christmas. Probably a little bit rich me jumping in here with the comment below, when at best, I just pass through every now and again. Plenty of good resources on your Theological Compositions site. What with “two great devotionals” from Spurgeon and Hawker and stuff from Bishop Ryle and even John Owen on the “Grace and Duty of Being Spiritually Minded” up for grabs too. Forgive me, though, for wondering how I can reconcile your favourable inclusion of these #Calvinists with your words just scarcely a fortnight ago. I quote:


“Baptists must believe that the soteriology of all of the mainline Reformers is damnable heresy.[i] Furthermore, when Baptists read, or promulgate through their church bookstores and Christian schools, fundamental or evangelical books that glamorize the Reformers as great heroes of the faith, they must warn their flocks that these men are false teachers and their denominations are founded on a false gospel—or refuse to use such literature at all.”
(http://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/were-reformers-heretics-part-11.html)

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Colin,

I think it is a worthwhile point you are making and one that I will allow Thomas to answer, since it is his statement, not mine (albeit on my blog). Thanks for dropping by though.

Colin Maxwell said...

Thanks, Kent, for your kindness. I thought, albeit wrongly, that you were the author of the earlier article. Can I safely assume that you would not see the #Calvinists whose works you promote (to some extent) in the same light as Thomas?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Colin,

I will answer your question, but I want to see what Thomas will write first. Thanks!

Colin Maxwell said...

Just passing through again...

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Colin,

Thank you for your question. A big difference between Ryle and Owen, whom I do have linked on my page, and men like Luther and Calvin, is the belief in baptismal regeneration. Both Luther and Calvin subscribed to such a belief, while Ryle, etc., explicitly repudiated it. Furthermore, in the "Who are the Writers on this Website?" article, I warn about the errors of those whom I feel have written worthwhile material but who have endorsed errors such as Calvinism. I also have explicitly refuted Calvinism in the soteriology section on my site. I believe that someone who read many of the things on my website would be influenced away from Calvinism, not toward it.

While I think that Calvinists such as Spurgeon, Ryle, and Owen have worthwhile things to say, if someone feels he should not read them because of their TULIP theology, I am fine with that.

I hope this answers your question. Thanks again for the comment.

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Colin,

Both the English Puritans and the Continental Second Reformation preachers, while they were certainly not without problems, were more likely to call upon others to come to an evangelical conversion and to be converted themselves than were the first generation Reformers.

Colin Maxwell said...

Thomas,

Thank you for taking time to reply. I wrote initially, b/c your words of warning were so strong and far reaching. I repeat them again:

“Baptists must believe that the soteriology of all of the mainline Reformers is damnable heresy.[i] Furthermore, when Baptists read, or promulgate through their church bookstores and Christian schools, fundamental or evangelical books that glamorize the Reformers as great heroes of the faith, they must warn their flocks that these men are false teachers and their denominations are founded on a false gospel—or refuse to use such literature at all.”

You state that the men whose works you have linked to did not believe in Baptismal Regeneration, but that Luther and Calvin did. Well, the men whose works you are happy to link to, were happy to endorse the gospel ministries of both Luther and Calvin. They speak of them in glowing terms. I forebear to give multiple quotes (surely only necessary if challenged) but two from Spurgeon cannot leave us in any doubt of his belief in the basic gospel orthodoxy of (say) John Calvin:


“We think that Calvin, after all, knew more about the gospel than almost any man who has ever lived, uninspired..” (NPS 4#181)

“A more consistent expositor of Scripture than that great reformer I believe never lived…” (MTP6#301)


Spurgeon thus endorses those who (according to you) exercised a such damnably heretical ministry. Even non Calvinist Fundamentalists like HA Ironside and others spoke on glowing terms. John R Rice commented:

"God raised up Luther, Calvin and others and turned literally millions of people to personal faith in Christ and to a knowledge of salvation by faith, in Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Scotland and England, and parts of many other countries." ("We can have revival now:" Chapter 7)

If we follow through your exhortation above, then surely you would have us denounce anyone who saw the ministries of Luther and Calvin as basically gospel based and treat them as if they were endorsing the works of someone like C.T. Russell or Joseph Smith?

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Colin,

What quotes like the ones you gave demonstrate is that the men you quoted missed what Calvin and Luther plainly said about baptismal regeneration. Not understanding that someone else teaches a false gospel is not a little different from teaching one yourself.

If you read my series of posts on the baptismal heresies of the Reformers, where plenty of time was spent on Luther and Calvin, unless you are able to show that these men did not mean what they plainly said, it is impossible to conclude that they are Gospel-based unless baptismal regeneration is the Gospel.

Thank you for commenting

Joshua said...

I think it is useful to compare the testimonies of those who applauded the Reformers (Spurgeon, Gill etc who we still admire despite this oversight) versus the testimonies of the Reformers themselves.

The Reformers were not ashamed to persecute, torture and put to death those who opposed them - particularly Baptists. When this testimony is combined with their false Gospel as Thomas has shown here in their writings, I struggle to see how we can call them brothers in Christ.

Certainly, if I was to fall into the power of those men when they were alive, the fact that they would put me to death completely disabuses me of the notion that we may have some spiritual kinship. If you were to discover that I was killing and burying Presbyterians under my porch, you would probably shortly arrive at the same conclusion.

Despite the Reformed error of Gill and Spurgeon, their testimony and writings give no reason to fear they will not be present at the Bema seat.

And yet, I can judge only what I read from history, which is a murky glass at best, and am content enough to know that the Lord is a righteous judge, who will save all who have accepted the gift of life through Jesus. He knows who is His.

Colin Maxwell said...

Hi Joshua,

These facts were as well known to men like Spurgeon and Gill as they are to you and me. They only serve to make us wonder why then they endorsed the spirituality of the Reformers. If you are going to take the Reformers down, then you need to take their vocal admirers down with them. It actually goes even wider than Spurgeon and Gill. Many well known and respected names among us e.g. AW Tozer, HA Ironside and John R Rice were happy to endorse the spirituality of these men. While it might be convenient to find somewhere along the line to make a nice cut, it just doesn’t work here.

Colin

Joshua said...

Colin,

There are two separate issues here. One is the false baptismal regeneration gospel of the Reformers. When I combine that with their vicious testimony, I cannot call them brothers.

The other is the shortsightedness and unwarranted grace that other well known names in Christendom extended to the Reformers. Does that then make them preachers of a false Gospel? Not unless they repeat the Reformer's baptismal regeneration doctrine, and I am sure they did not.

I'm not trying to be sophisticated here or redraw some lines to get my "heroes" into the safe zone. I think it reflects poorly on all those men you mentioned to applaud the Reformers. No doubt if they actually lived in the same time as these men, then when their friends and colleagues started to be burned or tortured by them they would rapidly alter their opinions.

But you are only a preacher of a false gospel if you preach a false gospel, not because you happen to have some nice words for men who did.

Colin Maxwell said...

Hi Joshua,

But these are more than "nice words for men who did [preach a false gospel]" as you put it.

To say, as John R. Rice did, that "God raised up Luther, Calvin and others and turned literally millions of people to personal faith in Christ and to a knowledge of salvation by faith, in Germany, the Scandinavian countries, Scotland and England, and parts of many other countries" then Rice is endorsing the doctrinal part of their ministry. Through the false gospel of these men (as you charge) God turned millions to personal faith in Christ. Really, if you are right, he should have said that through their false gospel, they made these people twofold more the children of Hell than themselves.

To say, as HA Ironside did, that "when we come down to the days of the Reformation we have John Knox and John Calvin, and later on in the great revival of the eighteenth century, we have John Wesley sent from God to preach to those who knew nothing of the assurance of salvation.") A “damnable heretic” and a purveyor of a “false gospel” sent of God to preach? Surely, if Ironside did not basically endorse the fundamental views of Calvin and Knox, then he would have said that they sent of the Devil to blind rather than of God to preach. Ironside, acknowledging the Servetus affair, could still bring himself to say of John Calvin, “But his influence throughout was on the side of righteousness and truth, and for this he will be remembered forever and shine as the stars eternally."

Again, there is no cut to be made. The claims of these non Calvinist, non paedobaptist Christians are too deep. They are more than “nice words” but rather a pretty ringing endorsement of the gospel Calvin proclaimed. That surely makes them false teachers too and subject to the anathema’s held in store (if you are right) for Calvin?

Kent: Is there any reason why my earlier reply to Thomas is being held back?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Colin,

Sorry. I haven't moderated anyone's comments, just published them all. I went back and checked to see if anything happened, and no. I hope I didn't do anything. It's not something I would have done on purpose. I just keep pushing "publish."

With regards to the whole issue here, I don't understand the Rice and Ironside comments on Luther, etc. These men don't give me any good examples by which I can trust their endorsement. When we're talking about these men, we're talking about historical figures endorsing other historical figures. They're all dead. I think it's best to evaluate the person's own writing. Has Thomas taken Luther out of context? That kind of question is a better read of the situation in my opinion. After I'm dead, it would seem better to read me than to read what someone said about me. If Thomas is wrong, I think pointing out how he is in fact wrong is better.

Colin Maxwell said...

Hi Kent, I managed to rescue my reply to Thomas (which I had done on a Word document) from my unemptied "Recycle Bin" (How close is that? ) I will submit it again:

Hi Thomas,

The Reformers often attributed to the sign the language of the thing that is signified. Scripture itself does so, hence Paul was called upon to “Arise, and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” (Acts 22:16) Calvin sometimes drew attention to this in his writings.

If you are to ignore that and charge Calvin with baptismal regeneration, then you need also to charge John Owen with the same. In his catechisms, he wrote:

Q. 2. What is baptism?
A. An holy action, appointed of Christ, whereby being sprinkled
with water in the name of the whole Trinity, by a lawful minister of the
church, we are admitted into the family of God, and have the benefits of
the blood of Christ confirmed unto us. [Various refs]

Q. 3. To whom does this sacrament belong?
A. Unto all to whom the promise of the covenant is made; that is, to
believers, and to their seed. [Various refs]

Q. 4. How can baptism seal the pardon of all sins to us, all our
personal sins following it?
A. Inasmuch as it is a seal of that promise which gives pardon of all to
believers. [Various refs]

Any redeeming factor lies in Q4 where it is said to be “a seal to believers” which is the language if the Genevan catechism where it is affirmed that the grace signified by baptism “extends to believer’s only”
I say again that if you are going to charge Calvin with BR, then Owen and indeed all paedo baptists are (as you charge) earlier preaching a false and therefore damning gospel.

I repeat my earlier observation that your words of condemnation must extend also to those men like Spurgeon and Ironside etc., who endorsed the gospel content of Calvin and the Reformers.

Colin Maxwell said...

Kent,

I was going to say that I am not an authority on Luther, but the reality is that I’m not an authority on anyone. I simply can’t afford the time or effort to look up the quotations on Luther. One of the problems with Luther is that he wrote so voluminously from the word “Go” and his doctrinal process from the errors of Rome took time. This means that you need not only to see the context of what he wrote, but the context of when he wrote it. I would imagine the later the better. Such research can’t be done in an afternoon. #Sorry!

I am more inclined towards Calvin and in the missing (but now restored) reply to Thomas, I put his views into some kind of context there.

I don’t think we can ignore the “who endorsed who” side of things. If noted, learned and accepted brethren in Christ could fundamentally endorse the gospel of someone, then we must see whether the charge of false teacher can be dropped or whether it should be extended.

I appreciate you accommodating me here on your comments page.

Colin Maxwell

Thomas Ross said...

Dear Colin,

1.) Did you read my series on the Reformers and their heresies? I would rather not re-post all the material I have already presented before to prove again that Calvin believed in baptismal regeneration.

2.) The Owen quotes don't prove that he believed in baptismal regeneration. The best attempt is where he says that baptism unites someone to the family of God but he could very well mean united in an outward, covenantal sense. Indeed, in light of his Puritan Reformed, Congregationalist viewpoint, it is almost certain that is what he meant.

3.) There are plenty of people who will torture other people's writings in order to make them consistent with the Gospel. For example, J.C. Ryle did so to get baptismal regeneration out of the Anglican confessional documents. It would have been better for him to have left Anglicanism but he did not believe in baptismal regeneration.

4.) Ryle said that nothing was clearer than that baptismal regeneration was an error.

Happily, although an Anglican, “[i]n 1837 Ryle experienced his own conversion. First, Algernon Coote, a friend from Eton, urged him to ‘think, repent and pray’; then he heard the epistle one Sunday afternoon in church: ‘By grace are ye saved (pause) through faith (pause) and that not of yourselves (pause) it is the gift of God.’ The succession of phrases brought full conviction to Ryle. ‘Nothing,’ he said, ‘to this day appeared to me so clear and distinct as my own sinfulness, Christ’s presence, the value of the Bible, the absolute necessity of coming out of the world, and the need of being born again, and the enormous folly of the whole doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.’” (pg. 573, Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals, ed. Larsen).

Calvin taught that nothing was clearer than that baptism does regenerate. “God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption . . . whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified . . . forgiveness . . . at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone . . . forgiveness has reference to baptism. . . . In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins” (Institutes, 4:17:1, 4:15:3, 4, 15). “We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. . . . Nothing is plainer than this doctrine” (1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1st Decree of the 5th Session).

Colin Maxwell said...

Hi Thomas,

1) I haven’t read yours articles. I came initially to the matter from the point of separation, observing that one rule seemed to apply for one set of church figures while others who held identical beliefs, were excluded as false teachers.

2) I agree that Owen’s interpretation of baptism is that the baptized infant is “united in an outward, covenantal sense.” However, Calvin must be read in the same way. He talks constantly about the outward sign and refers to it as a promise and of no benefit and indeed nothing until the promise was grasped by faith. This is the standard paedobaptist position. To damn Calvin on this point then is to damn all, including Owen.

Now our opponents ask us what faith came to us during some years after our baptism. This they do to prove our baptism void, since it is not sanctified to us except when the word of promise is accepted in faith. To this question we reply that we indeed, being blind and unbelieving, for a long time did not grasp the promise that had been given us in baptism; yet that promise, since it was of God, ever remained fixed and firm and trustworthy. Even if all men are liars and faithless, still God does not cease to be trustworthy [Romans 3:3]. Even if all men are lost, still Christ remains salvation. We therefore confess that for that time baptism benefited us not at all, inasmuch as the promise offered us in it — without which baptism is nothing — lay neglected…This promise was offered to us in baptism; therefore, let us embrace it by faith. Indeed, on account of our unfaithfulness it lay long buried from us; now, therefore, let us receive it through faith. (Institutes 4:15:17)

Certainly, Owen nor Ryle never saw themselves at loggerheads with Calvin on this fundamental gospel issue.

Twice in Knots Untied, Ryle invoked the name of Calvin in his defence of his defence of the doctrine of infant baptism. Once as an “eminent Christian from the period of the Reformation.” This would not be if Calvin was guilty of the teaching which Ryle rightly abhorred with all his soul.

Ryle defended the Prayer Book compilers with these words: “They knew God might of His sovereign mercy give grace to any child before, in or at, or by the act of baptism.” (Knots Untied) Remember, these are the words of one who (we both agree) rightly went on a practical Jihad against BR.

Owen makes his feelings clear: “Luther and Calvin were men whom God honoured above many in their generation; and on that account we dare not but do so also.” (Vol. 12)

3) True but not applicable in my case 4) Answered under #2.

I must return here to the instruction which you gave in your original article:

“Baptists must believe that the soteriology of all of the mainline Reformers is damnable heresy.[i] Furthermore, when Baptists read, or promulgate through their church bookstores and Christian schools, fundamental or evangelical books that glamorize the Reformers as great heroes of the faith, they must warn their flocks that these men are false teachers and their denominations are founded on a false gospel—or refuse to use such literature at all.”

As seen above, both Ryle and Owen and as seen in my correspondence with Joshua, men like Rice, Tozer and Ironside, all saw the Reformers as great heroes of the faith. You need either to withdraw your contention that Calvin etc., were false teachers who preached a false gospel or extend your words of condemnation to these later men like Owen, Ryle, Ironside etc.

Kent: It was Thomas who first brought in the idea of “who endorses who” w/ the above paragraph. I contend that he basically endorses those who believed essentially as the mainline Reformers on baptism and who endorsed their ministries with high words of spiritual praise.

Colin Maxwell.

KJB1611 said...

Dear Colin,

I would refer you to my posts. They are also a single essay at http://sites.google.com/site/thross7. Please let me know if you read the section on Calvin, at least. Thanks.

Colin Maxwell said...

Hi Thomas,

I have read the appropriate part of your thesis on the Reformers re: John Calvin. Basically, he hasn’t said anything that any Paedobaptist wouldn’t say. I am currently in a discussion with another anti Calvinist Baptist and he is busy blasting me over the language of the WCF, accusing Presbyterians of teaching BR.

When commenting on Christ’s words “This is my body” in Matt 26, Calvin points out that the Saviour used a metonym i.e. what really belongs to the thing signified is attributed to the sign. Hence He took the sign (bread) but said “This is my body”. In justifying doing so, he gave the example of baptism being called “the laver of regeneration” in Titus 3:5 and the rock in the wilderness being called Christ etc., IOW: if baptism is called the laver of regeneration, it is not literally so, but only a metoynm or a sign. The WCF does the same.

I repeat again that if Calvin is to go down as a BR (and purveyor of another gospel etc.,) then you must take Owen and Shedd and Hodge and all those Paedobaptists whom you are happy enough to link to, because they taught the same thing.

Again (for you seem to be studiously avoiding this) you must also point the finger at men like Ironside, Tozer and John R Rice etc., who clearly endorsed the basic gospel content of Calvin’s theology. If I described the ministries of Joseph Smith or Judge Rutherford in the same glowing terms as the above described the ministries of Calvin and Luther etc., (see above) then you would have a field day in replying. And rightly so.

The irony here is that the more you succeed in proving your point against Calvin, the more you denigrate your decision to identify with those who spoke so highly of him. You really can’t have it both ways.

Colin Maxwell

Colin Maxwell said...


Key passage from John Calvin on the Baptism issue

Christ declares that the bread is his body. These words relate to a sacrament; and it must be acknowledged, that a sacrament consists of a visible sign, with which is connected the thing signified, which is the reality of it. It must be well known, on the other hand, that the name of the thing signified is transferred to the sign; and therefore, no person who is tolerably well acquainted with Scripture will deny that a sacramental mode of expression ought to be taken metonymically. f187 I pass by general figures, which occur frequently in Scripture, and only say this: whenever an outward sign is said to be that which it represents, it is universally agreed to be an instance of metonymy. If baptism be called the laver of regeneration, (Titus in. 5;) if the rock, from which water flowed to the Fathers in the wilderness, be called Christ, (<461004>1 Corinthians 10:4;) if a dove be called the Holy Spirit, (<430132>John 1:32;) no man will question but the signs receive the name of the things which they represent. How comes it, then, that persons who profess to entertain a veneration for the words of the Lord will not permit us to apply to the Lord’s Supper what is common to all the sacraments?

Kent Brandenburg said...

Hi Colin,

I would say "OK to read with disclaimer" to anyone about the reformers. Thomas's warning doesn't bother me, because it's his take and it's more careful than what I wrote. I'm not usually offended with a stronger position. He's given good reasons here. You're bothered that he says to read Owen and not Calvin, because their positions were similar. It's a judgment call. It gives one pause.

I've read both Calvin and Owen and I find them to be considerably different, the latter much more helpful as it relates to a rightful exegesis of Scripture. If there were someone who wrote what Owen has written on certain subjects that I could point people to, I wouldn't say to read Owen, because of his problems. Baptists historically didn't have a problem with the reformers where they agreed, and they would write on areas where they contradicted. I've written about that here at the blog.

I don't know you enough to know why this bothers you so much. What Thomas is writing makes sense to me, even if I wouldn't say it. I'm concerned about Owen too for people, afraid that readers will take everything, but I give a disclaimer, and I haven't had anyone affiliated with me badly influenced by Owen.

KJB1611 said...

Dear Colin,

Some of the quotes you posted said that Luther preached a true gospel also. Are you going to deny that Luther believed in baptismal regeneration also--and if so, can you name one serious historian who agrees with you, or explain why the Augsburg Confession anathematizes those who deny baptismal regeneration?

There is a huge difference between being ignorant of someone's true position--as many better men such as John R. Rice were-- on the teachings of Luther and Calvin--and endorsing baptismal regeneration, as they did.

The fact is that many of those who endorsed the WCF also believed in baptismal regeneration--although not all.

I quoted Calvin above stating that nothing was plainer than the truth of baptismal regeneration. What could he have said that would convince you that he actually believed that nothing was plainer than the truth of baptismal regeneration? I would like to know if you will claim Luther denied the doctrine also.

Thanks.

Colin Maxwell said...

Brethren,

Obviously time has come here to agree to disagree. Suffice to say that, having examined the mater, I am still happy to side with those eminent and knowledgeable Christian leaders who gladly and knowingly endorsed the gospel ministries of the Reformers. This would not be if the same Reformers taught another gospel.

Thank you both for your time and patience,

Colin Maxwell