# The best theological age ---- is now!



## Pergamum

No, I'm not just try to stir up poo-poo.....



But here goes:

My assertion is that right now is the *height of theological knowledge*.



We need not look back at any "glory age" because right now we 

(1) not only have the shoulders of those men to stand on,
(2) and we also have made "advances" in theology, archaeology, manuscripts, and exegesis even. The current commentaries are the best, the current manuscript evidence the best, the field of missiology is blooming like never before and the current knowledge of social conditions of the NT era are the best and our ability to communicate freely and exchange theological ideas without being killed by those who differ with us is the best.

I assert that all arguments that "people are not as wise as the divines" are wrong and that our best "divines" are not inferior to those in that age. 

We can glean from the past, but I am happy to be living in this relative age of knowledge that makes even the days of the Reformation dark and ignorant (okay okay, this last statement is largely rhetorical).



Agree? Disagree? Lemme hear ya.


----------



## Zenas

Disagree. 

The climate is decidedly liberal. While it may be a few that are standing on the shoulders of the greats, I don't think we rise all that higher than they did and, moreover, we have to consider the fact that the majority of the Church is theologically ignorant. I think conditions were better 150-300 years ago.


----------



## Hippo

I still think that the Apostles had the better of us in theological knowledge, the problem with the present age is that all the advances that you celebrate can take our eyes away from the revelation that is the basis of true theological knoweledge. 

The puritans were only successful in so far as they were single minded in their concentration on this revelation, a concentration that we often lack. When the puritans started getting distracted by looking for signs of the end times or building a political state they could be as wacky as many are in this day and age.


----------



## Pergamum

The church is bigger than it ever has been in history and spans more nations on earth. The church is freed from relying on the civil state for protection. The church is finally tackling Islam and is making inroads into the whole world whereas the Reformation only happened in Europe.


----------



## Pergamum

OF COURSE the Apostles had it better than us.....


----------



## panta dokimazete

I agree - the Internet being a HUGE component.


----------



## Ivan

Pergamum said:


> The church is bigger than it ever has been in history and spans more nations on earth. The church is freed from relying on the civil state for protection. The church is finally tackling Islam and is making inroads into the whole world whereas the Reformation only happened in Europe.



Sounds like the "best" evangelistic age.


----------



## TimV

> The church is freed from relying on the civil state for protection.



Could you explain that?



> The church is finally tackling Islam



That's if you assume American Baptists are really the only true Christians, and Catholic and Orthodox work over the last 14 centuries didn't count. 

The Kingdom is growing both in numbers and truth, like the mustard seed grows. But each age has it's own fights, and while we're in the middle, it's really almost impossible to see ourselves with objectivity. So yes, the Kingdom is more advanced that it was 300 years ago, but how are we to ascertain with precision which aspects of the Kingdom are stronger and which weaker?

So I totally agree with your original statement. I'd just be careful of letting it go to anyone's head.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> My assertion is that right now is the *height of theological knowledge*.



This is clearly not the case judging from the mulititude of contradictory and fluctuating statements which emerge even within the same schools of theology.


----------



## CarlosOliveira

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> My assertion is that right now is the *height of theological knowledge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is clearly not the case judging from the mulititude of contradictory and fluctuating statements which emerge even within the same schools of theology.
Click to expand...


----------



## CDM

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> My assertion is that right now is the *height of theological knowledge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is clearly not the case judging from the mulititude of contradictory and fluctuating statements which emerge even within the same schools of theology.
Click to expand...


 If we were in the best theological age then you would expect to see the fruits of it by people living righteously and in the fear of the Lord. So, this might very well be one of the worst ages.


----------



## Prufrock

> We can glean from the past, but I am happy to be living in this relative age of knowledge that makes even the days of the Reformation dark and ignorant (okay okay, this last statement is largely rhetorical).



I actually tend to agree...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

When I survey the deplorable state of the church today (and I am postmil) compared to past highwater marks, I feel like Frodo in need of Gandalf's wisdom.

‘I wish it need not have happened in my time,’ said Frodo. ― ‘So do I,’ said Gandalf, ‘and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.’ ― ‘The Lord of the Rings’, Book I, Chapter 2.

“My times are in thy hand.” — Psalm 31:15.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Pergamum said:


> No, I'm not just try to stir up poo-poo.....
> 
> 
> 
> But here goes:
> 
> My assertion is that right now is the *height of theological knowledge*.
> 
> 
> 
> We need not look back at any "glory age" because right now we
> 
> (1) not only have the shoulders of those men to stand on,
> (2) and we also have made "advances" in theology, archaeology, manuscripts, and exegesis even. The current commentaries are the best, the current manuscript evidence the best, the field of missiology is blooming like never before and the current knowledge of social conditions of the NT era are the best and our ability to communicate freely and exchange theological ideas without being killed by those who differ with us is the best.
> 
> I assert that all arguments that "people are not as wise as the divines" are wrong and that our best "divines" are not inferior to those in that age.
> 
> We can glean from the past, but I am happy to be living in this relative age of knowledge that makes even the days of the Reformation dark and ignorant (okay okay, this last statement is largely rhetorical).
> 
> 
> 
> Agree? Disagree? Lemme hear ya.




People here cannot agree with you. The reason would be that it implies, or at least leaves open the possibility, that theological conclusions reached today are superior - or more accurate - than those reached "back then." And if there is one thing we cannot suffer, it is the idea that anything produced by the Westminster Assembly was incorrect or capable of being improved upon!


----------



## Herald

I don't know about "best theological age", but I do know that the gospel is being proclaimed in more nations and to more people than ever before. I said in another thread that I am bullish on the state of the church. This doesn't mean that I ignore or gloss over the problems resident in the church. Heresy is always knocking on the door and it does take it's share of causalities. But the number of those who are coming into the kingdom continues to increase; in some cases dramatically.


----------



## smhbbag

> If we were in the best theological age then you would expect to see the fruits of it by people living righteously and in the fear of the Lord. So, this might very well be one of the worst ages.



This reminds me of a point in the recently posted Paul Washer sermon.

If we had knowledge of the Lord, we would be fearing Him. That we do not fear Him shows that we do not know Him.

Even the Devil knows, and trembles. Yet, many (dare I say most?) who take the Lord's name do so much more lightly than even Satan does.


----------



## py3ak

If we are _further along_ in our grasp of doctrine, why are we further apart in terms of church unity? Perhaps there are some who have advanced from what was attained in the past; but since most have not retained what was attained, it is misleading to say that we in this era are at the height of theological knowledge. Certainly, a person with time and health and money can read more books than anyone living in previous times, and by God's grace can glean the good from those books and reject the chaff. But for every person who has advanced, how many how have rather slipped away?


----------



## MW

SolaScriptura said:


> And if there is one thing we cannot suffer, it is the idea that anything produced by the Westminster Assembly was incorrect or capable of being improved upon!



I think you bear the burden of substantiating this accusation. All that is insisted upon is that the same criterion of "fallibility" be understood of the new developments as well as the old confessions. Is it so hard to accept the possibility that the Westminster Confession might be a correct representation of scriptural teaching? or must it be considered ipso facto erroneous simply because it is old? There is a passage of scripture in which a young man waited patiently before he reluctantly spoke to the contrary of what years had to speak, and even then the scriptures represent his speech as somewhat presumptuous.


----------



## Pergamum

mangum said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> My assertion is that right now is the *height of theological knowledge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is clearly not the case judging from the mulititude of contradictory and fluctuating statements which emerge even within the same schools of theology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If we were in the best theological age then you would expect to see the fruits of it by people living righteously and in the fear of the Lord. So, this might very well be one of the worst ages.
Click to expand...


Maybe you're in the wrong continent. Also, the Church has always been full of sin.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

smhbbag said:


> Even the Devil knows, and trembles. Yet, many (dare I say most?) who take the Lord's name do so much more lightly than even Satan does.



Yes, third commandment keeping is significant problem for the church today, the PB not excepted. Not only are minced oaths used freely, and other means of taking the Lord's name in vain, but misinterpreting the word of God, which is a third commandment violation, is rampant. Every age needs to rediscover the truths of God's Word that have been proclaimed beforehand and own them for itself, but ours is an age of declension. The "progress of error" as William Cowper might say is breathtaking to behold given the legacy that has been bequeathed to us by godly men of old. As C.S. Lewis said, "The more the Bible is translated, the less people read it." And that is the fundamental reason why we stand in need of a Third Reformation.

A Third Reformation Necessary.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if there is one thing we cannot suffer, it is the idea that anything produced by the Westminster Assembly was incorrect or capable of being improved upon!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you bear the burden of substantiating this accusation. All that is insisted upon is that the same criterion of "fallibility" be understood of the new developments as well as the old confessions. Is it so hard to accept the possibility that the Westminster Confession might be a correct representation of scriptural teaching? or must it be considered ipso facto erroneous simply because it is old? There is a passage of scripture in which a young man waited patiently before he reluctantly spoke to the contrary of what years had to speak, and even then the scriptures represent his speech as somewhat presumptuous.
Click to expand...



I said in my OP that we are so blessed because we stand on the shoulders of past giants. Your point has already been granted and does nothing to weaken my own point. We need not be speaking anything new like this presumptous young man but we would be reflecting on hundreds of years of past thoughts and adding our own.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> My assertion is that right now is the *height of theological knowledge*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is clearly not the case judging from the mulititude of contradictory and fluctuating statements which emerge even within the same schools of theology.
Click to expand...


There has always been a "mulititude of contradictory and fluctuating statements which emerge even within the same schools of theology."


----------



## MW

py3ak said:


> If we are _further along_ in our grasp of doctrine, why are we further apart in terms of church unity? Perhaps there are some who have advanced from what was attained in the past; but since most have not retained what was attained, it is misleading to say that we in this era are at the height of theological knowledge. Certainly, a person with time and health and money can read more books than anyone living in previous times, and by God's grace can glean the good from those books and reject the chaff. But for every person who has advanced, how many how have rather slipped away?



Well noted Ruben. I think it would be more correct to say that the present age is the most advanced in nullifidianism, to borrow an old term. Modern theological conclusions are more often negations than affirmations. A good prophet not only tore down but built up. Scepticism and cynicism can only tear down because they don't actually refute false conclusions but destroy the foundation upon which any positive conclusion can be reached.


----------



## Pergamum

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> When I survey the deplorable state of the church today (and I am postmil) compared to past highwater marks, I feel like Frodo in need of Gandalf's wisdom.
> 
> ‘I wish it need not have happened in my time,’ said Frodo. ― ‘So do I,’ said Gandalf, ‘and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.’ ― ‘The Lord of the Rings’, Book I, Chapter 2.
> 
> “My times are in thy hand.” — Psalm 31:15.



If you are postmil it would seem that my view would even be strengthened! Though the tide ebbs and flows, there is nonetheless a constant advance up the bank of this dead world.



By the way, that Third Reformation link is AWESOME!


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> I said in my OP that we are so blessed because we stand on the shoulders of past giants.



Standing on the shoulders of past giants means taking up the system which they taught; by denying much of what they taught, as in the case of modern theological science (falsely so-called), one stomps on their toes.


----------



## Pergamum

py3ak said:


> If we are _further along_ in our grasp of doctrine, why are we further apart in terms of church unity? Perhaps there are some who have advanced from what was attained in the past; but since most have not retained what was attained, it is misleading to say that we in this era are at the height of theological knowledge. Certainly, a person with time and health and money can read more books than anyone living in previous times, and by God's grace can glean the good from those books and reject the chaff. But for every person who has advanced, how many how have rather slipped away?



The church universal is always unified in spirit. 

We have done away largely with any myth of "Christendom" and not bound by the State to belong to a state church in most parts. 

Also, at least evangelicals are grouping together in the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization and are signing onto statements like the Chicago statement on inerrancy that show a broad unity across denominational boundaries.

Also the reformed faith is coming back strong and there are more Christians and more reformed Christians in more countries than ever before.


----------



## Pergamum

That mustard seed is growing in size and also growing in quality too


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> There has always been a "mulititude of contradictory and fluctuating statements which emerge even within the same schools of theology."



Let's test your thesis. Neo-orthodoxy -- who is the true representative of it, Barth or Brunner? Is natural theology in or out?

Modern theology is built on the primacy of individual thought; there is no theology, just an assertion of the individual's right to theologise.


----------



## Prufrock

Rev Winzer -- not all of us, you and me included, deny much of what they taught. In fact, we affirm it. And there have been many sound, orthodox, biblical teachers since the reformation who have taken the reformers work and built upon it. Personally, I think the sound, orthodox theologians along with much of the other knowledge we've gained has been a good thing, and I'm glad as I study the works of the puritans and protestant scholastics that I have four hundred years of thought and reflection upon them to further supplement it.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV said:


> The church is freed from relying on the civil state for protection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you explain that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The church is finally tackling Islam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's if you assume American Baptists are really the only true Christians, and Catholic and Orthodox work over the last 14 centuries didn't count.
> 
> The Kingdom is growing both in numbers and truth, like the mustard seed grows. But each age has it's own fights, and while we're in the middle, it's really almost impossible to see ourselves with objectivity. So yes, the Kingdom is more advanced that it was 300 years ago, but how are we to ascertain with precision which aspects of the Kingdom are stronger and which weaker?
> 
> So I totally agree with your original statement. I'd just be careful of letting it go to anyone's head.
Click to expand...


Yes, I think missions is finally able to go forward not under the flag of the colonial powers and missionaries are no longer agents of a church/state union. You already know my views on theonomy and any church-state union. We are in a sense, returning to a Pre-Constantinian state of missions, like that of the early church.


About Islam: No, I don't think that only American Baptists are doing the work (though the IMB is doing wonderful work). Catholic and Orthodox work among muslims has largely been ineffective.



I am glad for your agreement and I agree with it! [now, a big hug!] Also, I looked up your views on WWII and yes, wow it was largely a Russian war.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has always been a "mulititude of contradictory and fluctuating statements which emerge even within the same schools of theology."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's test your thesis. Neo-orthodoxy -- who is the true representative of it, Barth or Brunner? Is natural theology in or out?
> 
> Modern theology is built on the primacy of individual thought; there is no theology, just an assertion of the individual's right to theologise.
Click to expand...


Heretics are no new thing.


----------



## MW

Prufrock said:


> Rev Winzer -- not all of us, you and me included, deny much of what they taught. In fact, we affirm it. And there have been many sound, orthodox, biblical teachers since the reformation who have taken the reformers work and built upon it. Personally, I think the sound, orthodox theologians along with much of the other knowledge we've gained has been a good thing, and I'm glad as I study the works of the puritans and protestant scholastics that I have four hundred years of thought and reflection upon them to further supplement it.



Is "theological knowledge" --of which it is claimed we have reached a height -- a mere accumulation of facts and non-facts, or is it that certainty of belief which begins with the fear of the Lord and ends in bringing forth fruit to His glory? If the latter, as the Scriptures themselves teach, then the only possible conclusion from a reformed perspective is that the present time is one of the "deep and darksome caves" of theological history.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has always been a "mulititude of contradictory and fluctuating statements which emerge even within the same schools of theology."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's test your thesis. Neo-orthodoxy -- who is the true representative of it, Barth or Brunner? Is natural theology in or out?
> 
> Modern theology is built on the primacy of individual thought; there is no theology, just an assertion of the individual's right to theologise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Heretics are no new thing.
Click to expand...


Those heretics are a part of the fabric of the "right now" of theological knowledge.


----------



## panta dokimazete

It's a paradigm shift called the wisdom of crowds.


----------



## Pergamum

The Gospel is more global than ever before, and more expansive. It is also advanced notmerely in territory gained but also in more sure solidness gained from the past and the present... the quality of commentaries alone should be used as proof. Also background information, manuscript evidence all exceed the past ages.


----------



## Pergamum

panta dokimazete said:


> It's a paradigm shift called the wisdom of crowds.



No paradigm shifts for me, but only an optimism based on the Scripture that, even as we return to the past anchors of the faith, we develop those anchors deeper and our advance with the Gospel is not a mere advance in quantity but of quality.


----------



## Prufrock

I still don't necessarily entirely agree, Rev. Winzer. Even if it's simply upon the fact that it's a pretty hard claim to prove that there are fewer godly men today then there were several hundred years ago, or that less fruit is being brought forth to the glory of God.


----------



## TimV

> Yes, I think missions is finally able to go forward not under the flag of the colonial powers and missionaries are no longer agents of a church/state union.



If we make a list of countries, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Russia, Poland, Romania, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Britain, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland (insert about 100 more) in which of these countries did Christianity come under the flag of a colonial power  



> About Islam: No, I don't think that only American Baptists are doing the work (though the IMB is doing wonderful work). Catholic and Orthodox work among muslims has largely been ineffective.



When you crunch the numbers, or even look at a map of where Islam was the majority religion and is now no longer, you will have a different view, just as you now have a different view of


> Also, I looked up your views on WWII and yes, wow it was largely a Russian war.


some other really, really basic history. History you don't get in American Arminian Baptist company.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's test your thesis. Neo-orthodoxy -- who is the true representative of it, Barth or Brunner? Is natural theology in or out?
> 
> Modern theology is built on the primacy of individual thought; there is no theology, just an assertion of the individual's right to theologise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Heretics are no new thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those heretics are a part of the fabric of the "right now" of theological knowledge.
Click to expand...


There has always been a stream of good theology and many streams of bad theology and the bad theology of our day is a mere continuation of the bad theology of the past...but the church is overcoming it and still advancing.


----------



## py3ak

Pergamum said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we are _further along_ in our grasp of doctrine, why are we further apart in terms of church unity? Perhaps there are some who have advanced from what was attained in the past; but since most have not retained what was attained, it is misleading to say that we in this era are at the height of theological knowledge. Certainly, a person with time and health and money can read more books than anyone living in previous times, and by God's grace can glean the good from those books and reject the chaff. But for every person who has advanced, how many how have rather slipped away?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The church universal is always unified in spirit.
> 
> We have done away largely with any myth of "Christendom" and not bound by the State to belong to a state church in most parts.
> 
> Also, at least evangelicals are grouping together in the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, The Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization and are signing onto statements like the Chicago statement on inerrancy that show a broad unity across denominational boundaries.
> 
> Also the reformed faith is coming back strong and there are more Christians and more reformed Christians in more countries than ever before.
Click to expand...


However churches which are in serious doctrinal error outnumber churches that are not. There are divisions and subdivisions. If we are to come to _the unity of the faith_, at least in the USA and in Mexico, by and large we are going about it wrongly. There is less doctrinal agreement, and that results in practical division. And when this problem is recognized, some people think that the way to solve it is to have a non-doctrinal unity.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> There has always been a stream of good theology and many streams of bad theology and the bad theology of our day is a mere continuation of the bad theology of the past...*but the church is overcoming it and still advancing*.



Here you set the church apart from a mainstream of theology that is "now." You have countered your own claim.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV said:


> Yes, I think missions is finally able to go forward not under the flag of the colonial powers and missionaries are no longer agents of a church/state union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If we make a list of countries, like Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, Russia, Poland, Romania, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Britain, Ethiopia, Egypt, Syria, Spain, France, Holland, Switzerland (insert about 100 more) in which of these countries did Christianity come under the flag of a colonial power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About Islam: No, I don't think that only American Baptists are doing the work (though the IMB is doing wonderful work). Catholic and Orthodox work among muslims has largely been ineffective.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you crunch the numbers, or even look at a map of where Islam was the majority religion and is now no longer, you will have a different view, just as you now have a different view of
> 
> 
> 
> Also, I looked up your views on WWII and yes, wow it was largely a Russian war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some other really, really basic history. History you don't get in American Arminian Baptist company.
Click to expand...


I was not influenced by Baptist arminian company.

The Orthodox and Catholic communities among the Muslim world are largely insulated closed-off bodies of believers. The largest recent growth among the unreached Muslim groups have been from evangelicals.


The majority of professing Christians now come from the Global South to include Africa, India, etc and almost all of these had missionaries come under the flag of trading companies and national powers. Many of the European countries became Catholic or eastern orthodox because their lands became catholic or eatern orthodox.


----------



## panta dokimazete

I guess what I am trying to say is that the church, through technology advancements, is able to expand the common culture more efficiently than ever before.


----------



## Pergamum

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> There has always been a stream of good theology and many streams of bad theology and the bad theology of our day is a mere continuation of the bad theology of the past...*but the church is overcoming it and still advancing*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you set the church apart from a mainstream of theology that is "now." You have countered your own claim.
Click to expand...


Yes, I have set the "church" apart from the mainstream of errant theology (i.e. not the church)


----------



## Pergamum

panta dokimazete said:


> I guess what I am trying to say is that the church, through technology advancements, is able to expand the common culture more efficiently than ever before.



No, I actually think that more gooder theology is going to more people moreso than at any period of the history of the world. Our "divines" are not inferiors to the theologians of the Westminster days. We are making advances not only in practice and scope of our faith, but in quality as well.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I have set the "church" apart from the mainstream of errant theology (i.e. not the church)



But that errant theology is a part of the "right now" which you have have claimed to be "the height of theological knowledge."


----------



## panta dokimazete

Pergamum said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what I am trying to say is that the church, through technology advancements, is able to expand the common culture more efficiently than ever before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually think that more gooder theology is going to more people moreso than at any period of the history of the world. Our "divines" are not inferiors to the theologians of the Westminster days. We are making advances not only in practice and scope of our faith, but in quality as well.
Click to expand...


Right, and the advancement of our "more gooder" theology to more people is being greatly facilitated by the Internet as a knowledge resource, aggregator and disseminator.


----------



## Pergamum

So? I am talking about the height of good theologic not gathering averages. In the Reformation there was much greater popery and false belief...


----------



## TimV

> The Orthodox and Catholic communities among the Muslim world are largely insulated closed-off bodies of believers. The largest recent growth among the unreached Muslim groups have been from evangelicals.



And what do Spain, Portugal, Greece, Macedonia, Hungary, Georgia, Arminia, Ossetia, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria and a dozen others I could name if it weren't so late?




> The majority of professing Christians now come from the Global South to include Africa, India, etc and almost all of these had missionaries come under the flag of trading companies and national powers. Many of the European countries became Catholic or eastern orthodox because their lands became catholic or eatern orthodox.



So no answer?


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> So? I am talking about the height of good theologic not gathering averages. In the Reformation there was much greater popery and false belief...



Yes, and true hearted followers of the Christian faith and life aligned themseves to the Reformation theology, not in the bewildering notion that their present offered the height of theological knowledge, but because it is true.


----------



## Pergamum

panta dokimazete said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess what I am trying to say is that the church, through technology advancements, is able to expand the common culture more efficiently than ever before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually think that more gooder theology is going to more people moreso than at any period of the history of the world. Our "divines" are not inferiors to the theologians of the Westminster days. We are making advances not only in practice and scope of our faith, but in quality as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, and the advancement of our "more gooder" theology to more people is being greatly facilitated by the Internet as a knowledge resource, aggregator and disseminator.
Click to expand...


Hmmm...I am not sure thatmakesmy point though because the net (like the Roman road) is only a means to get the GOspel to others easier, but does not change the quantity of believers necessarily or the quality or surety or clarity of our beliefs to all peoples and languages.


----------



## Prufrock

I don't know: let's rejoice in the forward spread of the gospel, in the growing re-interest in orthodox reformed theology and practice, and be grateful for the understanding that we've gained from the Reformation and since the Reformation -- for the godly fear which this knowledge has taught us, the godly practice which it has produced, and the godly teachers that continue to teach us and others today. I mean, this website alone has 663 reasons (according to the members list) that I am confident about the "theological state" of today -- Christ's church will always find itself in a world of unbelief and corrupt teaching (Just think of what the apostles and their successors had to deal with!), but he is always at the head, and we should rejoice in the time in which he has placed us in the world where we, the church, can serve as his witness. There's my 2 cents.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV said:


> The Orthodox and Catholic communities among the Muslim world are largely insulated closed-off bodies of believers. The largest recent growth among the unreached Muslim groups have been from evangelicals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what do Spain, Portugal, Greece, Macedonia, Hungary, Georgia, Arminia, Ossetia, Serbia, Croatia, Bulgaria and a dozen others I could name if it weren't so late?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of professing Christians now come from the Global South to include Africa, India, etc and almost all of these had missionaries come under the flag of trading companies and national powers. Many of the European countries became Catholic or eastern orthodox because their lands became catholic or eatern orthodox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So no answer?
Click to expand...


The Catholic lands and Orthodox largely fought the Muslims but did not effectively evangelize them.

Again, the majority of beleivers are now in the Global South and their first contact with Christianity was often by traing ships of the colonial powers.


----------



## Prufrock

I think after hundreds of years of thought we _can_ see farther than they did then; not because we're better, but because of their work.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Pergamum said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I actually think that more gooder theology is going to more people moreso than at any period of the history of the world. Our "divines" are not inferiors to the theologians of the Westminster days. We are making advances not only in practice and scope of our faith, but in quality as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and the advancement of our "more gooder" theology to more people is being greatly facilitated by the Internet as a knowledge resource, aggregator and disseminator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm...I am not sure thatmakesmy point though because the net (like the Roman road) is only a means to get the GOspel to others easier, but does not change the quantity of believers necessarily or the quality or surety or clarity of our beliefs to all peoples and languages.
Click to expand...


The road is broader, faster and better  - but hey, it's all good, my brother.


----------



## TimV

> The Catholic lands and Orthodox largely fought the Muslims but did not effectively evangelize them.



That is historically way, way off. If you start reading about the subject you will find whole population groups now at least nominally Christian who were Muslim, and in places like Russia and Spain mass baptisms of Muslim converts.


----------



## Pergamum

For those who do not think that the Gospel is always advancing, was the Teformation an advance? And do all advances end at the Reformation?

In a sense all "advance" is really getting back to the NT, but our knowlege of that era has increased this century moreso than in the middle ages under Rome and even moreso since the Reformation.

Also, the Bible is being translated into many languages. I would assert that a worldwide church of many languages is not merely an advance in quantity but also of quality. A global perspective of the Gospel is an qualitative advance over a description of the Gospel forged in Europe.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> For those who do not think that the Gospel is always advancing, was the Teformation an advance? And do all advances end at the Reformation?



The problem is not with the concept that the gospel is advancing, but with your criterion for determining an advancing gospel. The latter end of a timeline is not a valid criterion. Ephesus lost its candlestick. We deem that the Reformation brought the church out of darkness because it shone the light of the truth on the church, not because the sixteenth century happens to be later than the fifteenth century.


----------



## Pergamum

Are you postmil? I am assuming a victorious Gospel over the whole earth. All that "Jesus shall reign where'r the sun..." stuff.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> Are you postmil? I am assuming a victorious Gospel over the whole earth. All that "Jesus shall reign where'r the sun..." stuff.



When I see Jesus reigning in Christendom's theological institutions I will know that we are in a glorious age of church history.


----------



## Pergamum

What is Christendom?


----------



## Theognome

Heh. This whole thread might be better in an eschatology forum...

Is it possible to address the reflection without the filter of an eschatologically driven worldview? Can the Amils, Postmils and Premils take static snapshots of history and make assertions based on the evidence thus presented? 

When I attempt to do this, I find myself not marveling at advances, but yawning at the staticness of it all. Apostolic Church? They had their theological wars, indeed. Early Church? My what a list of problematic scratching posts. Medieval Church? More of the same, just new labels... And on, and on, and on, right to this age... and beyond.

If you make something idiot proof, they will develop a new and improved idiot. The various heresies available today are nothing more than variations on worn-out themes- and the response to them is as unchangeable as God's word. Thus I wouldn't call it advancement of Theology as much as I would call it diligence. We're not to be tossed to and fro by foolishness, but rather are to test all things according to Scripture; reveal Biblical absurdity as it's current incarnation arises, and look forward to the time when Christ shall come again to realize His perfection throughout the earth.

Theognome


----------



## SolaScriptura

armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said in my OP that we are so blessed because we stand on the shoulders of past giants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing on the shoulders of past giants means taking up the system which they taught; by denying much of what they taught, as in the case of modern theological science (falsely so-called), one stomps on their toes.
Click to expand...


Hogwash.
All it means is that we benefit from their work. We have the benefit of taking their thoughts and considerations into account when we do our thinking. In other words, they keep us from having to start at ground zero.

I'd pit the best of our scholars up against the best Puritan era scholar any day.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Look, I know this is a site dedicated to coming up just short of reverencing the Puritans and (apparently) their Age. 

But good grief. They're touted here by some as virtual Masters of the Science of God, but they couldn't even figure out that if they washed their hands they could almost double their life expectancy. Or that "letting the bad blood out" of the sick didn't work. I'm not trying to say that the Puritans' work is useless (far from it! Not to mention that such an attempt would be sheer folly in this venue!), but again, good grief. They were just men. Fallible men who were just as influenced by their wretched culture as we are by ours.


----------



## MW

SolaScriptura said:


> But good grief. They're touted here by some as virtual Masters of the Science of God, but they couldn't even figure out that if they washed their hands they could almost double their life expectancy. Or that "letting the bad blood out" of the sick didn't work. I'm not trying to say that the Puritans' work is useless (far from it! Not to mention that such an attempt would be sheer folly in this venue!), but again, good grief. They were just men. Fallible men who were just as influenced by their wretched culture as we are by ours.



Thankyou for clarifying yet again the ill founded nature of many criticisms of the Puritans. Imagine making a person's views of medicine, with no authoritative source for its science, a criterion for judging a person's views of theology, which is supposedly based on Sola Scriptura.


----------



## tellville

Pergamum said:


> No, I'm not just try to stir up poo-poo.....
> 
> 
> 
> But here goes:
> 
> My assertion is that right now is the *height of theological knowledge*.
> 
> 
> 
> We need not look back at any "glory age" because right now we
> 
> (1) not only have the shoulders of those men to stand on,
> (2) and we also have made "advances" in theology, archaeology, manuscripts, and exegesis even. The current commentaries are the best, the current manuscript evidence the best, the field of missiology is blooming like never before and the current knowledge of social conditions of the NT era are the best and our ability to communicate freely and exchange theological ideas without being killed by those who differ with us is the best.
> 
> I assert that all arguments that "people are not as wise as the divines" are wrong and that our best "divines" are not inferior to those in that age.
> 
> We can glean from the past, but I am happy to be living in this relative age of knowledge that makes even the days of the Reformation dark and ignorant (okay okay, this last statement is largely rhetorical).
> 
> 
> 
> Agree? Disagree? Lemme hear ya.



Good post Pergy.

I agree.

I haven't read every post but I know many disagree with you Pergy.

I personally think that any one who doesn't agree with you just has an ideal view of history. Except for maybe the apostles who got their information straight from the source, and maybe a few people directly after them, I think we are better off. 

Most people here I think are thinking about the _general_ state of the church and go "no way, no one knows anything, how can today be the pinnacle!!". But that's the wrong thinking. We need to compare apples to apples. The leading scholars and theologians today (and we can just look at Reformed ones if we want, though I'm not) have access to an incredible breadth of knowledge. Our knowledge of the ancient world, advances in textual data, standing on the shoulders of giants, the ability to communicate effortlessly, reading theology done by people who aren't just dead Europeans or their descendants (this is one of the best reasons), etc. What Pergy said, etc.

Sure the Puritans and the Reformers were saturated in the Biblical text and made it their life and probably knew the text inside and out and even knew church fathers and stuff. But their knowledge of foreign cultures was practically zip. Their knowledge of archaeology would have been very low. The questions they were asking and answering were very European thus limiting their applicability and scope. Not every culture thinks of theology in the "systematic" way we do. Read a Biblical theology from writers from Africa or Asia and be astounded. 

There are also many more opportunities now to be informed. An average lay person in the pew today could learn on their own almost anything a scholar knows. Try learning this stuff on your own even a hundred years ago - not happening. Sure, many people aren't doing it. But then again, that's only if you believe census data and really think there are 2 billion Christians on the planet. In reality, there is much less, and out of true believers I think we are in much better theological shape then any other age. 

I could go to my university and read a thesis, an entire thesis, on a word or phrase in the Bible! That can be over a hundred to two hundred pages or even more depending on what kind of thesis it is. And this thesis would include more information than most Christians would ever have even known in a lifetime. And there are thousands upon thousands of thesis' like this. Not to mention the plethora of books one can buy on every topic, which address every nuance and possibility there is. 

We are at the pinnacle and we as believers should take advantage of this. We have NO excuses today. 

Anyway, I don't know how much that made sense. And given some of the replies I've been reading probably not well received. But I think we are living in a golden age and I think WE are squandering it horribly.


----------



## KMK

Theologians do not work in a vacuum. I do not think the Reformers were any smarter or more informed than modern theologians, but they were a product of the time in which they lived. The Reformers were tried in the fire of persecution. By and large, modern theologians are a product of modernistic and post-modernistic times. The former resulted in unity, whereas the latter seems to work in doscord.


----------



## MW

Pergamum said:


> What is Christendom?



The collective Christian world.


----------



## Spinningplates2

If knowledge is suppose to be increasing as we get nearer to the end of the Age, then how can we not be in the best age.


----------



## timmopussycat

Pergamum said:


> No, I'm not just try to stir up poo-poo.....
> 
> 
> But here goes:
> 
> My assertion is that right now is the *height of theological knowledge*.
> 
> We need not look back at any "glory age" because right now we
> 
> (1) not only have the shoulders of those men to stand on,
> (2) and we also have made "advances" in theology, archaeology, manuscripts, and exegesis even. The current commentaries are the best, the current manuscript evidence the best, the field of missiology is blooming like never before and the current knowledge of social conditions of the NT era are the best and our ability to communicate freely and exchange theological ideas without being killed by those who differ with us is the best.
> 
> I assert that all arguments that "people are not as wise as the divines" are wrong and that our best "divines" are not inferior to those in that age.
> 
> We can glean from the past, but I am happy to be living in this relative age of knowledge that makes even the days of the Reformation dark and ignorant (okay okay, this last statement is largely rhetorical).
> 
> Agree? Disagree? Lemme hear ya.



In theory you might be right as far as you go but you do not go far enough. We have a lot of advantages available to us today that any Protestant age has not had and the church is having a far greater impact against Islam than in previous ages, but as JI Packer wrote some years ago, in the West the church has lost the ability to apply its theological knowledge in such a way that the civil laws of nations run (broadly speaking) within the gospel ethic.


----------



## Spinningplates2

*If not now, when?*



armourbearer said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I have set the "church" apart from the mainstream of errant theology (i.e. not the church)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that errant theology is a part of the "right now" which you have have claimed to be "the height of theological knowledge."
Click to expand...


With your above post you seem to imply that because this age has "errant theology" it can't be the height of theological knowledge. Could you please tell me when there has been less "errant theology." Please help me, because I would love to study that time period. I don't think it is fair to Pergamum for people to say, "I don't know when but I know it's not now."


----------



## YXU

No matter how much "knowledge" we have, and how many contemporary scholars we have, if the result is not the increasing fear of God, they are all vanity.


----------



## Spinningplates2

YXU said:


> No matter how much "knowledge" we have, and how many contemporary scholars we have, if the result is not the increasing fear of God, they are all vanity.



So what is the age you think is the best?


----------



## Mushroom

The Lord is preparing His Bride for Himself. She will be without spot or wrinkle. Every day that we get closer to that day is a better one than the day before. We can look back and see the faithfulness of our God in carrying out the redemption of His people throughout the ages from the very beginning onward, in ever-increasing measure. We are not to look back and see one period or another as a golden age that we would long to return to, but to take heart that even when things don't appear by sight to be all that grand in the present, they are all working together towards a glorious conclusion. We walk by faith, not by sight. And the faith that comes from God looks forward, knowing that the best is yet to come, peaks and valleys along the way notwithstanding.

So why would this be an issue?


----------



## py3ak

SolaScriptura said:


> Look, I know this is a site dedicated to coming up just short of reverencing the Puritans and (apparently) their Age.
> 
> But good grief. They're touted here by some as virtual Masters of the Science of God, but they couldn't even figure out that if they washed their hands they could almost double their life expectancy. Or that "letting the bad blood out" of the sick didn't work. I'm not trying to say that the Puritans' work is useless (far from it! Not to mention that such an attempt would be sheer folly in this venue!), but again, good grief. They were just men. Fallible men who were just as influenced by their wretched culture as we are by ours.



So to chronological snobbery we now add medical snobbery? Perhaps we have advanced since Puritan times, but I wonder how many of the Puritans would have used an argument this feeble?


----------



## greenbaggins

SolaScriptura said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said in my OP that we are so blessed because we stand on the shoulders of past giants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing on the shoulders of past giants means taking up the system which they taught; by denying much of what they taught, as in the case of modern theological science (falsely so-called), one stomps on their toes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> All it means is that we benefit from their work. We have the benefit of taking their thoughts and considerations into account when we do our thinking. In other words, they keep us from having to start at ground zero.
> 
> I'd pit the best of our scholars up against the best Puritan era scholar any day.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, they would lose unless they had their computers. John Owen, for instance, not only had the complete Bible memorized in the original languages, but knew the classics and all the rabbinical literature backwards and forwards as well.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I think some of their arguments about certain things were far more feeble. 

The point was cognitive process. The things I mentioned were things that simple observation could have told them. But they didn't see things to look a certain way because their culture conditioned them to see things a certain way. And certainly some - many - of their theological pronouncements were arrived at in similar fashion. And their culture was just as vile as ours, just as given to lack of education - more so actually, and just as hostile to the true gospel. 

Quit with the chronological snobbery whine. No one said that things are better just because they're new or worse just because they're old. At least I didn't say that. But listen, kettle, chronological snobbery works both ways... Just because something is old doesn't mean it is better either. And don't give me this "the Puritans have stood the test of time" line. Most of them were and still are totally obscure to any and all but a small few. So just because you find a half faded book in a dusty library and proceed to republish it doesn't mean that it has "stood the test of time." 

Sorry to rant, but I do get tired whenever I hear someone act like a certain group has "arrived." Usually I'm giving this same rant to my evangelical friends regarding their affinity for whatever new thing comes out. But I don't like such snobbery even when it is in regards to the Puritans.


----------



## SolaScriptura

greenbaggins said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standing on the shoulders of past giants means taking up the system which they taught; by denying much of what they taught, as in the case of modern theological science (falsely so-called), one stomps on their toes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> All it means is that we benefit from their work. We have the benefit of taking their thoughts and considerations into account when we do our thinking. In other words, they keep us from having to start at ground zero.
> 
> I'd pit the best of our scholars up against the best Puritan era scholar any day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, they would lose unless they had their computers. John Owen, for instance, not only had the complete Bible memorized in the original languages, but knew the classics and all the rabbinical literature backwards and forwards as well.
Click to expand...


For all Owen's memorizing, it didn't help him arrive at correct ecclesiology, now did it?

Modern theologians have the ability to benefit from Owen's work as well as all the subsequent responses, so when they make doctrinal pronouncements they are able to build upon Owen in a way that Owen couldn't. 

I for one don't think that the need for theologians and teachers in the church has been replaced by a need for research librarians.


----------



## py3ak

SolaScriptura said:


> I think some of their arguments about certain things were far more feeble.
> 
> The point was cognitive process. The things I mentioned were things that simple observation could have told them. But they didn't see things to look a certain way because their culture conditioned them to see things a certain way. And certainly some - many - of their theological pronouncements were arrived at in similar fashion. And their culture was just as vile as ours, just as given to lack of education - more so actually, and just as hostile to the true gospel.
> 
> Quit with the chronological snobbery whine. No one said that things are better just because they're new or worse just because they're old. At least I didn't say that. But listen, kettle, chronological snobbery works both ways... Just because something is old doesn't mean it is better either. And don't give me this "the Puritans have stood the test of time" line. Most of them were and still are totally obscure to any and all but a small few. So just because you find a half faded book in a dusty library and proceed to republish it doesn't mean that it has "stood the test of time."
> 
> Sorry to rant, but I do get tired whenever I hear someone act like a certain group has "arrived." Usually I'm giving this same rant to my evangelical friends regarding their affinity for whatever new thing comes out. But I don't like such snobbery even when it is in regards to the Puritans.



Buddy, I suggest that if you were _sorry_ to rant you wouldn't do so.


----------



## greenbaggins

SolaScriptura said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> All it means is that we benefit from their work. We have the benefit of taking their thoughts and considerations into account when we do our thinking. In other words, they keep us from having to start at ground zero.
> 
> I'd pit the best of our scholars up against the best Puritan era scholar any day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, they would lose unless they had their computers. John Owen, for instance, not only had the complete Bible memorized in the original languages, but knew the classics and all the rabbinical literature backwards and forwards as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For all Owen's memorizing, it didn't help him arrive at correct ecclesiology, now did it?
> 
> Modern theologians have the ability to benefit from Owen's work as well as all the subsequent responses, so when they make doctrinal pronouncements they are able to build upon Owen in a way that Owen couldn't.
> 
> I for one don't think that the need for theologians and teachers in the church has been replaced by a need for research librarians.
Click to expand...


But then, there are scads of moderns with incorrect ecclesiology, too, so what does that prove? I have yet to find the quotation in Calvin, but he said that any theologian can be at most %80 correct. Chalk up ecclesiology to Owen's %20 wrong. That doesn't mean he's inferior to moderns. Lewis had the best take on all this. Every age makes different errors. That is why it is so helpful to read older books, because even though they make errors, they won't make the same errors that we make. Yes, we can stand on the shoulders of those who came before. However, that hasn't prevented the horrible fractionalization of theology in seminaries today, which is probably our age's number one problem. We can't see the forests for the trees. Earlier ages had no problems with that.


----------



## Mushroom

Man, you guys can argue about some pretty immaterial stuff. I'll have to leave this thread alone. I'm too busy counting the angels dancing on the head of this pin....


----------



## SolaScriptura

Lane - 

You're right, Owen was brilliant. But just as the brilliance of a relative few luminaries in the age of the Fathers doesn't qualify that period for consideration as "the best," neither does the presence of those bright lights in the 16th and 17th Centuries.


----------



## tellville

Brad said:


> Man, you guys can argue about some pretty immaterial stuff. I'll have to leave this thread alone. I'm too busy counting the angels dancing on the head of this pin....



That's why we have a discussion board to begin with  Anything is game!


----------



## greenbaggins

Right, and that's why I don't think any age is the best, either the Puritan or the modern, or the early church fathers. I think that's pretty hard to judge, don't you think? But the problem with the modern age is that we have way too much information for anyone to digest it all. An Owen could have been master of the whole field of theology. That isn't possible anymore, unfortunately, which means that something always gets missed. The multiplication of knowledge has resulted in its atomization (by the way, this is what I am working on for my Ph.D. thesis).


----------



## MW

Spinningplates2 said:


> With your above post you seem to imply that because this age has "errant theology" it can't be the height of theological knowledge. Could you please tell me when there has been less "errant theology." Please help me, because I would love to study that time period. I don't think it is fair to Pergamum for people to say, "I don't know when but I know it's not now."



The point is that the mere accumulation of facts is not in and of itself a sound criterion for saying we have reached a height of theological knowledge. The current predomination of errant theology is proof positive of that point. I don't need to offer an alternative in order to prove his thesis wrong; but if I were to offer an alternative, and being a Presbyterian, I would have to say that the formulation and adoption of the Westminster Standards provided a height of confessional attainment which is unprecedented in the Christian church. After the Revolution in 1690 until the challenge to Calvinist orthodoxy in the 19th century, these were the accepted standards of Presbyterianism.


----------



## SolaScriptura

greenbaggins said:


> Right, and that's why I don't think any age is the best, either the Puritan or the modern, or the early church fathers. I think that's pretty hard to judge, don't you think? But the problem with the modern age is that we have way too much information for anyone to digest it all. An Owen could have been master of the whole field of theology. That isn't possible anymore, unfortunately, which means that something always gets missed. The multiplication of knowledge has resulted in its atomization (by the way, this is what I am working on for my Ph.D. thesis).



From what institution are you pursuing your PhD?


----------



## Pergamum

Ben's quote:

_I for one don't think that the need for theologians and teachers in the church has been replaced by a need for research librarians. _ sums a lot up. 

We are doing good theology now, benefitting from the old and even sharpening that material with the new, and in the process the Church moves forward and actually advances throughout history in both expansiveness and also theological depth. 


Error is not a new thing and still operates but we (the collective church as a whole) now know a lot MORE (yes, I said it) than the Puritans do because he have them, and we have a whole lot more.

I think the Universal church becomes qualitatively better as the Gospel penetrates Africa and Asia and is translated into many languages. I think the church is advancing in commentaries, linguistics, manuscripts, knowlege of the social background, and the general educational level of the world is higher than it ever has been, plus the church is not usually wedded to the state now.

I think Mark Maney's post sums up my view even better than I can communicate it.


I agree with Solomon in Ecclesiastes 7:10:

_Say not, "Why were the former days better than these?"
For it is not from wisdom that you ask this._





p.s. this post is also related to psychology. Man's psyche seems prone to create "Golden Ages."

Every era has many problems and a mix of good and bad people. With the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the Reformation, we selectively pick the ideals and forget about the rest and then forget that these ideal folks that we advertize were often not the norm or average for that era. i.e. America just following the American Revolution was a godless place it seems but most think of that colonial era as a Golden Age. And venereal disease rates and rapes were common in the civil war and yet we only remember the valor of that war and not this or that fully 1/4th to 1/3rd of the army were deserters. We are revisionist in our histories I think and I think many on the PB hold a revisionist view of the Reformation, especially when anabaptists were being drowned and witch burnings were common in England and actually increased around the time of the Reformation. That era had its warts too.


----------



## greenbaggins

SolaScriptura said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, and that's why I don't think any age is the best, either the Puritan or the modern, or the early church fathers. I think that's pretty hard to judge, don't you think? But the problem with the modern age is that we have way too much information for anyone to digest it all. An Owen could have been master of the whole field of theology. That isn't possible anymore, unfortunately, which means that something always gets missed. The multiplication of knowledge has resulted in its atomization (by the way, this is what I am working on for my Ph.D. thesis).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From what institution are you pursuing your PhD?
Click to expand...


I am writing it first, then applying to the school. Probably a British school, but I haven't applied yet, and am therefore not quite sure which one will work best. Still scouting that out.


----------



## MW

John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians 1:20:



> for whatever a man knows and understands, is mere vanity, if it is not grounded in true wisdom; and it is in no degree better fitted for the apprehension of spiritual doctrine than the eye of a blind man is for discriminating colours. We must carefully notice these two things -- that a knowledge of all the sciences is mere smoke, where the heavenly science of Christ is wanting; and man, with all his acuteness, is as stupid for obtaining of himself a knowledge of the mysteries of God, as an ass is unqualified for understanding musical harmonies.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

One thing the Puritans did for us was help us define our soteriology. Our beloved understanding of Covenant Theology came from this period more defined and qualitatively better than the ages before. In the following era's it has been largely under attack. In fact our solid foundation in God's word was made better by the likes of these men who wrote on the Law and Gospel distincitons which are understood in our doctrine of the Covenants. The blood that was spilt during these times is a testimony to the importance and work that was done. I am not so sure that our modern systematic theologies are any better. In fact, I think Grudem is case and point that there had to be a dumming down for the modern reader.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

And the Reformed Confessions / Catechisms are much better in biblical understanding and teaching than what many of the evangelical schools are teaching today.


----------



## charliejunfan

I think the thing that makes the divines stand out is that any one of them could articulate almost as much alone as four of our current theologians put together.....hmmm, maybe that is a little stretch. They just had more eloquence in there presentation of what they knew, and what fashionable styles of dress! lol


----------



## TimV

> We are revisionist in our histories I think and I think many on the PB hold a revisionist view of the Reformation, especially when anabaptists were being drowned and witch burnings were common in England and actually increased around the time of the Reformation.



But since you're from a Baptist background working with a largely Baptist group, how would you know what is revisionism and what isn't? {Edited by moderator: Too harsh.} King James authorized torture with witches in Scotland. Was he a Puritan? Or did have a particular hatred for Puritans? William and Mary were much more Reformed than any of the Stewards, but were there any witches burnt during their reign? Don't you think those are important questions? Have you really studied the matter or are you just passing on impressions you've been exposed to due to your Baptist environment?


----------



## kvanlaan

> Look, I know this is a site dedicated to coming up just short of reverencing the Puritans and (apparently) their Age.
> 
> But good grief. *They're touted here by some as virtual Masters of the Science of God, but they couldn't even figure out that if they washed their hands they could almost double their life expectancy. Or that "letting the bad blood out" of the sick didn't work.* I'm not trying to say that the Puritans' work is useless (far from it! Not to mention that such an attempt would be sheer folly in this venue!), but again, good grief. They were just men. Fallible men who were just as influenced by their wretched culture as we are by ours.



Sorry, I had to laugh at this. So because they didn't have indoor plumbing, they weren't the theologians they could be. Because they did not have knowldege of the jet engine, they were somehow bereft of true theological clarity. Um...

What I do see in their lives is a dedication that is incredibly rare now. And surely we know that for every Owen whose words were committed to paper, there were five (or fifteen or even fifty) farmers in Cromwell's ranks who lived lives and catechised their households in a way that made some Divines look like libertines.

We often argue over points of Christian liberty now in a way that would suggest that we are straining at our Christ-applied fetters for some sort of secular freedom that we cannot find in Him. But put to many of these men (especially the unknowns) the answer would be simple: Why on earth would I want to play at bowls on the Sabbath while I could be contemplating Christ's glory/re-reading my favorite passage for the 99th time/delving into the catechism/singing psalms with my family? Why lose even a moment of that bliss? Can we not admit that such an attitude almost unheard of?


----------



## turmeric

> Say not thou, What is _the cause _that the former dayes were better than these? For thou doest not inquire wisely concerning this.


 *Ecclesiastes VII : 10 KJV 1611*


----------



## Pergamum

TimV said:


> We are revisionist in our histories I think and I think many on the PB hold a revisionist view of the Reformation, especially when anabaptists were being drowned and witch burnings were common in England and actually increased around the time of the Reformation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But since you're from a Baptist background working with a largely Baptist group, how would you know what is revisionism and what isn't? Baptists aren't part of the main stream of Christianity. King James authorized torture with witches in Scotland. Was he a Puritan? Or did have a particular hatred for Puritans? William and Mary were much more Reformed than any of the Stewards, but were there any witches burnt during their reign? Don't you think those are important questions? Have you really studied the matter or are you just passing on impressions you've been exposed to due to your Baptist environment?
Click to expand...



What's with all the accusations of King James hating? What's with the charges of me hating anyone? 



The height of the European witch craze coincided with the Protestant Reformation (about 1550-1650 was the height of what many call "The Killing Times and many of the witch burnings were done in areas where Protestantism/Catholicism was contested). Since you have charged me with ignorance, know that I actually audited a course on witchcraft and have a copy of the classic The Malleus Maleficarum on my other computer. William and Mary took power about 30 years after 1650 I think and so they would have occurred after the height of the witch craze, and most witches were killed in Germany anyway, but we could start another thread about witch burnings and the Reformation if you would like.


----------



## turmeric

Tim V. King James was not a puritan - he was the Temporal Head of the Anglican Church. He lived in the early part of the 17th Century. He was succeeded by King Charles I whose reign was interrupted by the English Civil War. William & Mary were Protestant (not Puritan) and were called in after James II was deposed for trying to restore the Anglican Church to the Roman Church. Protestants and Catholics burned suspected witches during this time.

*MODERATOR NOTE: Let's not call each other ignorant, particularly because of being Baptist - that's uncharitable. Ignorance does not reside in the credo- or paedobaptist tradition. MODERATOR OFF*


----------



## CDM

SolaScriptura said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said in my OP that we are so blessed because we stand on the shoulders of past giants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standing on the shoulders of past giants means taking up the system which they taught; by denying much of what they taught, as in the case of modern theological science (falsely so-called), one stomps on their toes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hogwash.
> All it means is that we benefit from their work. We have the benefit of taking their thoughts and considerations into account when we do our thinking. In other words, they keep us from having to start at ground zero.
> 
> *I'd pit the best of our scholars up against the best Puritan era scholar any day.*
Click to expand...


Interesting. If you have a moment, would you please list, in your opinion, the best of "our scholars". Just curious.


----------



## TimV

> What's with all the accusations of King James hating? What's with the charges of me hating anyone?



King James was not a Puritan, but he reigned during the time of the Reformation. You said people on the PB are often revisionist. You are mixing things up. You are doing the equivalent of saying that since there was a spike in Jew killing during WW2 and since the US was part of WW2 Americans were part of a spike in Jew killings.



> The height of the European witch craze coincided with the Protestant Reformation (about 1550-1650 was the height of what many call "The Killing Times and many of the witch burnings were done in areas where Protestantism/Catholicism was contested).



You are still doing it.



> Since you have charged me with ignorance, know that I actually audited a course on witchcraft and have a copy of the classic The Malleus Maleficarum on my other computer.



I don't know if it's ignorance. Or bearding the lion. Or what. I trust you know that the Malleus Maleficarum was written by Catholics. Perhaps you could connect the dots.

I have a copy of a book written my Catholics that contributed to burning witches

The book was written during the time of the Reformation.

Many PBers are revisionist because they don't realise many witches were burnt during the time of the Reformation.

Therefore PBers should not be so proud of Puritan theolgians

Do I have that right?


----------



## TimV

> William & Mary were Protestant (not Puritan)



Meg, it's a case of set and subsets. All Puritans, Lutherans etc.. were Protestant. William was part of a subset of Protestants called Calvinists.


----------



## Spinningplates2

armourbearer said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> .... Could you please tell me when there has been less "errant theology." Please help me, because I would love to study that time period. I don't think it is fair to Pergamum for people to say, "I don't know when but I know it's not now."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .... After the Revolution in 1690 until the challenge to Calvinist orthodoxy in the 19th century, these were the accepted standards of Presbyterianism.
Click to expand...


Thank you, for your response. I can see how that time period could be seen as a Golden Age. My reasons for thinking this age is the best have only been based on advancements in Creation Science and what I see a more proof for a Creator. 

I love your answer armourbearer and honor the memory of those great men and women.


----------



## TheFleshProfitethNothing

One should be careful in what they call "the church". There are many including myself that believe we are in "the great falling away" (or Great Apostasy). But, I will limit my self to that general statement, and most likely will not respond to any questions to it.
Just throwing that out that perhaps people might give it some serious thought.


----------



## Hippo

I think that it is very difficult to seperate theology from the state of the Church as it is the Church that is the vessel through which "good" theology is recognised. It is very hard now to develop theology as it is very difficult to envisage the Church being in a position to exercise its office in this respect.

It is this aspect of independancy which is problematic as while confessionalism can allow such congregations to function as a part of the Church it hinders the proper development of theology. Even in presbyterian circles the denominations are so fragmented that in reality we have independant denominations rather than independant congregations. The puritans managed to address this problem by having a high view of the visible Church, even in the midst of independancy, a view which is no longer popular in the bulk of Christendom.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV said:


> What's with all the accusations of King James hating? What's with the charges of me hating anyone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> King James was not a Puritan, but he reigned during the time of the Reformation. You said people on the PB are often revisionist. You are mixing things up. You are doing the equivalent of saying that since there was a spike in Jew killing during WW2 and since the US was part of WW2 Americans were part of a spike in Jew killings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The height of the European witch craze coincided with the Protestant Reformation (about 1550-1650 was the height of what many call "The Killing Times and many of the witch burnings were done in areas where Protestantism/Catholicism was contested).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are still doing it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you have charged me with ignorance, know that I actually audited a course on witchcraft and have a copy of the classic The Malleus Maleficarum on my other computer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if it's ignorance. Or bearding the lion. Or what. I trust you know that the Malleus Maleficarum was written by Catholics. Perhaps you could connect the dots.
> 
> I have a copy of a book written my Catholics that contributed to burning witches
> 
> The book was written during the time of the Reformation.
> 
> Many PBers are revisionist because they don't realise many witches were burnt during the time of the Reformation.
> 
> Therefore PBers should not be so proud of Puritan theolgians
> 
> Do I have that right?
Click to expand...



The Protestants killed their fair share too. In fact, Germany was the area of the most witch-killings. Wherever "Christendom" was most divided between Protestant and Catholic is where the most folks were accused of witchery.



My point is valid: 

That there is something in man's psyche that makes him especially prone in idealizing the past and only remembering the good. 


Man is psychologically predisposed to believing in past Golden Ages...


.... but I say that the best time to be a Christian is now and there are more Christians than ever before and that tiny Mustard Seed is growing to be the bigget tree in the whole world.

We are in an age where there are not only the most Christians, but Christians in the most nations (one instance where multiculturalism is a good thing and a qualitative advance), where we can benefit from the age of the Puritans and even go further than them by standing on their shoulders, where we have excelled in linguistics, manuscripts and the background data of the bible and where some of our finest theologians have written commentaries that rival anything written in the past.


----------



## Pergamum

kvanlaan said:


> Look, I know this is a site dedicated to coming up just short of reverencing the Puritans and (apparently) their Age.
> 
> But good grief. *They're touted here by some as virtual Masters of the Science of God, but they couldn't even figure out that if they washed their hands they could almost double their life expectancy. Or that "letting the bad blood out" of the sick didn't work.* I'm not trying to say that the Puritans' work is useless (far from it! Not to mention that such an attempt would be sheer folly in this venue!), but again, good grief. They were just men. Fallible men who were just as influenced by their wretched culture as we are by ours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, I had to laugh at this. So because they didn't have indoor plumbing, they weren't the theologians they could be. Because they did not have knowldege of the jet engine, they were somehow bereft of true theological clarity. Um...
> 
> What I do see in their lives is a dedication that is incredibly rare now. And surely we know that for every Owen whose words were committed to paper, there were five (or fifteen or even fifty) farmers in Cromwell's ranks who lived lives and catechised their households in a way that made some Divines look like libertines.
> 
> We often argue over points of Christian liberty now in a way that would suggest that we are straining at our Christ-applied fetters for some sort of secular freedom that we cannot find in Him. But put to many of these men (especially the unknowns) the answer would be simple: Why on earth would I want to play at bowls on the Sabbath while I could be contemplating Christ's glory/re-reading my favorite passage for the 99th time/delving into the catechism/singing psalms with my family? Why lose even a moment of that bliss? Can we not admit that such an attitude almost unheard of?
Click to expand...


Just imagine old Johnny Calvin's face if we resurrected him, gave him an IPOD and stuck him in New York City! 


No, I think you are right - medical and science advances are not the same as theological advance. 

Instead of appearing before the Queen maybe John Know could have just sent her an SMS and William Ferel could have just slashed Calvin's tires instead of putting him under a curse if he didn't stay in Geneva. Luther at Worms could have worn a flak jacket and Tetzel could have his own tv station (TBN - the Tetzel Broadcasting Network).....


----------



## Prufrock

> Instead of appearing before the Queen maybe John Know could have just sent her an SMS and William Ferel could have just slashed Calvin's tires instead of putting him under a curse if he didn't stay in Geneva. Luther at Worms could have worn a flak jacket and Tetzel could have his own tv station (TBN - the Tetzel Broadcasting Network).....



How delightful that history book would be to read.


----------



## CDM

> Man is psychologically predisposed to believing in past Golden Ages...



If that is true, I assume Man is psychologically predisposed to believing he is intelectually & morally superior to those in past ages, too.


----------



## TimV

> The Protestants killed their fair share too. In fact, Germany was the area of the most witch-killings. Wherever "Christendom" was most divided between Protestant and Catholic is where the most folks were accused of witchery



That doesn't even rise to the level of nice try. You started this thread talking about the "divines" i.e. those Calvinistic scholars who put together the WCF. No one here is interested in excusing Catholics and Lutherans. Even today in Europe, people use the word Reformed to distinguish between themselves and Catholics and Lutherans.


----------



## Pergamum

mangum said:


> Man is psychologically predisposed to believing in past Golden Ages...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is true, I assume Man is psychologically predisposed to believing he is intelectually & morally superior to those in past ages, too.
Click to expand...


If you listened to the wisdom of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, he only mentions my perspective of not looking for any "good ol' days"

And if you are a potmil beleiver than there is a theological argument for the advance of the church as well.


----------



## Pergamum

TimV said:


> The Protestants killed their fair share too. In fact, Germany was the area of the most witch-killings. Wherever "Christendom" was most divided between Protestant and Catholic is where the most folks were accused of witchery
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't even rise to the level of nice try. You started this thread talking about the "divines" i.e. those Calvinistic scholars who put together the WCF. No one here is interested in excusing Catholics and Lutherans. Even today in Europe, people use the word Reformed to distinguish between themselves and Catholics and Lutherans.
Click to expand...




Let's get back to the main point. I only mentioned witch-killings in passing. We can start another thread about witches and the Reformation if you would like.


----------



## Spinningplates2

There is no honest comparison to Protestant and Roman Catholic crimes. To make a comparison is to deny history. To compare anything the Puritans, as a whole, did to the Roman Catholic Church is a insult to logic, as well as to the men and women who are our brothers and sisters in the Lord.


----------



## Pergamum

Spinningplates2 said:


> There is no honest comparison to Protestant and Roman Catholic crimes. To make a comparison is to deny history. To compare anything the Puritans, as a whole, did to the Roman Catholic Church is a insult to logic, as well as to the men and women who are our brothers and sisters in the Lord.



I thought we were getting back to the point, but let it be known that which killings were greatest where there was the greatest conflict between the Reformed (including Lutherans) and the Catholics. Scapegoating occurred when religious tensions erupted the fiercest.

1484, Pope Innocent VIII published bull "Summis Desidrantes Affectibus' something like "with deepest anxiety". The Malleus Maleficarum, Hammer of the Witches, came out maybe 2 years later. But the Protestants were also involved. A little later King James the I, wrote not only a little tract against tobacco but also the _Deamonologie_ against witches.


The Witch Craze in Germany, Switzerland, France, Poland and Scotland were more severe than Ireland and homogeneously Catholic lands such as Italy. 

In 1661 Scottish royalists proclaimed that "Rebellion is the mother of witchcraft." 

English Puritan William Perkins wrote the_ Discourse of the Damned Art of Witchcraft_ and called the witch "The most notorious traytor and rebell that can be..." 

So, not only in Catholic lands but in Protestant as well, the Witch Craze were a big thing and many of our brothers and sisters in Christ believed in witches, tacitly allowed their persecution or took part in them. Some also fought against it and spoke out against the witch craze as well...


----------

