# Top 5 Theologians of all time?



## PresbyDane (Dec 26, 2008)

What is your opinion on the top 5 theologians of all time and would you list them and maybe give a reason for your choices.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 26, 2008)

Jonathan Edwards - I just think he had great insight into seeing the small parts of a complex system, and a keen ability to project small ideas into their natural conclusions, and thereby discern their validity. He had a geneous ability to think in the abstract, and to derive a formula that he could make life application with, and it would work. 

John Owen - I just think he could exhaust an idea to its near fullest potential, and could cover it from all angles with extreme thouroughness. He is so thorough and complete, and yet he wouldn't venture off into unnecessary thoughts or statements. It's just that, when you've read Owen on a topic, you've pretty much covered the topic in every way possible.

John Calvin - I think he was the master at reducing complex concepts into as few words as possible, so as to grasp near their entire meaning into just the right words. He also had a great gift of sticking to the text, and to the context of the writer. I think probably his most often asked question to himself had to be, "why did the writer say this", as I remember him stressing this in one of his commentaries, saying that we should ask ourselves this question often in our study. 

Martin Luther - My #1, because I think he has many of the strengths of the former mentioned along with a heavy dosage of practical experience. He brings theology to a down to earth, practical level, and spans that gap between theology and application that many theologians have a difficult time doing. I know of no other to bring more genuine experience to the table of theology than him. He also tends to see extremely clearly into the context of much of scripture. And, he lets context guide his interpretations well. He also builds few axioms, and defends those axioms to the death. He prioritzes them with all of his might, and hammers all contrary doctrines into the dust.

John Newton - Although not commonly regarded by others (or probably even by himself) as a strict theologian, I would say that he knew an extreme amount of theology, and applied it better than most others. I think he once said that he never had a pure thought of his own, but only restated what others before him have said. I don't think this makes him any less, for even the best of theologians stand on the shoulders of those who have gone before them. But, his life and his theology were bathed in experience, and his knowledge was suspended in the midst of an ocean of grace, which, to me, makes him stand out among the best. He knew grace more than most, I would imagine, which is why I would tend to prefer to read his theology imbedded in his sermons than I would to read a myriad of theology books of those who have little experience in grace and sin.

These are my favs........

Blessings!


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 26, 2008)

Martin Marsh said:


> What is your opinion on the top 5 theologians of all time and would you list them and maybe give a reason for your choices.



Martin,

Five is a short list; I'm consciously choosing non-inspired men 

5. R.J. Rushdoony: he wrote in bite-sized pieces with very weighty content. Was able to weave a tapestry of all theological disciplines, and to make very insightful comments on a host of practical subjects.

4. Gordon Clark: readable, logical, exegetical, funny.

3. George Gillespie: wrote very little, but very well. Stretches the limits of my understanding, and makes me say (with Gordon Clark commenting on Gillespie) "God be merciful to me, an ignoramus!"

2. Augustine Aurelius: His influence on Christendom can't be overstated. Christian Realism owes its systematization to him. No Augustine, no Reformation.

1. John Calvin: theologian par excellance. Fresh, readable, practical, profound, and helpful. I fight with him while reading his commentaries every once in a while, but I learn a great deal from his writings.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Zeno333 (Dec 26, 2008)

Jonathan Edwards

John Owen (His book "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ is devastatingly great.)

Martin Luther (He opened up the world's eyes)

St Thomas Aquinas

R. C. Sproul (One should include someone that is still alive. )


----------



## shackleton (Dec 26, 2008)

In no particular order, 

Francis Turretin
Charles Hodge
John Calvin
John Owen
Jonathan Edwards


----------



## Theogenes (Dec 26, 2008)

1. Paul, the Apostle!
2. Augustine
3. John Calvin
4. Jonathan Edwards
5. Gordon Clark


----------



## ManleyBeasley (Dec 27, 2008)

John Calvin
John Owen
Jonathan Edwards
Augustine
Carl Henry--One for the modern day


----------



## Guido's Brother (Dec 27, 2008)

In no particular order:

Herman Bavinck
Cornelius VanTil
John Calvin
Martin Luther
Gisbertus Voetius


----------



## Grymir (Dec 27, 2008)

R.C. Sproul - needs no reason

Schaeffer - Ditto's

Augustine - More Ditto's

Rushdoony - Yet again more Ditto's

Dabney - Mega Ditto's

I like all of the above because of the philosophical insights they give into the theological stuggles they each were facing. This list is by no means complete, but the ones that have had the biggest impact on me and how I think...Next to the Bible!


----------



## Romans922 (Dec 27, 2008)

humm?

In no particular order but based on Topic:

*Boldness*: Martin Luther
*Amount of Work*: John Owen
*Father for Reformers to build on besides Scripture* (Apostles): Augustine
*Most Reformation*: John Calvin
*Southern Presbyterian*: R.L. Dabney

If I were to have six...wait...
I'm having six because this guy gets props for his _work with a sickly wife, who he cared for greatly_ and *Princetonian (Northern Presbyterian)*: B.B. Warfield


----------



## Hamalas (Dec 27, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> Jonathan Edwards - I just think he had great insight into seeing the small parts of a complex system, and a keen ability to project small ideas into their natural conclusions, and thereby discern their validity. He had a geneous ability to think in the abstract, and to derive a formula that he could make life application with, and it would work.
> 
> John Owen - I just think he could exhaust an idea to its near fullest potential, and could cover it from all angles with extreme thouroughness. He is so thorough and complete, and yet he wouldn't venture off into unnecessary thoughts or statements. It's just that, when you've read Owen on a topic, you've pretty much covered the topic in every way possible.
> 
> ...



So I guess the lesson to be learned here is to name your sons John.


----------



## Matthew1034 (Dec 27, 2008)

1. Jesus
2. Jesus
3. Jesus
4. Jesus
5. Jesus

(possible response from an over-saved brother)


----------



## discipulo (Dec 27, 2008)

Only 5 is not really easy, is it? 

Augustine and Thomas Aquinas 
(Aug on sharpness, truthfulness and fighting error and Thom. on volume and system.)

Martin Luther and Jean Calvin (ML on discernment and boldness, JC by all reasons!)

Herman Witsius and John Owen (on Covenant Theology)

Schleiermacher and Karl Barth (not easy to acknowledge these 2 but how to ignore them?) 

Herman Bavink and Geerhardus Vos (Dogmatics and Hermeneutics)

Robert L. Reymond (his ST is a great accomplishment)

Robert L. Reymond Ph.D, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998). Reviewed by W. Gary Crampton Th.D on Blue Banner - For Christ’s Crown & Covenant Vol. 8 nr. 2 February 1999 PDF attached 

.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 27, 2008)

1) Athanasius

2) Augustine

3) Anselm of Canterbury

4) Thomas Aquinas

5) John Calvin


----------



## Scott1 (Dec 27, 2008)

Jesus, then...


1) John Calvin
2) Aurelius Augustine
3) Martin Luther
4) Anselm
5) RC Sproul


----------



## Neogillist (Dec 27, 2008)

Here's my list (in the order in which they appeared):

Augustine 
John Calvin
John Owen
John Gill
Jonathan Edwards

At least there seems to be a general consensus to include Calvin, Owen and Edwards. I personally think Gill was truly a genuis, although he had his own weaknesses (credo-baptism and hyper-calvinism). I like reading his works best, more than those of Calvin, which I find sometimes too concise and brief, or Owen, which I find too wordy, and Edwards' which I tend to find too philosophical.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 27, 2008)

Hamalas said:


> moral necessity said:
> 
> 
> > Jonathan Edwards - I just think he had great insight into seeing the small parts of a complex system, and a keen ability to project small ideas into their natural conclusions, and thereby discern their validity. He had a geneous ability to think in the abstract, and to derive a formula that he could make life application with, and it would work.
> ...



LOL! The best response I can come up with is...........probably not, as it didn't work too well for the Wesley family.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon (Dec 27, 2008)

Can't do just 5!


----------



## Barnpreacher (Dec 27, 2008)

moral necessity said:


> LOL! The best response I can come up with is...........probably not, as it didn't work too well for the Wesley family.



I'm not sure Whitefield would agree with that statement.


----------



## davidsuggs (Dec 27, 2008)

In no particular order:
5. J Gresham Machen
4. Martin Luther
3. Athanasius
2. Augustine
1. John Calvin

However I have to note that I framed this from those theologians who have had the most beneficial impact onto theology itself, not necessarily the most talented.


----------



## DMcFadden (Dec 27, 2008)

In order of chronology (after Jesus, Paul, and leaving out present company) . . .

* Augustine - no greater theologian in the first centuries
* Aquinas - the great systematizer of the middle ages
* Calvin - WOW!
* Owen - greatest English theologian of all time (although some of us who have read him might question how clearly he expressed himself!)
* Barth - sorry Grymir, like it or not, he was a giant who opposed liberalism (despite his MANY doctrinal errors and wrong-headed but right-hearted Christomonism)

Honorable mention . . .
* Athanasius - Mr. Contra Mundum himself!
* Anselm - _Proslogian_, _Cur Deus Homo_ . . . duh! 
* Luther - more of a change agent than a theologian, but WOW!
* Turretin - greatest systematics after Calvin until Hodge
* Perkins - THE theologian of the early English Reformation (listed also because I got to touch the first edition of his works at PRTS owned by Spurgeon and filled with marginalia by Pink)
* Edwards - greatest philosopher ever born in America and the inspiration for John Piper's MANY books)

Also rans and popularizers (only because they run in such rich company, these guys are ALL giants in my book) . . .

* Hodge - who was more read by English speaking students?
* Bavinck (and his English popularizer Berkhof)
* Warfield - the Lion of Princeton
* Schaeffer - brought theology down to the retail level
* Packer - gone a little squishy lately, but that preface to _Death of Death _by Owen was DYN-O-MITE!
* MacArthur - he came to the party late after years traveling on a curious dispensational detour, but the man knows how to teach the Bible
* Sproul - THE best popularizer of Reformed theology EVER! The man is a machine! Go R.C.!!!
* Piper - Who else could get so many young people so restless and Reformed?
* Beeke - a one man Puritan restoration project with hands in so many profitable endeavors that he may be forgiven his role in helping train Nathan Eschleman
* Michael Horton - worthy of note because of his wonderful scholarly and popular books and the importance of the White Horse Inn over the years


----------



## Grymir (Dec 27, 2008)

Argh! Barth? I was wondering if his name was going to show up...just when you think he's slipped under the radar, never to be heard from again. 

I like Sproul being compared to a machine.


----------



## ADKing (Dec 27, 2008)

I was glad to see a couple people mention Athanasius (together with whom the Cappadocian Fathers should be named: Basil the Great, and the two Gregory's--of Nyssa and Nazianzus). 

I would also include Geerhardus Vos on the list. His insights are profoundly deep and developed in a way that few other writers rival.


----------



## CarsonLAllen (Dec 27, 2008)

5. Luther

-----Added 12/27/2008 at 05:17:53 EST-----

4. Edwards
3.Owen
2. Augustine
1 Grudem Lol, j.k.
1. *Calvin*


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 27, 2008)

1. John Calvin - I agree with Adam, nearly 5 centuries later he is still fresh and readable with remarkable insight, and synthesizes concepts from all parts of the Bible like no one else.

2. Jonathan Edwards

3. John Owen

4. Augustine

5. Martin Luther

If I had to choose a contemporary I would pick MacArthur (Dispensational errors duly noted) or R.C. Sproul.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 27, 2008)

No 20th century writer could make this list could he/she?

Augustine (sin and grace)

Anselm (atonement)

Thomas (most of our vocabulary including predestination)

Luther (the Reformation)

Calvin (more reformation, church, sacraments, Christology, inchoate covenant theology).

All the 20th century writers were simply re-hashing or making a hash out of the great ideas that were formed by the 17th century. I seriously doubt that Edwards should make a list like this. He wouldn't put himself on the list. Where he was orthodox, he was fine. Where he was unorthodox (ask Hodge) he was highly problematic. People are still arguing about whether he was orthodox on justification. Seems to me that being crystal clear on justification would be a prerequisite for being a good Protestant theologian. Then there's the problems of pantheism and neo-Platonism and his critique of the confessionalists in his own day. There's his legacy. Edwards is a very mixed bag indeed.

Being a good writer or being helpful cannot qualify one for a list like the top 5 of all time. Certainly no one as patently weird as Rushdoony, who was an amateur theologian at best and Gordon Clark was a philosopher, not a theologian. Gillespie is important as a window into a certain period but as to being foundational and formative? There are probably 5 or more other theologians in the period (Cocceius, Polanus, Owen, Turretin, Heidegger, Witsius, Voetius, Perkins, Van Mastricht) who were, objectively considered, more foundational.

These sorts of lists drive me crazy. Idiosyncratic writers from the 20th century displacing true giants! AAARRRGGGHHH. 

I feel only slightly better.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 28, 2008)

What? No one mentioned John Cassian? 

I thought being named John was almost a prerequisite.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 28, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> All the 20th century writers were simply re-hashing or making a hash out of the great ideas that were formed by the 17th century. I seriously doubt that Edwards should make a list like this. He wouldn't put himself on the list. Where he was orthodox, he was fine. Where he was unorthodox (ask Hodge) he was highly problematic. People are still arguing about whether he was orthodox on justification. Seems to me that being crystal clear on justification would be a prerequisite for being a good Protestant theologian. Then there's the problems of pantheism and neo-Platonism and his critique of the confessionalists in his own day. There's his legacy. Edwards is a very mixed bag indeed.



Unless he changed his view either before or after writing his _Systematic Theology_, Hodge thought Edwards problematic in other areas than justification. In ST,Hodge thinks Edwards is both crystal clear and fully orthodox as far as justification is concerned. 
In his Systematic Theology, Hodge calls Edwards "firm in his adherence" to the confessional view of justification (iii 101 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theo...type=78a46024be12fc4773f9c2ff43eaca507aa21a37). He cites Edwards doctrine on this subject is approved by Hodge and presented as fully representative of "the doctrine of the Reformed and Lutheran churches on this important doctrine..."


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 28, 2008)

timmopussycat said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > No 20th century writer could make this list could he/she?
> ...



I agree, it's hard to leave Edwards off the list. And you are right, many of the great theologians' "legacy" could be seriously called into question (I'm thinking mainly of Augustine) - I don't think it's fair to single Edwards out. And I've never heard Edwards was unorthodox on justification - interested in seeing the source for that as well.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 28, 2008)

> Edwards arguably should make your list as the theologian of Christian experience.



That's my point exactly! What did Edwards write about religious experience that Bernard (or even Catherine of Sienna) did not anticipate? Calvin is much healthier in book 3 on religious experience than Edwards.



> Where did Hodge claim that Edwards was problematic? Also where can one find the the best statement of the case against Edwards' orthodoxy on justification?



See RRC, 71-116.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 28, 2008)

I'm surprised that Turretin did not show up more in the above lists. I would have to seriously consider him in my top 5.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 28, 2008)

If you look at formative influences for the great doctrines that have been creedally defined, it does seem impossible to limit it to 5.


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 28, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> > Edwards arguably should make your list as the theologian of Christian experience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



What's RRC?


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 28, 2008)

RRC = _Recovering the Reformed Confession_


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 28, 2008)

I forgot to add my own
1.Calvin
2.Augustine
3.Luther
4.Edwards
5.Sproul


----------



## AThornquist (Dec 28, 2008)

What about Rick Warren? He has made millions of dollars on his books and transformed boring old theology into something fun, interesting, and easy to read. I remember the stories from Purpose Driven life and their accompanying Bible verse. _That's_ concise theology!


----------



## discipulo (Dec 29, 2008)

Gomarus said:


> I'm surprised that Turretin did not show up more in the above lists. I would have to seriously consider him in my top 5.



Absolutely, Francis Turretin is irreplaceable in the Reformation History, 

and particularly in Presbyterian History. 

Turrentin even "finds his way" to the great American Princeton Presbyterianism.

By the way, Charles Hodge was also not often mentioned.

For the perspective of the Conservative Dutch Reformed, the more recent Herman Bavinck

(I was surprised he was making so well on the poll) is our reference.

For instance the ST of Louis Berkhof is heavily grounded on Bavinck.

Bavinck benefited from greater historic distance from controversy, and could profit 

greatly from the Depth on Covenant of Johannes Cocceius and the Rational Systematics 

of Gisbertus Voetius.

With the advantage that Bavinck stood on Witsius, amongst several others’ shoulders, 

and accomplished a much larger and broader work.

But definitely both Turrentin and Hodge deserved a place on the graphic poll and a higher rank!


http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/top-3-most-biblical-theologians-votes-public-41764/



.


----------



## toddpedlar (Dec 29, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> No 20th century writer could make this list could he/she?
> 
> Augustine (sin and grace)
> Anselm (atonement)
> ...



100% agreed. I'm surprised, frankly, that Sproul, for instance, actually qualifies in anybody's top 20, let alone top 5. He isn't half the theologian that any of the above men were, or even half the theologian that many men who aren't on the above list, but could arguably make a top 20 if you were forced to construct such a silly thing (i.e. Owen, Turretin, Edwards, Bavinck, Warfield, etc.)


----------



## discipulo (Dec 29, 2008)

toddpedlar said:


> I'm surprised, frankly, that Sproul, for instance, actually qualifies in anybody's top 20, let alone top 5. He isn't half the theologian that any of the above men were, or even half the theologian that many men who aren't on the above list, but could arguably make a top 20 if you were forced to construct such a silly thing (i.e. Owen, Turretin, Edwards, Bavinck, Warfield, etc.)



I believe that happened because most of us got the idea, I certainly did, that we should 

have a chronological approach, someone representative of each epoch, 

and even someone alive today.

Otherwise with a few Church fathers, the Reformers and the Puritans would easily fill the top 10, 

not to mention the top 5...


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 29, 2008)

Here'd be my list:

1. Athanasius - Thanks to him an orthodox Christology was maintained. Athanasius against the world. 'Nuff said.

2. Augustine - Perhaps the greatest theological mind in the history of the church.

3. Aquinas - His writings still influence discussions to this day.

4. Luther - Liberator of the church!

5. Calvin - My patron saint.


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 29, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Being a good writer or being helpful cannot qualify one for a list like the top 5 of all time. Certainly no one as patently weird as Rushdoony, who was an amateur theologian at best and Gordon Clark was a philosopher, not a theologian. Gillespie is important as a window into a certain period but as to being foundational and formative? There are probably 5 or more other theologians in the period (Cocceius, Polanus, Owen, Turretin, Heidegger, Witsius, Voetius, Perkins, Van Mastricht) who were, objectively considered, more foundational.
> 
> These sorts of lists drive me crazy. Idiosyncratic writers from the 20th century displacing true giants! AAARRRGGGHHH.
> 
> I feel only slightly better.



Dr. Clark,

I am not a moderator, or anything like this, but your comments above seem disrespectful and even sound a tad bit arrogant. You are entitled to your opinion, and that is all it is.

Perhaps you could also elaborate and justify your words against Rushdoony. For instance, what do you mean by "patently weird"? Can you give a more objective term, and instances to support your assertion? Also, what, in your opinion, constitutes an amateur theologian? Disagreeing with your particular views, or something else?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Archlute (Dec 29, 2008)

Christusregnat said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Being a good writer or being helpful cannot qualify one for a list like the top 5 of all time. Certainly no one as patently weird as Rushdoony, who was an amateur theologian at best and Gordon Clark was a philosopher, not a theologian. Gillespie is important as a window into a certain period but as to being foundational and formative? There are probably 5 or more other theologians in the period (Cocceius, Polanus, Owen, Turretin, Heidegger, Witsius, Voetius, Perkins, Van Mastricht) who were, objectively considered, more foundational.
> ...



Not to step on toes here, but I believe that having obtained his D.Phil from Oxford, as well as being a professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Westminster, that Dr. Clark's opinion bears a little more weight when evaluating these things than does the run of the mill PBer opinion. I love my friends here at the PB, but there are areas in which scholastic credentials should be recognized as bearing more authority than the opinion of the standard "Joe on the street". 

To say that Gordon Clark was a philosopher rather than a theologian, or that Rushdoony's work was patently weird (when compared to the classical theologians of Christendom) might be found offensive to some, but objectively speaking, it is not off the mark.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 29, 2008)

Hierarchy on the PB?


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Dec 29, 2008)

1. Van Till
2. Calvin
3. Augustine
4. Athanasius 

After that, I'd say Tim LaHaye and that Hagee guy. And maybe Joel Osteen, too.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 29, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> > R. Scott Clark said:
> ...



I agree to a certain extent. Certainly someone with Dr. Clark's credentials and education deserves special consideration. But just because he has more formal training than most of us does not automatically make his assertions true. I disagree with him in several aspects of this post, especially the comments on Jonathan Edwards, and the idea that 20th century theologians simply "rehash" their predecessors. Couldn't the same also be said of Calvin, who was heavily influenced by Augustine? Or by the Puritans, who were heavily influenced by Calvin? The fact of the matter is that truth is truth, and Godly men who study the Word 2,000 years apart can come to the same truth independently without one rehashing the other. 

If he is going to post on here, his comments are subject to criticism just like everyone else. And I agree with Adam, his post did come off as a bit arrogant, whether or not it was intended that way...


----------



## Archlute (Dec 29, 2008)

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Archlute said:
> 
> 
> > Christusregnat said:
> ...



That's fine, but I guarantee that the reason a lot of people on this board get their feathers ruffled is that they intuitively feel that their knowledge on Edwards _et al_ must be pretty close, if not parallel, to that of anyone else who posts here. They've read Marsden on Edwards, after all. What they do not want to accept is that folk who have courses to teach and church work to do, and who have put hours of study into the issue at hand, have neither time nor inclination to write up a detailed argument of why they state some of the things that they state. 

Having sat through hour upon hour of modern church history lectures, and knowing the research and presentation that went into those classes by men such as Godfrey and Hart on subjects such as Edward's theology, etc, etc, I can guarantee that I wouldn't want to present a detailed discussion taken from my class lecture notes to anyone on here for any reason. It would be a poor use of time; there are just too many facets to cover, and to many avenues of discussion that could be debated. Informed opinions should still be able to be given without having to answer to every question asking for proof and detailed arguments. 

I don't know what to say to folk on the PB sometime other than - if you are really bothered by a lack of answers to your probings then go to seminary and ask them these questions yourselves. But be forewarned, you might find that even in the classroom (of any number of profs) you are not considered an equal, that poorly informed opinions are not always appreciated, and that you might even get shut down by the prof on occasion without an apology being offered. This is a good thing, as it induces within a student a sense of humility on various subjects in that organ of their mind which, because of the more or less democratic/dialogical nature of posting forums, is not otherwise well tended to.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2008)

I am not liking the tone of this thread. Be respectful.... please.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 29, 2008)

Dr. Clark can defend himself if he desires to do so.

That said, I'd like to make two comments:

1. Dr. Clark has earned the highest possible degree in his field. He has made a full-time job, for the better part of his adult life, of studying these things. This reality does not mean that when he speaks we simply become silent before him. But the reality of his attainments should cause the prudent (ahem) to at least pause and give consideration to his thoughts.

2. This thread is about opinion. In the context of a thread about a person's opinion, Scott's is of course entitled to his opinion. But if he has a problem accepting the validity of some peoples' opinions, when that is precisely what was being called for, and if this type of thread "drives him crazy" (as he noted), then one wonders why he felt the need to involve himself in it.

Just the thoughts of an army chaplain.


----------



## Archlute (Dec 29, 2008)

Beat yer face.

(Probably don't hear that one much anymore, do you now?)


----------



## dvddttmr (Dec 29, 2008)

This is just restating what I think many have said already:

Athanasius
Augustine
Aquinas
Luther
Calvin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 29, 2008)

Now Back on Topic....

I appreciate John Owen. I think he is one of the best.

Of Course I like most things Particular..... Nehemiah Coxe being one of them.

Calvin is awesome.

I love J. I. Packer. I can't help it. 

I also love J. C. Ryle. He had such a Pastors heart when he wrote.

I am not much of an Edwards fan. I have read quite a bit about the Southern Presbyterians and Love Dabney's Writings. 

I have to admit that Packer and Dr. Kistler opened up the Puritans for me. For that I am grateful.


----------



## Poimen (Dec 29, 2008)

Archlute said:


> Beat yer face.
> 
> (Probably don't hear that one much anymore, do you now?)



Pound sand Adam.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 29, 2008)

It strikes me as odd that the only Puritan figure getting much in the way of repeat votes is Owen.


----------



## discipulo (Dec 30, 2008)

py3ak said:


> It strikes me as odd that the only Puritan figure getting much in the way of repeat votes is Owen.






PuritanCovenanter said:


> Now Back on Topic....
> I have to admit that Packer and Dr. Kistler opened up the Puritans for me. For that I am grateful.



Brothers thank you for these remarks on the Puritans.
So True, those men of God excelled in scholarship, zeal, pastoral care, devotion…
If we had to choose only one Puritan, John Owen is second to none, but true, how unfair to many others.
I was moved remembering when I read Amongst God's Giants by J I Packer, how thrilled and amazed I was with men of such spiritual calibre.

My choice of both John Owen and Herman Witisus has also to do with my Dutch beloved rib. So I leave the words of Packer concerning these two servants of the Living God.

_He (Herman Witsius) was a man whose work stands comparison for substance and thrust with that of his younger British contemporary
John Owen, and this writer, for one, knows no praise higher than that!_ J I Packer Preface to The Economy of the Covenants

*May we pray earnestly that the Lord of the Harvest will raise men like those again!*


----------



## CarlosOliveira (Dec 30, 2008)

John Calvin
Thomas Manton
Herman Witsius
Wilhelmus à Brakel
Thomas Boston


----------



## FenderPriest (Dec 30, 2008)

Augustine (with emphasis on the middle "u" to be of Hippo, not the latter "i" to be of Canterbury - who was a missionary in the 7th century to England).
Wycliffe (more as a force than anything)
Calvin
Owen
Edwards


----------



## timmopussycat (Dec 30, 2008)

R. Scott Clark said:


> > Edwards arguably should make your list as the theologian of Christian experience.
> 
> 
> 
> That's my point exactly! What did Edwards write about religious experience that Bernard (or even Catherine of Sienna) did not anticipate? Calvin is much healthier in book 3 on religious experience than Edwards.



Having not read Bernard or Catherine, I can't speak to their work, but certainly Calvin's book 3 does not contain a parallel to Edwards analysis of wildfire "spirituality" in _Religious Affections_, an analysis that provides a foundational critique of all subsequent religious movements in North America down to the present day. (It remains an amazingly effective tool for curbing Charismaniac excesses.)


----------



## Don Kistler (Dec 30, 2008)

Perhaps it would help to define our terms? Define what a theologian is, and what makes him "great." No one picked Hodge as a top theologian, but the notion that he disagreed with Edwards seems to be significant to some. 

If being a theologian requires coming up with something new, then who did not draw on men before them? 

I think all we can do here is what some have done, and that is to pick our favorites, for whatever reason.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 30, 2008)

Do you think the reason why modern writers cannot compare to the greats of time past is due to the way college forces us to write? 

What I mean is that if we read through something like Calvin's Institutes, we notice that he quotes people very seldom, but in modern collegiate setting the student is required to quote a host of people. I feel that this is the reason why alot of contemporary commentaries are simply a book of quotes. 

The art of taking the Bible and just figuring things out seems to be a thing of the past. 

What are your thoughts?


----------



## py3ak (Dec 30, 2008)

Boliver, Calvin actually quoted other people quite a lot. Citation methods weren't standardized, so it's not always as easy to pick out a quote.

Of course, it is true that there has been a decline of authority in teaching, and that can lead to the citation of others on every point. And writing assignments probably have something to do with the _anemia_ of a lot of contemporary writing, where it seems to have no iron and no salt.

But it is pointless to criticize anyone for not being Calvin. Calvin was a genius, as were a few other theologians in the history of the church.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Dec 30, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Boliver, Calvin actually quoted other people quite a lot. Citation methods weren't standardized, so it's not always as easy to pick out a quote.
> 
> Of course, it is true that there has been a decline of authority in teaching, and that can lead to the citation of others on every point. And writing assignments probably have something to do with the _anemia_ of a lot of contemporary writing, where it seems to have no iron and no salt.
> 
> But it is pointless to criticize anyone for not being Calvin. Calvin was a genius, as were a few other theologians in the history of the church.



I would not criticize anyone for not matching Calvin's genius. That would be silly. I just feel that modern academia does not cultivate the necessary mental capacity to even attempt to progress modern theological thought. Just look on the PB. If Calvin did not say what someone hear thinks or believes, we have a tendency to discard it. It is all about following someone else's thought process vs. thinking for one's self.


----------



## py3ak (Dec 30, 2008)

Hmm. There is a lot of sheeple mentality, there's no doubt about that, and a villainous fear of experts. But there is also a lot of despite for others, and willingness to maintain one's own lunacy against the whole world (or worse, against the whole church). Some of the theological problems that have been faced have come from theologians who thought they could advance the theological enterprise. If we had a theological genius today, perhaps he could make some notable gains. But perhaps also he would not gain a hearing -from some because he didn't sound like their favorite theologian: from others, because he sounded too much like someone who's died (or hasn't published anything in 2 years),


----------



## Witsius (Dec 30, 2008)

Top 5 in No Order:
Turretin
Owen
Bavinck
Calvin
Bullinger

Honourable Mention:
Edwards
Warfield
Augustine
Pink (??)
a Brakel
Witsius
Wright (haha)


----------



## Ivan (Dec 30, 2008)

Joshua said:


> Paul
> John
> Peter
> David
> Moses



Trumped!


----------



## Herald (Dec 30, 2008)

Charles Ryrie
C.I. Scofield
Louis Sperry Chafer
Norman Geisler
Dave Hunt

*ducks behind Ivan*


----------



## BertMulder (Dec 30, 2008)

In no particular order:

Calvin
Gomarus
Hoeksema
Augustine
Luther


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 30, 2008)

John
Paul
George
Ringo
Billy


----------



## Ivan (Dec 30, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> John
> Paul
> George
> Ringo
> Billy



Billy?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Dec 30, 2008)

C'mon Ivan!!!

Billy Preston...


----------



## Ivan (Dec 30, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> C'mon Ivan!!!
> 
> Billy Preston...



Oh, yeah! The guy with the big hair.


----------



## Christusregnat (Dec 31, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> John
> Paul
> George
> Ringo
> Billy



You stole my idea!!! But, for kicks:

Harpo (honk! honk!)
Groucho
Chico
Zeppo 
Gummo (not pictured below)

File:Marx Brothers 1931.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## KMK (Dec 31, 2008)

Perhaps the question should be, "Who are the 5 greatest _systematic_ theologians of all time?" That seems to be the main thrust of everyone's answers.

Would it be helpful to also list the 5 greatest ''biblical' theologians and 'pastoral' theologians? I would be interested in what people have to say. (Should I start another thread?)


----------

