# Confessional Baptist ST



## Natertot (Jul 17, 2016)

Does anyone know of any good 1689 baptist systematic theologies? I have Erickson, Grudem and Horton(I know he's Presbyterian). I plan on getting Bavink's four volume set but want a good old school confessional baptist to go along with it.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 17, 2016)

Your best bet is probably J.P. Boyce, _Abstract of Systematic Theology_.


----------



## Natertot (Jul 17, 2016)

py3ak said:


> Your best bet is probably J.P. Boyce, _Abstract of Systematic Theology_.



Is that the same Boyce as Boyce college (SBTS)?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2016)

John Gill.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jul 18, 2016)

John Gill definitely.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jul 18, 2016)

Boyce and Gill. Dagg's _Manual of Theology_ and _Manual of Church Order_ are also helpful, though Boyce and Dagg are more generally reflective of the Abstract of Principles.

To your question: yes, James Petigru Boyce is the same one from SBTS.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 18, 2016)

_A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity_ by John Gill is possibly the most significant work of systematic theology by a Baptist. But is it wholly accurate to call it a "1689 baptist systematic theology"? Certainly in Robert Oliver's very interesting _History of the English Calvinistic Baptists_ it seemed that Gill had a somewhat ambivalent relationship to the 1689.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jul 18, 2016)

Sam Waldron wrote a modern exposition on the 1689: https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Exposition-Baptist-Confession-Faith/dp/085234340X

Solid Ground bookstore sells many authors who hold to the 1689:http://www.solid-ground-books.com


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 18, 2016)

In light of the seeming lack of ST's rooted in the 1689 Baptist confession, perhaps we should begin a petition to ask the esteemed Dr. White to take a break from tangling with Muslims and black Hebrew Israelites to write a systematic theology. We can dream can't we?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jul 18, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> In light of the seeming lack of ST's rooted in the 1689 Baptist confession, perhaps we should begin a petition to ask the esteemed Dr. White to take a break from tangling with Muslims and black Hebrew Israelites to write a systematic theology. We can dream can't we?



He's already said he's not up to the task, sadly.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jul 18, 2016)

I think Richard Barcellos and James Renihan would be a dynamic duo to write a good RB ST.


----------



## Natertot (Jul 18, 2016)

Thank you all for the replies, I will definitely be looking into these.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jul 18, 2016)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I think Richard Barcellos and James Renihan would be a dynamic duo to write a good RB ST.



Yes indeed.


----------



## RAR (Jul 18, 2016)

Does Olivet elaborate on that in his book? Can you share?

Thanks,


----------



## py3ak (Jul 18, 2016)

I don't have the book with me, but as I recall Gill did not make much use of the 1689 or adopt it as the confessional standard in his church. Beddome and Spurgeon held to it, but many of the other influential Baptists in England at the time do not seem to have done so.


----------



## timfost (Jul 19, 2016)

py3ak said:


> I don't have the book with me, but as I recall Gill did not make much use of the 1689 or adopt it as the confessional standard in his church. Beddome and Spurgeon held to it, but many of the other influential Baptists in England at the time do not seem to have done so.



I don't think Gill could have adopted it. The 1689 says:



> Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification... (11.2)



Gill staunchly insisted that justification was an eternal act of God irrespective of faith (along the same vein as Tobias Crisp, whose sermons he helped to publish). 

Gill is a wealth of knowledge in many aspects, but his error in such a fundamental doctrine certainly casts a shadow on his work.


----------



## timfost (Jul 19, 2016)

Here's a link to a list of reformed Baptist Systematic Theologies:

https://reformedbooksonline.com/top...nline/reformed-baptist-systematic-theologies/


----------



## RAR (Jul 19, 2016)

timfost said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > I don't have the book with me, but as I recall Gill did not make much use of the 1689 or adopt it as the confessional standard in his church. Beddome and Spurgeon held to it, but many of the other influential Baptists in England at the time do not seem to have done so.
> ...



The proof text the confession uses for this is Romans 3:28, and here is Gill's exposition of this passage from his commentary.

_Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude
This is the conclusion from the premises, the sum total of the whole account:

that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
The subject of justification is, "man", not in opposition to angels; nor does it design the Jew against the Gentile, though some have so thought; but the apostle names neither Jew nor Gentile, but "man", to show that Christ's righteousness is unto all, and every man, that believes, be he who he will; and is to be understood indefinitely, that every man that is justified is justified by faith. The means is "by faith", not habitually or actually considered; that is, either as an habit and principle infused into us, or as an act performed by us; but either organically, as it is a means of receiving Christ's righteousness; or objectively, as it denotes Christ the object of it: and all this is done "without works", of any sort; not by a faith which is without works, for such a faith is dead, and of no avail; but by faith without works joined to it, in the affair of justification; or by the righteousness of Christ imputed by God the Father, without any consideration of them, and received by faith, and relied upon by the believer, without any regard unto them._

Regards,


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 20, 2016)

timfost said:


> Here's a link to a list of reformed Baptist Systematic Theologies:
> 
> https://reformedbooksonline.com/top...nline/reformed-baptist-systematic-theologies/



Most of those books are not Systematic Theologies and most aren't RB in any sense if the standard is the 1689. Some arguably aren't that great from a broader evangelical perspective, although the older ones are of historical value. 

If I recall correctly, Alvah (not "Alan") Hovey did not even believe in original sin and only viewed Adam as the natural head of the human race. To be sure, his soteriology was more Calvinistic than that of the "one point" view that is typical of more recent Baptists. I've seen it alleged that Strong basically denied inerrancy and was a 4 pointer at best, along with maybe some other problems. It is really clutching at straws to put them in the RB camp. I think they were postmil as opposed to premil, so that will be a plus for some, and their views were closer to some kind of covenant theology. Their writing on ecclesiology will be of interest. 

I think Lewis and/or Demarest may have been basically an Arminian. My understanding is that one of them was a dispensationalist. 

Since most of these really aren't ST texts, and about half of them are rather suspect from a Calvinistic perspective, that page should have included J.M. Pendleton's "Christian Doctrine" which is about on the level of Dagg, although maybe a little shorter. (Neither is a ST but were intended as somewhat brief intros to doctrine that were accessible to laymen.) Sure, Pendleton was a Landmarker, but that doesn't come out much in the book, If I recall correctly. (And unlike Graves, Pendleton was postmil.) But the ecclesiology of Dagg, Boyce and other opponents of the Landmarkers would practically be considered to be Landmark today too by a great many The main thing that separated them was the question of whether or not a paedobaptist minister was really a gospel minister and whether or not one could be allowed into a Baptist pulpit. Dagg goes into that at some length. I'm almost certain that all of them denied that paedobaptist churches were true churches and all practiced close (if not closed) communion. 

Robert Duncan Culver would be a much better choice than most of these. (Given Grudem's pneumatology and his views on the Trinity, I'd probably put Culver above him at this point, although Grudem is more accessible.) Although Culver didn't really want to have anything to do with the labels, he was sort of a progressive dispensationalist who didn't take a firm position on the rapture. He came to those views many years before the Progressive Dispensationalists started writing. He definitely rejected covenant theology. But his soteriology is much better than most of those listed on that page and the book is much more detailed otherwise.


----------



## RAR (Jul 20, 2016)

RAR said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > py3ak said:
> ...



I don't wish to derail the thread, but I think it is worth looking at Gill's declaration of faith from the church he pastored for many years to see his view on Justification. Read article 7, and also 4. It is very much in line with the historical reformed position.

http://www.the-faith.org.uk/carterlane.html

Regards,


----------



## timfost (Jul 20, 2016)

RAR said:


> I don't wish to derail the thread, but I think it is worth looking at Gill's declaration of faith from the church he pastored for many years to see his view on Justification. Read article 7, and also 4. It is very much in line with the historical reformed position.
> 
> http://www.the-faith.org.uk/carterlane.html
> 
> Regards,



I'd love to continue this conversation, but I'll do so in another thread so as not to derail this one. I'll try to post something in the near future.

Thanks!


----------



## Natertot (Jul 21, 2016)

Pilgrim said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a link to a list of reformed Baptist Systematic Theologies:
> ...



Quick question: what is a Landmarker?

And do you mean Bruce Demarest? I have done a skim through of _The Cross and Salvation_ (the Crossway fundamentals of Evangelical theology series), and he seems to be a 4 pointer.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 21, 2016)

Natertot said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > timfost said:
> ...



I could go into more detail, but these are some brief definitions, although some of the phrases may be a bit oversimplified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landmarkism
http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/landmark.htm



> And do you mean Bruce Demarest? I have done a skim through of _The Cross and Salvation_ (the Crossway fundamentals of Evangelical theology series), and he seems to be a 4 pointer.



Yes. I was referring to the link above (Post 17) that listed several purported "Reformed Baptist" systematic theologies, including "Integrative Theology" by Demarest and the late Gordon Lewis. I haven't read that Demarest book on soteriology through, but I think he argues that faith precedes regeneration along with rejecting definite atonement. 

Again, the ones to look at would be Gill, Boyce, Dagg (Boyce and Dagg are particularly noteworthy for Southern Baptists) as well as Grudem and maybe Culver with the caveats mentioned above. (Most SBC seminaries will use Grudem and/or Erickson. RB schools probably use something else, or may recommend Grudem with caveats.) 

Then of course standard Reformed texts such as Berkhof, Bavinck, Horton and others should be consulted. (There is really no RB equivalent to these. Baptists, especially Calvinistic ones who subscribe to the 1689, have tended to say "ditto" to much of what is found in Reformed systematic texts, with the main dissent being on ecclesiology.) So covenantal and confessional Reformed Baptists will probably find more in common with some of the Presbyterian and Reformed texts. Grudem is fine on some issues, but departs from historic Reformed teaching (baptism aside) on spiritual gifts and in his views on the Trinity, which have recently been discussed at some length here. Many have argued that the late Presbyterian theologian Robert Reymond's ST was marred by an aberrant view of the Trinity in which he dissented from Nicene-Constantinopolitan formulations in favor of what he claimed was Calvin's view. But is Grudem any better?


----------

