Plain Theology for Plain People

Status
Not open for further replies.

JM

Puritan Board Doctor
I downloaded this work last week and it's an easy read, solidly Baptistic and Calvinistic. I would recommend it to new believers.

590347.jpg


 
I have never heard of the author, so I did a quick Google search. Does the current, so-called "woke church" movement consider him to be useful to them for their racial purposes? Or was his mission a gospel-centred one?
 
He is a a Baptist who believed it was important to know and understand biblical doctrine.

There is no "woke church," only the one true church...

Sinners may read into or abuse the work, it happens.
 
He is a a Baptist who believed it was important to know and understand biblical doctrine.

There is no "woke church," only the one true church...

Sinners may read into or abuse the work, it happens.

That's good then.

I know there is no "woke church;" it is a mere man-made movement masquerading as truth.
 
I couldn't listen to the whole video but enjoyed learning more about his life in the first part, and how he learned to read, and why he was reading the Bible.
 
The book doesn't touch on anything about race or equality, etc. just theology.
 
I downloaded this work last week and it's an easy read, solidly Baptistic and Calvinistic. I would recommend it to new believers.

590347.jpg


From a reformed Baptist perspective, or more like say a Dr MacArthur?
 
Plain Theology for Plain People?

Are you referring to:
  • American Airlines
  • Delta Air Lines
  • Southwest Airlines
  • Spirit Airlines or
  • United Airlines
:lol:
 

Since A.H. Strong denied inerrancy and commits other fouls (unfortunately they escape me at the moment.) I'd hope it's better than Strong. If not, don't bother, In my humble opinion.

Besides, Strong is a mammoth book. How does "Plain Theology" compare to the smaller theology texts by the Baptists J.L. Dagg and perhaps especially J.M. Pendleton, which were designed for more of a lay audience?
 
Since A.H. Strong denied inerrancy and commits other fouls (unfortunately they escape me at the moment.) I'd hope it's better than Strong. If not, don't bother, In my humble opinion.

Besides, Strong is a mammoth book. How does "Plain Theology" compare to the smaller theology texts by the Baptists J.L. Dagg and perhaps especially J.M. Pendleton, which were designed for more of a lay audience?

Obviously I would not recommend a book that would run contrary to the forums confessional rules, that stated, it's orthodox.
 
Obviously I would not recommend a book that would run contrary to the forums confessional rules, that stated, it's orthodox.
The Strong one was considered to be the standrad Reformed baptist text for ST for years in colleges and seminaries.
 
The Strong one was considered to be the standrad Reformed baptist text for ST for years in colleges and seminaries.
I believe he was a soft Calvinist, it's been 10 years since I've read his work, but I believe he denied limited atonement.
 
I believe he was a soft Calvinist, it's been 10 years since I've read his work, but I believe he denied limited atonement.
Its been awhile since read that book, and what I remember being troubled by the most was his take on origins, and how he viewed biblical inspiration.
 
The Strong one was considered to be the standrad Reformed baptist text for ST for years in colleges and seminaries.

I think it was the standard among Northern Baptists, which technically back then would have included the West. Some in the South may have used it, some may have used something else.

As for "Reformed Baptist," the term didn't exist back then, only coming into existence in the late 50s, if memory serves. They were probably much more likely to use Presbyterian books than Strong.
 
I think it was the standard among Northern Baptists, which technically back then would have included the West. Some in the South may have used it, some may have used something else.

As for "Reformed Baptist," the term didn't exist back then, only coming into existence in the late 50s, if memory serves. They were probably much more likely to use Presbyterian books than Strong.
Most of the theological books that I have read and studied were of the Presbyterian persuasion, as there did not seem to be really that much from a reformed baptist persuasion available to use.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top