The best theological age ---- is now!

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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 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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the "best" evangelistic age.
 
The church is freed from relying on the civil state for protection.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Pergamum said:
My assertion is that right now is the height of theological knowledge.
Click to expand...

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

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...

:agree: 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.
 
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).
Click to expand...

I actually tend to agree...
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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!
 
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.
 
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...

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.
 
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?
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
mangum said:
armourbearer said:
Pergamum said:
My assertion is that right now is the height of theological knowledge.
Click to expand...

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...

:agree: 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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
Pergamum said:
I said in my OP that we are so blessed because we stand on the shoulders of past giants.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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?
Click to expand...

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

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.
 
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.
 
TimV said:
The church is freed from relying on the civil state for protection.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top