Results 1 - 5 of 5
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | response | Rom 1:18 | Reformer Joe | 20553 | ||
While I respect greatly the work that Geisler has done in apologetics, his book Chosen But Free is a complete disaster in my opinion. He redefines the Calvinist position as held today as "extreme Calvinism" and his position as "moderate Calvinism." His moderate Calvinism, in most respects is nothing but Arminian thought under a different name. I was also horrified to see that he takes sentences and short passages of Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion and completely rips them out of their larger context in order to convince his reader that Calvin really agrees with *him* and not those cursed "extreme Calvinists" (that's 5-point Calvinists to the rest of the free world). Now that you have read "Chosen But Free," I would heartily recommend the rebuttal written by James R. White, entitled "The Potter's Freedom." He methodically addresses point-by-point the errors in Geisler's thinking, and more thoroughly defends true [extreme] Calvinism. If nothing else, it will be a counterpoint to what is stated in Chosen But Free. I also have noticed the lack of scholarly works written by Arminian authors in the "not a seminary textbook" category (perhaps Tim could point some out). One of the things that first caught my attention regarding Reformed theology was the scholarship. Noll's _The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind_, Marsden's _The Outrageous Idea of Christian Scholarship_, White's _The Forgotten Trinity_, Wells' _No Place for Truth_ and _God in the Wasteland_ were books that pointed out and addressed from a thoroughly Biblical perspective the dearth of thinking Christianity in our age. While none of these books are distinctively Reformed (i.e. I think many Arminians would agree with what is found in these works), I noticed that all of these authors shared a Reformed theological training and perspective. And so began my closer investigation into the theology of the Reformation. --Joe! |
||||||
2 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 20563 | ||
Thanks for your perspective on Geisler's book. I, too, felt that Geisler was trying to shape reforemed theology in the image of armenian. Why? I think we might disagree on this, I think Geisler (who is an intellectual) like myself (up for extreme debate on weather I am one) have seen the lack of evidence and the proof text offered by Calvanist to justify their belief in sovereignty and free will debate. I don't pretend to have all the answers on this subject in my back pocket, but was pleased to see Geisler was admitting that he too felt the same way! He pointed out and made an attempt to reconcile some major contradictions in reformed thought. (which I feel was heavily influenced by platonic philosophy not the scriptures.) I will def. check out the book you have recommended after I finally read a book published by an Armenianist author on this issue. I feel 5-0 is pretty lopsided affair and if I am not convinced yet I am not sure I will ever swing over to a reformed approach on this issue. Second comment about scholarship: When you have authors writing about the "lack of scholarship" in the Christian community I have to wonder what their motives are. Are they considering someone to not be a scholar because they don't agree with them on certain issues? Another words the , "If you were a real scholar, you would naturally come to the same conclusions I have concerning God" type books. If so they are just arrogant and not scholars. If not, I might be interested in looking at their books. I too see a lot of nonsense preached from the T.V and pulpits, but don't even attempt to lump them in as people who are even trying to be "scholars" of the Christian faith. In fact they would probably be the first to admit that they are not scholars. In some sense I think the church has too many "scholars" and not enough people actually "doing" the work of the ministry. It seems like all people want to do is debate about what Christianiy is and never practice it ( I don't mind the debate part as long as the other half is equally in place). I asked my pastor recently why he spent 8 years in college to study the scriptures and how to effectively do ministry and he hides in the church 7 days a week and never does what Paul and the other apostles did--witness in the public arenas...interact and challenge the presuppositions of the world today? What are they teaching in those seminaries about ministry? I just don't see the bang for the buck from people I know who have attended. Enough ranting. If you have been to seminary, I would love to know why people that leave are so ineffective in ministry (That might be too general of a statment). They wax eloqount in philosophy and Theology but never seem to get out in the public arena and challenge others. Most of them hide in the churches and preach where it is safe--another words they "Preach to the choir". Why are our best trained servants in the church never put into action? Why do I, someone who has no seminary training, placed on the front lines of evangelism when there is someone in the church that is much better able to answer the criticism that people have to Christianity--the seminary trained pastor? |
||||||
3 | response | Rom 1:18 | Morant61 | 20569 | ||
Counterview.................................... Greetings Schwartzkm! Concerning your perspective on the church and seminary, I don't think the problem is seminary. The problem (in my opinion) is that the Church has developed a fortress mentality over the years. Pastors and laypeople alike (in general) open the doors and expect unbelievers to come to them. While I was pastoring, I constantly tried to get the Church out of the building. But, it was a constant struggle. Currently, I am working with small groups, which I think is a wonderful way to meet the world where they are. Now, maybe colleges and seminaries need to do a better job at articulating some stratigies for reaching out, but their primary job is to equip people. Those who have been equipped then have the responsiblity to use that training. In fairness to your pastor (though I don't know him), pastoring is more than just evangelism. It is probably harder for a pastor to evangelize than almost anyone else. People just aren't themselves around you when they find out you are a pastor and they don't really hear what you have to say because you get paid to say it. So, while I believe pastors must be examples and actively engaged in evangelism, their primary responsibility is to equip the saints for ministry. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
4 | response | Rom 1:18 | userdoe220 | 20572 | ||
I love my pastor and since we are so close I can say things to him that I would never say to other people. In the broader context, we were talking about building a more effective church. I pointed out after the comment that he plays the key road to spear-head any action to lead the church from a "inside-only" to an "outward-thinking" church. You do have a point on him being paid therefore, he is looked at as being biased in his position. I am just frustrated everytime I drive by a packed Mormon church and ask the question, why? And when I meet their Bishop, Bruce, he is actively involved in soul-winning (I am not sure that would be a proper term.) and our pastors think they have done their job after they finish up the closing poem to their sermon. |
||||||
5 | response | Rom 1:18 | Morant61 | 20584 | ||
Comments..................................... Greetings Schwartzkm! I think the advantage cults have is that they preach what people want to hear. For instance, Mormonism stresses morality quite a bit, but in the end, they believe that you can earn salvation. People don't mind a religion that basically depends upon works. Keep up the focus on getting out of the church building though! We definitely need it. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||