Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Aug 29, 2011.
Are his books recommanded?
Uh...is this serious? Of course they are.
I don't agree with him at every point, but I take his work and contributions very seriously.
He is very highly recommended by conservative schoolars...with the curious exception that he is an annihilationalist...that is, he believes that the fires and torment of hell ultimatly annihilate the unsaved soul, so that it ceases to exist, and does not suffer eternally.
Agreed - could have posted this myself
Where did he stand on:
1. Biblical Authority
2. Autonomy of the local church
3. Ordinances (Baptism and the Lord's Table)
4. Church offices (Pastor/Elder and Deacon)
That is why I was asking!
read one book of his, the Cross Of Christ, thought THAT was great, but overall where would he rate at?
Stott is great. Like mentioned above, one will not always agree w/ him on every point. But when does that ever happen? I highly recommend his book on the Sermon on the Mount.
Do you know if he is in Anglican vein as say a JI Packer?
Theologically speaking, I would call them "kissing cousins" which in reality would be acceptable behavior within their denomination. What does that tell you? Off course Stott was strong in some areas but the four areas I mention above he would be 180 degrees opposite from many who claim to be Baptist. I wouldn't call Stott a full blown liberal but I mean his stance on the inerrancy of Scripture I would question. On a positive, I find him to be a better read than Packer. Critical, I know but you asked.
Would you see him as believing in a "limited inerrancy?
I am not bothered if his views on other points were "non baptist" as I have read and learned from cals/Arms/Dispy/Covt etc but would be bothersome with a "less thasn" view on the Bible!
Maybe why wrong on his view on hell?
Biblical authority wasn't his problem. He just has a different view of Scripture than you. But it was still his rule of faith and guide. To hold some of the interpretations that he did and convictions he lived by, you have to have the Bible as the authority.
BTW... biblical authority does not equal inerrancy. BTW#2... a difference with your view of inerrancy does not have to mean errancy (think I made up a word).
I can disagree with a theologian on many points, but still hold them in high esteem. Stott was an unabashed and unashamed evangelical who dared to ask questions that most of us would have been afraid to ask or even consider.
I would agree that he is a bit easier to read than Packer - which is, all-in-all, because he wasn't the pure academic as Packer is. They differ on a number of points, but Stott isn't even close to being a liberal. Not even close.
On a practical level, I always have admired his openness to women in ministry. I believe he is right on target with this one.