Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by JesusFan, Oct 31, 2011.
As he is "open" to the full operation of the Spiritual Gifts today?
yes, we would let him, as I'm pretty sure our pastors would agree with him on this issue.
No in fact it is in the by laws of the church that things like tongues (in light of the unscriptural way it is commonly practiced today) cannot happen in our services.
It depends. If he was invited to speak at our church, and he agreed not to teach anything contrary to what we believe, he would be able to preach. This should be less controversial than it appears. I've attended Baptist worship services where a Presbyterian was allowed to preach. At one such service Sinclair Ferguson brought the Word of God. Dr. Ferguson is a paedobaptist, yet he did not teach on that topic. Considering the godly character of this faithful Presbyterian minister, he did not need to be told not to preach on baptism.
Absolutely, he's a wonderful theologian.
I agree. Since we've used his Systematic Theology book often enough, I can guarantee that he'd be more than welcome as a brother in Christ.
Nope and for more reasons than the OP listed.
Absolutely not! And for more reasons than his view of spiritual gifts.
I wouldn't tell him he was Presbyterian.
Please elaborate why he would not be invited to preach, if this is the case?
He takes a position of Reformed/Doctrine of Sovereign Grace, so "Free Will" Baptist churches would not invite him.
Are there other reasons?
isn't he a brother in the Lord though?
Wouldn't he be able to instruct greatly, regardless of his Gifts views?
he is viewed though. along with Millard Erckson, as being 2 of the most influntial theologians today in baptist circles...
Why would he be a "problem?"
what if he agreed to teach just the "essentials" that all Baptists agree upon?
Would you allow Joel Osteen to preach in your service if he spoke about only things you agreed upon?
I can't imagine Joel would be challenged by a delimited list of things to preach on. (i.e. he's so vacuous in his actual preaching that it is hard to think he'd bounced around enough theologically to touch a boundary.)
What is the comparison between Grudem and Osteen? Do they teach the same Gospel? I don't believe so.
What is the problem with Grudem?
he is a "baptacostalists!"
Wrong comparison, as Dr grudem is a true theologian!
How about saying, would we allow Dr Norman Geisler to teach on cults?
No, it's not a wrong comparison. You've said its OK to let people come into the church and teach, as long as they only teach on things you agree on, regardless of their belief on other items.
So, would you allow Osteen to preach, if he stuck to items you agreed upon?
Actually, the first problem I'd have with him is that he's a Calvinist.