Would Billy Graham/Charles Stanley be MOST Famous Arminian baptists today?

So this is a seven page thread that has accomplished nothing.

Who cares what these men think? It doesn't matter to the discussion about theology. Certainly I hope no one is basing their theology on someone else's view, rather they should be plumbing the depths of the Scriptures to find their beliefs.

Finally, what benefit is it to relentlessly run down a man of God over an issue he has written about time and time again? Clearly no one in their right mind thinks (even after hearing the spurious clip) that Dr Swindoll denies divine omniscience. I've got a book in library by him that spends considerable time affirming omniscience.

Maybe when we get so enamored with finding every little error for a "gotcha!" moment we lose sight of what actually matters.

This foolishness doesn't matter.

 

Wasn't this rant a "gotcha" moment for yourself against others, or at least one other? Would it then be also labelled foolishness, too?

Don't be so surprised that Swindoll said what he did. Everyone makes theological slips. You included.

And putting evidence out there of what he said is not "running him down." What I really think is going on here is you are yourself running down another, yes? Isn't that the same thing?

No one gets all their theology soley from Scriptures, including you, otherwise God wouldn't have placed pastors and teachers in the Kingdom.

 

I think you are correct on that.

 

Thank you for "shucking the corn". :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

I don't think that all nor any of these men should be discredited into a "who cares what these men think" statement. It's simply pejorative to do so, we're talking about men of God here. No need for that. Plus the Scriptures have a transcending voice over this disposition.

And we certainly don't do this concerning our preachers/pastors do we? Or do you? Do we use this attitude toward them? Yes, I know they are just men. But what is the Scriptural attitude we are to adopt? Well, Scriptures say to give them double-honor. I don't see this in the above at all. When one is implying such deep Scripture study as the norm this shouldn't be the attitude, I mean, if we are in there so much, did we forget about the double-honor thing, or can we find a conveninet loophole to disallow this passage too?

"The elders who rule well are to be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching." 1 Timothy 5:17

Paul spoke well of others who were ministers, (not in the tone above at all) and some were mighty in the Scriptures, profitable, able to show others a more perfect way, told to let there gift be known to all &c &c. :thumbsup:

But today there is a cynicism that is accepted as being "super-spiritual." But, this is not the Scriptural attitude. And no one is putting these men in the stead of God, or as a god, or substitute for God, just people expressing their like of some men of God, and some of their dislike for some of what they've said, styles, &c. The same thing Paul also did of those whom he approved, and as admonition toward soem who did err.

Most of them are considered greatly used of God. Arminian or Calvinist, or not. I care what they think and preach and teach. Some have been profitable to me. Out of them all, I would personally rate Erwin Lutzer the best as far as what I get from him.

To put out there what they've said is the same thing they themselves do; they are on the air. To express that one made a theological error is not running one down, but to class them all as above with "who cares what these men think" without warrant and against Scriptural mandate isn't "shucking corn," it's "shucking men."

- Peace

 

Never heard of them.

 

It happens all the time with men like Calvin.

 

I did mean "shucking the corn" which is a phrase translated....preach on brother. I was not "shucking" any man. If you are referring to Mr. Swindoll, I will once again say, I DO NOT agree with your assessment of the meaning and intent of what YOU assigned to him and his words.

 

I knew what you meant, perhaps you'll see what I meant.

And I disagreed with his "preaching." Why? It's an unscriptural attitude toward men of God as I have shown by Scripture. Maybe you can see that by looking again? So, no amen from here, I happen to know this attitude is not supported by His Word, but it's popular to think that way. I'll take the path the word commands me to take about it, you take whichever route you desire.

Personally, I also totally disagree with you about Swindoll, he made a theological error. He denied God knew about Abrahams decision, by emphasizing the "NOW, I know" as "the three most important words!" then to the "doesn't God know everything?!" then to the "don't go there!" he denied it via this passage so you stand incorrect there Dave.

He's not the only preacher who holds that position on that passage.

- Peace

 

Erwin Lutzer is here: www.bottradionetwork.com Noon your time. You can listen to him there. Pastor of The Moody Church, Chicago.

- Peace

 

Please don't misunderstand me, I am not "defending" Mr. Swindoll, per se. I don't know him or enough about him, I am just saying I do not think He meant what you think he meant. That is all I am saying. QED on this for me.

 

Perhaps you'll see the unscriptural attitude of saying about men of God "who cares what they think."

Nothing to amen that about. It's a shameful attitude within the church, and there is certainly nothing spiritual about it.

 

I have an idea. Why don't you send him a letter and ask him to clarify the statement. And while we wait for his reply, due to his many years of preaching the gospel accurately, give him the benefit of the doubt.

 

I'm not so convinced about him as you are. Especially after some things in "Grace Awakening" that teach basically a believer can live any way they want, and allusions towards there needs to be no works that accompany or prove faith. He says to preach this is a different Gospel. I disagree and think this is extreme easy-believism. Look into it yourself.

Here's an excerpt:

"Achievement must accompany sincere faith ... We continue to hear that "different gospel" and it is a lie. It is heresy. It is antithetical to the true message that lit the spark to the Reformation: Sola Fide - faith alone" (The Grace Awakening, p.86).

Note the slick useage of "achievement" to represent "works."

We are smart enough to know it is sola fide, correct, but that true "fide" has works to prove it, right?

You do believe genuine faith will have works, do you not, and that faith without this is dead, correct? You don't believe the message of that is heresy as he, do you?

Anyhow, some call this "greasy-grace."

No need to write him here. As I also stated, he made a theological blunder (or however I worded it). So basically that's called a benefit of the doubt to me.

- Peace

 

When Chuck said, "Well, I thought that God knew everything?", It seems to me that he was characterizing someone in the audience, who, at reading that verse where God said "Now I know...", who might therefore deny that God knew everything. Chuck was telling that person, "Don't go there" with that kind of thinking because God was not admitting that He was not omniscient.

 

Which should not have to be explained. It is very obvious.

 

I totally disagree. Especially when he called these three words "the three MOST important" and emphasized the "NOW"; "NOW, I know" as if God were now aware.

I would like to think that is what he meant, but he didn't.

He certainly cast doubt on Gods omniscience.

 

So you agree to preach works accompany faith is heresy?