Greg Boyd and Woodland Hills Church

[Rebel]

What are members' opinions of Greg Boyd and his Woodland Hills Church?

 

[Salty]

What are members' opinions of Greg Boyd and his Woodland Hills Church?

Never heard of him so I googled:

Greg

Woodlawn church

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What are members' opinions of Greg Boyd and his Woodland Hills Church?

He is an open thiest.

 

[Rippon]

What are members' opinions of Greg Boyd and his Woodland Hills Church?

He's a fellow rebel like yourself. If you read his bio you would agree with my assessment. You two have a lot in common.

His trajectory is just as problematic as was that of Clark Pinnock. The latter was a brillant man but departed from Christian orthodoxy.

In the eary 90s I read his book Oneness Pentacostals and the Trinity. He made a number of valuable contributions. However, his foray in open theism is not one for a biblically-inclined person to follow.

I know you detest what you think Calvinism is --but following Gregory Boyd in his theology will harm you spiritually.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

He's a fellow rebel like yourself. If you read his bio you would agree with my assessment. You two have a lot in common.

His trajectory is just as problematic as was that of Clark Pinnock. The latter was a brillant man but departed from Christian orthodoxy.

In the eary 90s I read his book Oneness Pentacostals and the Trinity. He made a number of valuable contributions. However, his foray in open theism is not one for a biblically-inclined person to follow.

I know you detest what you think Calvinism is --but following Gregory Boyd in his theology will harm you spiritually.

Your idea Rippon is starkly different from Rebels which is different from this Catholic guy (lakeside) -- which is probably different from Greg Boyd. Who is to say who is right and who is wrong. Boyd would say we are all Christian and so why not be inclusive. Your stance, if I've got a bead on on it, is orthodox via Reformed theology. And mine is orthodoxy via Old School Baptists theology. So who is right....And which bible interpretation do you follow?

 

[lakeside]

This guy's church is just another church made by man, not God established/ Authorized. God left us with only One Church for all of us and it was based on both Holy Sacred Scripture and His Holy Sacred Apostolic Teachings, both are necessary, just as OT and NT are both needed to rightfully interpret Holy Bible.

 

[Rebel]

I would classify Boyd as moderately conservative. He's not fundamentalist, but he's not liberal, either. He is very traditional on ethics and morality.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I had to do a huge double take. I have a very good friend named Greg Boyd.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

This guy's church is just another church made by man, not God established/ Authorized. God left us with only One Church for all of us and it was based on both Holy Sacred Scripture and His Holy Sacred Apostolic Teachings, both are necessary, just as OT and NT are both needed to rightfully interpret Holy Bible.

You are disputing that the RCC isn't made by man....oh come on! What a farce.

 

[Salty]

You are disputing that the RCC isn't made by man....oh come on! What a farce.

Yep - they believe the RCC began with that "little rock" aka Peter.

Of course, we are comparing - Peter (a "stone" ) and the Church (rock)
Mat 16:18

 

[BobRyan]

He's a fellow rebel like yourself. If you read his bio you would agree with my assessment. You two have a lot in common.

His trajectory is just as problematic as was that of Clark Pinnock. The latter was a brillant man but departed from Christian orthodoxy.

ok so now Clark Pinnock starting to sound interesting if Rippon is opposed to him.

Clark Pinnock wrote articles on several other issues including an annihilationist view of hell. In this he stated the problems with the traditional view and went forward to show how an annihilationist view can be perfectly founded in Scripture. He faulted the traditional view with grossly distorting the character of God and to be based on unbiblical presuppositions. He claimed that, since souls are not inherently eternal (the view of souls being eternal in and of themselves coming from Plato and not Paul), it is not hard to understand imagery like consuming fire to consume and eternal destruction to mean destroyed eternally. He noted that this is still a very serious matter for one to miss out on all that one was intended for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clark_Pinnock

So then there is some light in Pinnock's work after all!!