Any opinions on John Stott?

Would he be like a Bernard ramm, who held to what I would deem to be a partial inspired scripture viewpoint? Not holding to all of the history in it as being tre?
There seems to be 23 main streams in Anglican church, the ones of JI Packer, John Stott, and NT Wright!

 

yesh1, when you makes accusations about others you really should provide some proof, a quote, a source or something.

Why would you suggest Bernard Ramm held to particular inspiration?

Rob

 

http://www.biblecombibleman.com/Science_ScriptureRamm.pdf

 

CORRECTION "Partial inspiration" not "particular inspiration"


So Yesh1.... Can you point out anything on the website that proves your point?

From your source:

"The concordist approach developed in The Christian View of Science and Scripture [1954] set and example of outstanding Christian scholarship. It provided a biblical interpretation compatible with science that was an encouragement to a whole generation of evangelical scientists, even though it perhaps conceded too much to science.
The contextual view of scripture that emerged in his later writing provides a new paradigm for relating science and modern biblical interpretation. It avoids unnecessary conflicts and allows the light of scripture to shine from its original context and illuminate our understanding of science."​

From his classic 1970 textbook, Protestant Biblical Interpretation, A Textbook of Hermeneutics (3rd Revised ed., p. 95).

The position of the evangelical is that only a full-fledged, intelligent Biblicism is adequate to the present day situation in science, philosophy, psychology, and religion.

Because historic Protestantism accepts the plenary inspiration of Scripture certain over-all attitudes characterize it. (i) It approaches the Bible from the spiritual dimension of faith, trust, prayer, and piety. (ii) It engages in Biblical criticism to save it from being deceived or deluded or naive. It is not foundationally anti-critical. Unfortunately some representatives of the conservative viewpoint have unenlightened opinions as to the nature and purpose of criticism, but anti-criticism is not part of the necessary structure of evangelicalism. Evangelicalism, however, is patient and watchful when confronted with critical problems, trusting that further research and investigation will weigh the evidence in its favor. The rewards of such an approach have been many, particularly from archeological research. (iii) It exercises the utmost care and scruples to discover the true text of both Testaments, to discover the true rules of interpretation, and to apply them with the greatest of pains and care that the word of man may not be intruded into the Word of God. It therefore does not indulge in the wholesale reconstruction of texts, histories, and documents which characterizes liberalism.



The Christian faith has taught the infallibility of the faith and morals of Scripture, and the inerrancy of all matters of history pertaining to faith and morals. No lower ground than this can be held.

Careful conservative scholarship has indicated that the inerrancy of the Bible must be judged by the very nature of the divine revelation. The revelation came to men speaking human languages and living in a cultural context. To be meaningful it had to come in the language of the prophets and apostles, and employ the cultural background for figures, illustrations, analogies, and everything else associated with linguistic communication. No artificial or abstract theory of inerrancy is to be imposed on the Scriptures.

(p 201–202).​

Belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures leads us to affirm there are no contradictions in the Bible. (p. 205).
​

Interpretational disagreements do not constitute a diminished view of inspiration nor do they weaken Scripture. Viewing Scripture from a unique vantagepoint advances theology.

Rob

 

Thanks Rob. Glad to have been of service. I have remembered that I also read Stott's The Contemporary Christian. It is highly acclaimed, but again I felt he was conceding too much to the world.

I don't think Stott was a Young Earth Creationist as Lloyd-Jones was, but he would have held to Bible history as being true. I don't know Bernard Ramm.

Stott and Packer held very similar views, I think, and should not be compared with N.T. Wright who is IMO heterodox in a number of ways.

I would like to say a few words about the evangelicals in the Church of England. While the C of E is, as a whole, apostate IMO and is headed for collapse sooner rather than later, there is a goodly number of fine Bible-believing congregations dotted around the country, some of them with quite large congregations by British standards. Today, my church held a public meeting to promote the authority of the Bible, and we had as our main speaker Simon Austen who is the minister of a large C of E church in the neighbouring city. Simon gave us two excellent talks which I will link to when they come onto our website. My church's position is that while we believe these Bible-believing Anglican churches should come out of the C of E and deplore their paedobaptism, we will cooperate with them. It seems only a matter of time before they either leave or are forced out, and Simon's church already practices believers' baptism.

Simon Austen has written three books https://www.abebooks.co.uk/book-search/author/simon-austen/

 

he is on his way to becoming a baptist!

 

May not be what you had in mind, but...John Stout was an avid bird watcher. Even wrote a book about bird watching.

The Birds: Our Teachers: Biblical Lessons from a Lifelong Bird Watcher (Baker, 2008).