Are there any Bible teachers you fully agree with.

[JonC]

The proper wording in English is The Institutes Of The Christian Religion.

I would venture to say that one who disagrees with as much as 20% of those Institutes is not a Christian. Not just a non-Calvinist --but a non-believer. The same percentage goes for The Westminster Confession Of Faith and The Savoy Declaration.

More Spurgeon quotes regarding John Calvin :

"John Calvin propounded truth more clearly than any other man who ever breathed, knew more of Scripture, and explained it more clearly."

"I believe nothing merely because Calvin taught it, but because I have found his teaching in the Word of God."

"We hold and assert again and again that the truth which Calvin preached was the very truth which the apostle Paul had long before written in his inspired epistles, and which is most clearly revealed in the discourses of our blessed Lord himself."

Lol....yes, but I'm not going to type out the long title.

As far as disagreeing with Institutes, it depends. Do you mean what Calvin's theology has in common with all believers? Then I agree, but who cares? That is what all have in common.

It is more interesting to examine what sets Calvin apart from the rest.

If Spurgeon believed Calvin preached what Paul wrote century's before then just go to Paul and dismiss all of those extra ideas.

Too often we seem to gravitate to men telling us what God would have wrote, but for some reason didn't. But if all Calvin did was to condense Paul's 13 letters into 1800 pages then let's just stick with Paul.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is exactly what everybody thinks.

My rule of thumb is those beliefs you cannot actually highlight with a pen in your Bible...well, those are not directly from the Apostles.

They may be understandings, ideas, opinions, and doctrines based on the teachings of the Apostles, but they are not those actual teachings.

I'll give you an example :

Christ died for our sins by taking that death instead of us. That is a very common belief, but it is not in the Bible (Christ dying for our sins is in the Bible, but the rest is not).

So how can you defend that belief? Systematic Theology. You defend the reasons (the philosophes you have developed from the OT, the idea of justice you hold, ... and so on) for holding that view

But most Christians do not hold that view. And they have to defend their theology that is not actually in the Bible much the same way.

You end up not arguing Scripture because nobody is actually talking about the Bible, and instead argue which philosophy is right.

Each opposing side claims to know what the Bible teaches, but too often they do not stuck with what the Bible actually says ("what is written").

That is why I believe that foundational doctrines should actually be in the text of Scripture.


(Not saying you....just a general statement).

Why I am a Primitive Baptist - Elder Michael Gowens

 

[JonC]

Why I am a Primitive Baptist - Elder Michael Gowens

I like the first point (that is also the way I approach Scripture).

Reformed Theologians will offer Covenant Theology in order to organize and interpret God's redemption. Some will offer a bunch of philosophies and rules.

But I believe it is best to si.pmy read and study the Bible.

The reason is that I do not believe God provided His Word to scholars and theologians to decode in order to tell us working stiffs what the Bible really means. I mean, if I am supposed to read volumes of 16th Century writings, dozens of commentaries and Systematic Theologies in order to understand the gospel....well...what dies that say about God's ability to communicate?

I believe God provided His Word to us. I believe He chose fishermen and tax collectors as Disciples instead of taking up the previous time of religious leaders in their ivory towers for a reason.

The other two points...well...I agree with them in principle but every Christian holds their views for the same reasons.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

If Spurgeon believed Calvin preached what Paul wrote century's before then just go to Paul and dismiss all of those extra ideas.

Too often we seem to gravitate to men telling us what God would have wrote, but for some reason didn't. But if all Calvin did was to condense Paul's 13 letters into 1800 pages then let's just stick with Paul.

What do preachers do? They preach. Many sermons are recorded. Many times they are transcribed and put in book form with their other sermons. The Bible needs to be expounded --fleshed out. Look at Nehemiah 8:8 :
"They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read." (NIV)
It is so obvious. A sermon is not only reading a chapter or two, but explaining and applying the text. Calvin was a master of exposition. His sermons, lectures, commentaries and even letters let the light in so that the people of the Lord can have a deeper understanding of Scripture.

 

[Piper]

I have been a Christian since the summer of 1962. I have yet to find any one Bible teacher that I can agree with on all points (100%). All secondary issues.

Nope. My favorite one holds to divorce only being allowed during betrothal, and remarriage never.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What do preachers do? They preach. Many sermons are recorded. Many times they are transcribed and put in book form with their other sermons. The Bible needs to be expounded --fleshed out. Look at Nehemiah 8:8 :
"They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read." (NIV)
It is so obvious. A sermon is not only reading a chapter or two, but explaining and applying the text. Calvin was a master of exposition. His sermons, lectures, commentaries and even letters let the light in so that the people of the Lord can have a deeper understanding of Scripture.

Calvin wrote something called The Golden Books, which are short brief expositions from the Bible. I found them in a church library tucked under a shelf. I was surprised that a man, known for long sermons would have created short commentary… and they were both articulated and direct. Look into it as another frame of reference into the man’s character.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Nope. My favorite one holds to divorce only being allowed during betrothal, and remarriage never.

What if the spouse comes out as a lesbian and encouraged the daughter to be a transvestite? Is divorce permissible at that point?

 

[JonC]

What do preachers do? They preach. Many sermons are recorded. Many times they are transcribed and put in book form with their other sermons. The Bible needs to be expounded --fleshed out. Look at Nehemiah 8:8 :
"They read from the Book of the Law of God, making it clear and giving the meaning so that the people understood what was being read." (NIV)
It is so obvious. A sermon is not only reading a chapter or two, but explaining and applying the text. Calvin was a master of exposition. His sermons, lectures, commentaries and even letters let the light in so that the people of the Lord can have a deeper understanding of Scripture.

The issue is more when preachers explain what is not actually there.

But you do make a good point. Did God give us the Bible or did God give the Bible to teachers or priests to expand upon that Scripture?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Oh, if it is gift, it is easy, Matthew 11:28-30.

https://sovgrace.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/We-Believe-in-Divine-Preservation.mp3

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Did God give us the Bible or did God give the Bible to teachers or priests to expand upon that Scripture?

You know better than to frame it that way. The Bible is for everyone. The Lord gave us the Scriptures to reveal Himself to us. All Scripture is expired with the breath of God --known popularly as inspiration. It is useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
The Bible says that elders are worthy of double honor are those whose work is preaching and teaching.

The Lord has graciously given the Church --His Body teacher/preachers whose usefulness has been expanded over the centuries for our spiritual profit. John Calvin is perhaps the most noted one. But there have been thousands over the span of time whose works have been a great help to us. They may have ministered a few decades on this earth, but their ministry has continued way beyond their short lives.

 

[JonC]

You know better than to frame it that way. The Bible is for everyone. The Lord gave us the Scriptures to reveal Himself to us. All Scripture is expired with the breath of God --known popularly as inspiration. It is useful for teaching, rebuking and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
The Bible says that elders are worthy of double honor are those whose work is preaching and teaching.

The Lord has graciously given the Church --His Body teacher/preachers whose usefulness has been expanded over the centuries for our spiritual profit. John Calvin is perhaps the most noted one. But there have been thousands over the span of time whose works have been a great help to us. They may have ministered a few decades on this earth, but their ministry has continued way beyond their short lives.

God has indeed given us a rich history of teachers.

BUT this introduced a great issue.

You say John Calvin is perhaps the most noted one. Yet this is only within a minority sect of Christians. Others would say Karl Barth is the most noted one, or John Wesley...or Moody...or Tozier....or Martin Luther...or Thomas Aquinas...or Conrad Grebel....or Menno Simons....

The issue is criteria. If not what is recorded in the text of Scripture then it is the actual audience, not even the teacher, because it comes down to subjective and individual preference.

 

[37818]

Most of everything that we think we know has all come from others.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

What do you know about Primitive Baptists? If you haven’t studied it, then no because your woefully deficient in your edu concerning people have been around before modern Baptists, so sorry to point that out… correct me if I’m wrong.

I know no more about Primitive Baptists than I have read here. they do not exist SFAIK in Britain.
With regard to the age of organizations called 'primitive,' the Primitive Methodists split from the main body of Methodism in the mid-19th Century because they believed (rightly, I think) that Methodism was going soft. So the Primitive Methodists were actually a more recent body than the Methodists.
Sad to relate, the P.M.s re-united with the main body somewhere around 1900 and of course Methodism in Britain is now hopelessly liberal.
So calling oneself 'primitive' is no guarantee of age, nor is it mean that you may not go liberal at some point in the future. A good, solid confession of faith is the best guard against that.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I have not heard anything in a sermon by Alistair Begg that I disagree with, but I'm sure that if I listened to enough of them, I'd find something I didn't like.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

God has indeed given us a rich history of teachers.

You say John Calvin is perhaps the most noted one. Yet this is only within a minority sect of Christians. Others would say Karl Barth is the most noted one, or John Wesley...or Moody...or Tozier....or Martin Luther...or Thomas Aquinas...or Conrad Grebel....or Menno Simons....

Aquinas is the only one you listed in the ballpark. Among others would be Owen, Turretin, Charnock, Gill, Kuyper, Bavinck and Warfield.

John Calvin transcends the Reformed world. He is Mount Everest.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Calvin wrote something called The Golden Books, which are short brief expositions from the Bible. I found them in a church library tucked under a shelf. I was surprised that a man, known for long sermons would have created short commentary… and they were both articulated and direct. Look into it as another frame of reference into the man’s character.

It is a singular book in a few ways. It was not a series.
It ended up being a chapter in the second, third and fourth editions. It's a classic and would not sound 'Calvinistic' to any non-Reformed reader.
Calvin also wrote another brief booklet called On The Christian Life. It's 132 pages.
And speaking of brevity Devotions And Prayers Of John Calvin is rather nifty. It's 120 pages. I need to reread that one.

I have Calvin's sermons on Micah. The uniform length of his sermons was 15 to 16 pages. That's on pace with the length of DML-J's sermons. A message lasting that long would be a bit less than three minutes per page. I read one page aloud from a chapter of Calvin and timed it. So, in other words about 45 minutes --give or take. His verbal speed might have been slower. We have no way of knowing.
Have you ever listened to sermons lasting an hour or more? It was common in S. Kora in which two languages were being used.
I think the appetite for church members may for half hour sermons. To go for 15 minutes is basically a homily. An hour would be too much to digest. At least that would be the excuse.
The basic goal of a sermon is the biblical content and application.

 

[JonC]

Aquinas is the only one you listed in the ballpark. Among others would be Owen, Turretin, Charnock, Gill, Kuyper, Bavinck and Warfield.

John Calvin transcends the Reformed world. He is Mount Everest.

My point is you base that on your own preferences.

It is easy for us to ignore faulty theological aspects of those men what support our held beliefs. We ignore that Calvin l, Owen and Gill, for example, held very anti-baptist theologies because of what we like about their theologies.

As far as scholarship goes, Karl Barth (who I do not agree with, BTW) exceeds the bunch you lists. So does Torrance. Actually, so does Wright come to think of it. BUT we don't hold their views so we easily dismiss them while uplifting those who also don't hold our beliefs but do support those portions of our belief systems that differentiate us.

Your conclusions are entirely subjective. Calvin, for example, was a lawyer turned religious leader. He was unable to separate his humanistic law background from his theology (and it shows in how he approached theology).

That said, I agree that insofar as influence Calvin is Mount Everest (even beyond Reformed groups....his theories are even seen to some degree in Pentecostalism). So were we to talk about influence, I'd agree.

But talking about choosing men based on human understanding as authors of our faith....it just seems to subjective. All of them men exceeded Scripture by teaching doctrine that is not in Scripture.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

My point is you base that on your own preferences.

It is easy for us to ignore faulty theological aspects of those men what support our held beliefs. We ignore that Calvin l, Owen and Gill, for example, held very anti-baptist theologies because of what we like about their theologies.
.

You are confused. Dr. Gill was a Baptist.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

As far as scholarship goes, Karl Barth (who I do not agree with, BTW) exceeds the bunch you lists. So does Torrance. Actually, so does Wright come to think of it. BUT we don't hold their views so we easily dismiss them while uplifting those who also don't hold our beliefs but do support those portions of our belief systems that differentiate us.

Please rework that last sentence. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[RipponRedeaux]

Your conclusions are entirely subjective. Calvin, for example, was a lawyer turned religious leader. He was unable to separate his humanistic law background from his theology (and it shows in how he approached theology).

That said, I agree that insofar as influence Calvin is Mount Everest (even beyond Reformed groups....his theories are even seen to some degree in Pentecostalism). So were we to talk about influence, I'd agree.

But talking about choosing men based on human understanding as authors of our faith....it just seems to subjective. All of them men exceeded Scripture by teaching doctrine that is not in Scripture.

"All of them men" you say. Do you live in the hills? ;-)

Calvin was not a lawyer. He did not practice law. When his father died Calvin took up humanistic studies.

I'm glad you agreed with my Mt. Everest analogy regarding John Calvin's status. So my estimation of Calvin's enduring influence is not that subjective after all.

Calvin died 459 years ago. His influence over nearly half millennium has been without precedent. Bavinck and Warfield died 102 years ago. Their influence has been enormous. Barth was perhaps the most significant theologian of the 20th century. But others will have to wait to 2068 to judge how much of an impact he will have by then.