"Of course" N.T. Wright because he's unarguably one of the foremost committed evangelicals of our time.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Most Influential Theologian
- Thread starter TomVols
- Start date
"Of course" N.T. Wright because he's unarguably one of the foremost committed evangelicals of our time.
Its been years since I read it, but strictly from memory the lack of Scripture, the elitist attitude, his dealing with moral ability, and his fight against the doctrine initially which he claimed was of the flesh (while already being a spirit indwelled believer).
I am not certain I follow your thought. You rejected Calvinism because:
1. Sproul's attitude?
2. His lack of citation of Scripture?
3. How he personally addressed moral ability?
It seems that you rejected more Sproul than you did the doctrine, or am I missing something? Did you say you were once a Calvinist? I would find it difficult to believe someone was truly a Calvinist and yet not having a strong theology of moral ability, as this doctrine seems rather central to our view. One poor argument would be difficult to persuade anyone who called themselves a Calvinist. I would suspect you had to gravitate to positive arguments to the contrary than a poorly made argument from the reformed perspective.
Interesting. MacArthur can be a [snip - personal attacks are not allowed], but I haven't seen anything that bad out of Sproul.
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
Unless one already has his mind made up before reading him... In that case, his arguments would grate on the nerves. :smilewinkgrin:
Last edited by a moderator:
heartofflesh
New Member
God - J.I. Packer and A.W. Pink
Apologetics - Greg Bahnsen & Cornelius Van Til
Soteriology - John Calvin & St. Augustine
Man - Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards
Sproul and MacArthur kind of go all over these categories.
Apologetics - Greg Bahnsen & Cornelius Van Til
Soteriology - John Calvin & St. Augustine
Man - Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards
Sproul and MacArthur kind of go all over these categories.
I said he was influential, not that he was the end all, be all reason. He really got me to thinking (and praying) about what truth truly entailed, and not trying to read something into what is not there.
Webdog wrote:
I could see how he might come across as elitist. He is very intellectually gifted, and sometimes that in and of itself rubs some people wrong. In my interaction with him, he's seemed to have a good sense of humor and seems to be personable. That said, I can't say you're off your rocker for thinking what you think. I can see what you're saying. In my mind, it's even more true of MacArthur. I can also see Ruiz's point about rejecting Sproul more than Sproul's theology. Jerks can be found regardless of their theological pedigree.
Ruiz said, regarding your departure from Calvinism:
I don't recall this work, but I don't recall Sproul being the type to sparsely appeal to Scripture in the other works I've read of his. But I'll take your word for it.
I could see how he might come across as elitist. He is very intellectually gifted, and sometimes that in and of itself rubs some people wrong. In my interaction with him, he's seemed to have a good sense of humor and seems to be personable. That said, I can't say you're off your rocker for thinking what you think. I can see what you're saying. In my mind, it's even more true of MacArthur. I can also see Ruiz's point about rejecting Sproul more than Sproul's theology. Jerks can be found regardless of their theological pedigree.
Ruiz said, regarding your departure from Calvinism:
I don't find it difficult to believe at all that a person can be comitted to Calvinism yet stray, just as someone can be wholly committed to Arminianism and then leave it behind. If the door can swing one way, it has to swing the other. Now, maybe those who stray weren't whole-hearted Cals or Arms, but then again, my batteries are dead on my soteriology-meter, so I may not have a true reading of how staunch someone really is :smilewinkgrin:
glazer1972
Member
FWIW I listened to a series from R.C. Sproul's website...I don't think he quoted a single scripture in the entire series.
Having said that I still consider myself quite calvinistic.
Having said that I still consider myself quite calvinistic.
I'm a mixed bag. My flip-flopping between Calvinism and Arminianism has colored my theological journey, so you will see a variety of influences here.
My first major influence was Charles Ryrie, but I have since moved away from his full-blown dispensationalism. I'd be closer to a progressive understanding of it.
After that comes Wayne Grudem because his was the first full systematic theology to which I was exposed. (I'm young, if you all didn't know!)
A few other influences:
John Wesley--although I don't agree with him regarding entire sanctification, his teachings have helped me avoid a defeatist attitude toward struggling with sin.
John Calvin--in terms of sacramental theology, I am much closer to Calvin than to the average Baptist.
Martin Luther--Law vs. Gospel, contra Calvin. I have never been in agreement with the Reformed view of the Law.
R.C. Sproul--justification by faith. Although I'm not on board with everything he teaches, Sproul does justice to this topic.
My first major influence was Charles Ryrie, but I have since moved away from his full-blown dispensationalism. I'd be closer to a progressive understanding of it.
After that comes Wayne Grudem because his was the first full systematic theology to which I was exposed. (I'm young, if you all didn't know!)
A few other influences:
John Wesley--although I don't agree with him regarding entire sanctification, his teachings have helped me avoid a defeatist attitude toward struggling with sin.
John Calvin--in terms of sacramental theology, I am much closer to Calvin than to the average Baptist.
Martin Luther--Law vs. Gospel, contra Calvin. I have never been in agreement with the Reformed view of the Law.
R.C. Sproul--justification by faith. Although I'm not on board with everything he teaches, Sproul does justice to this topic.
have you ever read Millard Erickson Systematic Theology?
Didn't barth though go off into a kind of 'Christian Universalism?"
Did Tillich actually even believe in the Cross of Christ as atonement for sins of mankind? Did his theology have things like atonment grace sin etc as an Evangelical would define them?
Are evangelicals the only ones worthy of salvation?
Ditto. I'm not a "reformed" guy, and I also do not believe all of what he says, but I will say this: R.C. Sproul knows his stuff and is a VERY gifted teacher.
Tillich explained faith as a matter of ultimate concern with a reality transcending finite existence rather than a belief in a personal God.
Barth was virtually in the same era, and also rose out of German rationalism. His theology, like Tilich, was tainted by that background. Whilst he recognized man's total wickedness, he also taught that man's wckedness made man's being centered around that man. He taught that the bible becomes the word of God as man realizes that word. Barth may offer many expessions of faith with which we can equate, there are a lot of statements which are an antithesis to evangelical theology. Was he saved? I don't frankly know, and he never really answerd that question when directy asked. He died in 1968 and I never did hear him state that he was truly born again.
Cheers,
Jim
Barth was virtually in the same era, and also rose out of German rationalism. His theology, like Tilich, was tainted by that background. Whilst he recognized man's total wickedness, he also taught that man's wckedness made man's being centered around that man. He taught that the bible becomes the word of God as man realizes that word. Barth may offer many expessions of faith with which we can equate, there are a lot of statements which are an antithesis to evangelical theology. Was he saved? I don't frankly know, and he never really answerd that question when directy asked. He died in 1968 and I never did hear him state that he was truly born again.
Cheers,
Jim
Nope, NONE of us are worthy of be saved, any who are is due to the grace of God in Christ!
just saying that IF one does not hold to a Evangelical/Fundemental Theology, Do they even have same Gospel same Jesus that saves?
This is a true saying.
JesusFan said:
Well here we would simply disagree. I'd say that the Gospel is spoken in many Christian denominations of both mainline and evangelical persuasion. The Gospel is simple, theology tends to make it more complex.
Specifically answering your questions about Barth and Tillich. The latter is so cursed confusing about things it is hard to say heads or tails at times. However, he does seem to make salvation universal so long as it is contingent on Christ being the sole ground of our existence. (Again, Tillich is influential for me because he is so provoking. After reading him I have to come up with better answers.)
As for Barth, depends on what you're reading from him. Often he can sound inclusivistic other times he's exclusivistic. Regardless his contribution to theology is so substantial that it can't be ignored. Particularly his working out of Christology and Anthropology is important in my own theological heritage. Though I don't turn to him for matters of soteriology he is very influential in my personal theological development.
That is why I really wonder about those whose system of theology takes they way past what the Bible actually is teaching us on work/person of Christ...
Did Tillich even acknowledge the fall/Sin Cross as atonement, and only those who received Christ were saved?
Did Barth?