Hello! I'm new to this board. Just wondering if anyone here likes to read books by either Wayne Grudem or John Piper. I just recently discovered these two. I am currently working my way through Grudems "Systematic Theology" & I also am reading "Desiring God" by John Piper. Any thoughts or opinions?
-
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!
Reading: anyone like Grudem or Piper?
- Thread starter 3John2
- Start date
I have mixed feelings about MacArthur. Sometimes he is REALLY good then sometimes he makes asinine statements like when he talks about charismatics. Being one I disagree with him. He always picks the worst examples of charismatics that he can. I guess it would be like someone picking the worst "redneck" to use as an example of a fundamental Baptist. I do like his other stuff though. VERY good once again. Grudem I LOVE so far!! I like his stand he took regarding new translations. Very bold. As for Piper so far so good as well. Except I don't agree with his Reformed theology. But DG is a great book. I'm LIVING that!!! I also liked his book on fasting. I like MacArthurs stand he took on Larry King as well!!! GREAT!!!
I understand they are all Reformed. I just don't believe God is a respector or persons. I don't wish to get into it here but I DO LOVE PIPER'S BOOKS!! I think he has a lot to offer. I just don't believe in TULIP. As for MacArthur like I said "Charismatic Chaos" aside I think he is VERY VERY good. I think they are all a blessing.
The other night on the Bible Answer Man show someone called asking about John Piper. Hank Henagraaf went on to say that he is a very reliable teacher and totally recomended him. However, he did give a little caveat about his strong Calvinism and told the caller he should be careful in this area.
I don't see any problem with this approach. I love John Macaurther but don't agree with all of his conclusions but hear him out on everything.
If we only listened and supported ministries which we agreed with 100%, then we wouldn't be listening or supporting ANY ministires. We need to realize that we're going to reach different conclusions on many secondary issues.
Jacob.
I don't see any problem with this approach. I love John Macaurther but don't agree with all of his conclusions but hear him out on everything.
If we only listened and supported ministries which we agreed with 100%, then we wouldn't be listening or supporting ANY ministires. We need to realize that we're going to reach different conclusions on many secondary issues.
Jacob.
JonathanDT
New Member
Our Christian Life and Throught professor here at Cedarville uses Grudem's "Bible Doctrine" book as our text book. I think it's pretty good, my only problem with it so far is I think he could have gone a little farther in depth about the Biblical canon.
I think Grudem covered the canon VERY well in his "Systematic Theology". I agree about listening to someone all the way through. If I had disregarded MacArthur because of his Charismatic views I would have lost a tremendous blessing in his other teachings. I also heard a guy on the radio, a show called "The Unknown Bible". The guy is a Baptist but he was slamming Calvinism. Oh well. I don't agree with it but like I've said I enjoy the above mentioned three. The points of TULIP pertain to soteriology so that doctrine aside I can be blessed by the other teachings.
I agree about that. I read "Grace Unknown" by RC Sproul so that I could understand Reformed theology. I STILL do not agree with it but it did make me think. I have no problem reading other books but I'm very selective as I would rather get blessed. Time is TOO short. However on the Grudem & Piper their stuff is really a blessing.
JonathanDT
New Member
The book we're using is actually an abridged version of Grudem's "Systemic Theology," so maybe they just decided it wasn't worth keeping in.
Really my biggest complaint was he never mentioned how we know that THESE books are the books of the Bible, he never says how we know that Hebrews belongs in the Bible but the book of Judith doesn't. Just an annoyance, as it would be quite easy to use that flaw to tear apart much of the theology used in the rest of the book by claiming that the particular book of the Bible he's quoting from shouldn't really be there.