What is the PB conventional wisdom regarding John Stott's writings?

__________________

I heard that many conservative reformed people are reading him, but he denies the eternal hell, and thats for me a fundamental doctrine, so i have not much interest to read him. He wrote forexample a book called "the cross of christ", so how can he take his view on the cross serieusly if he denies the eternal wrath of God ?

__________________
* Ralph Wilms (7-10-1974)
* Church : Christengemeente Roermond (The Netherlands)
* Credobaptist who hold towards Covenant Theology
* Husband of Reena & father of Naomie and Gideon
* 1729 Goat Yard Declaration of Faith
* 1646 & 1689 Baptist Confession of faith
* 1595 The Lambeth Articles
* 1618-1619 The Canons of Dordt

His view on hell happened later in life. His early works are worth reading.

__________________
Ivan Schoen, Pastor
Maranatha Baptist Church
Poplar Grove, Illinois USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org/
"When a denomination begins to consider doctrine divisive, theology troublesome, and convictions inconvenient, consider that denomination on its way to a well-deserved death." Dr. Albert Mohler, President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

I have always read and profited from the writings of Stott. His biblical expositions are always exegetically sound and pastorally helpful (cf. Ephesians or the Sermon on the Mount). His impact on world evangelizatin has also been amazing. The Urbana conference where he has usually been featured has helped many young people go into vocational missions.

His late 1980s admission of being an annihilationist grieved me almost as much as accounts about pastors who fall into sexual sin. His "coming out" was couched in the language of recognition that this might be a divisive issue for the larger Christian community. Duh! His argument is that God's eternal wrath is visited on the reprobate in that they are raised to be judged, and then tossed into the Lake of Fire, where they will experience an eternal death. Wrong!

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

In the providence of God Stott, through Langham Trust that he founded, is the single most influental person in theologically edcuating third world Anglican leadership and keeping it loyal to the worldview of the 39 Articles and hence to the Scriptures. Which is why the English and North American Archbishops are finding it hard to win the fight over homosexuality.

__________________
In Christ's love and service

Mr. Tim Cunningham, Dip. CS (Regent College)
Member, First Baptist Church
Vancouver, BC

------------
"The Reformation was a time when men went blind, staggering drunk because they had discovered, in the dusty basement of late medievalism, a whole cellar of 1500-year-old, 200 proof grace—a bottle after bottle of pure distillate of Scripture, one sip of which would convince anyone that God saves us single-handedly. The word of the gospel—after all these centuries of trying to lift yourself into heaven by worrying about the perfection of your own bootstraps—suddenly turned out to be a flat announcement that the saved were home-free before they started. Grace was to be drunk neat: no water, no ice, and certainly no ginger ale." – Robert Farrar Capon

Praise God!

In one of his books (called in Spanish Cómo Interpretar la Biblia) he set out in brief and clear language basically what Ridderbos argued for in Redemptive History and the New Testament Scriptures. This was very helpful as Ridderbos (in Spanish, anyway) was rather hard to follow.
I like Stott for being clear and stimulating, even though there are obviously significant errors.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando - Reformed Discussion Board in Spanish.

Spanish Blog -Teologia en Mexico
English Blog -The Howling Wilderness

His Bible Speaks Today commentaries are excellent (published by IVP), especially the ones on Galatians, Ephesians and Romans.

__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)

I second Daniel's recommendations of Stott. He is really very sensible on most things. Calvin once said that any theologian can be at most 80% correct. Chalk annihilationism to Stott's 20%!

__________________
Rev. Lane Keister
Teaching Elder, PCA, North Dakota (working out of bounds in a CRC and an RCA church)
http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com
http://brahmsgreenglove.blogspot.com
http://accenttranslation.blogspot.com
Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

We on PB might think we have got it 100% right, but Calvin's estimate seems more accurate.

Well, that can't be right, since baptism is a war zone here, as is textual criticism and theonomy!

Those last two issues would be much less contentious if both sides stopped calling the other "unconfessional". As the Purtian Board does not demand that you adopt a particular position on either issue, then surely it recognises people holding different views on these matters as being within the bounds of the confessions?

If only, Daniel, if only! Unfortunately, it does not seem to be possible to hold to the TR position without charging the rest of the world with contradicting the Westminster Standards and the doctrine of inerrancy. But this is only a one-way problem. I have zero problem with Matthew Winzer and Steve Rafalsky's position on inerrancy, in terms of believing them. I wish they would believe me.

I don't know that theonomy has ever been that much of an issue for me. There is just enough vagueness among various positions that I really don't have a bone in this fight. My position is this: general equity is present in many of the OT laws, and that general equity is still binding, even if the exact form of the law is not.

SOME of us are 100% correct on baptism, textual criticism, and theonomy . . . just ask me.

Well, obviously...

I wish I had a buck for every time I heard the word "obviously" in a debate where nothing was obvious. Does that bug you as much as it bugs me?

Thank you . But I don't claim perfection. My theological errors are in other places!

Or how about the word "clearly". It is a pet peeve of mine as well, and I never use these words because I don't want to assume that anything I say is clear to anyone but myself. (My wife has trained me well)

I, too, have profited greatly from Stott. In fact, if any of you are looking for a good work to read on homiletics, pick up his work entitled "Between Two Worlds"--good stuff...

I know this will appear ironic, but his work "Understanding the Bible" is good too, as well as the classic "Basic Christianity."

As has been stated, his commentaries are also very helpful. Let us pray that our Lord will direct his thoughts concerning his view of Hell.

__________________
Pastor Steve Bradley
Trinity Reformed Presbyterian Church (RPCNA)
www.trinityrpc.org
www.sermonaudio.com/trinityrpc
www.reformedvoice.com/trinityrpc
Riva, MD

Basic Christianity is a wonderful work that I benefitted from in my young Christian life. I just bought a copy to have in my library. I haven't read Between Two Worlds yet, but I will.

I have given away over 2 dozen copies of Basic Christianianity over the years & have used it as the basis of several bible studies.

If he never wrote anything else, that one book would be enough. IMO.

__________________
Kevin Rogers
Sovereign Community Church, PCA
Moncton NB

As to Stott's annihilationism, he has stepped back a little; he now says he is agnostic on the subject of Hell. Which is an improvement, I suppose...

His book The Cross of Christ is excellent; his masterpiece, in fact. His commentary on Romans is also first-rate.

Stott (who will be 87 this year, by the way) is like J. I. Packer in this regard: if the guy stumbles in one area theologically, that's no reason to throw out everything he's written. I thought Packer was nuts to align himself with the ECT nonsense, but I'm not about to throw out my copies of "Fundamentalism" and the Word of God or Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God or any of his writings on the Puritans.

For both men: let's not throw out the baby with the bathwater...

__________________
Richard T. Zuelch, M.Div
Ruling Elder, OPC (not currently serving)
Westminster Presbyterian Church, CA (OPC)
www.reiterations.wordpress.com
www.foft.wordpress.com

Talking to oneself is, I believe, considered a sign of lunacy. Thinking to oneself is most certainly a sign of it. - G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936), in January, 1906

__________________
Richard
CofE
UK

Has anybody read his argument for his position on Hell? As an accomplished interpreter he must have a biblical argument.

__________________
Bruce
PCUSA
Ocean City NJ