Who is your favorite Arminian preacher/teacher

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jon 316

Puritan Board Sophomore
Come on admit it, we all have them. You know what I mean, those books which are stashed in the bottom shelf or perhaps behind your Berkhof and Institutes.

Perhaps I am just revealing my unreformed areas of my life, but I happen to enjoy the works of... (In no particular order)

A.W Tozer
Andrew Murray
John Wesley
Watchman Nee
R.A Torrey
David Pawson
Leonard Ravenhill
David Wilkerson

Honest I am a Calvinist...I really am... :eek:
 
For me, it would have to be John R. Rice. He wrote a tract that the Lord graciously used in order to convert me. Someone had thrown it out in a landfill site where I worked, I picked it up, and not long after was a believer.

edit::

I would add that though the Lord used this man in my conversion, I do not follow any of his teaching or preaching materials today. He was very much an anti-Calvinist, as evidenced by some materials he published on the subject. That said, it matters not so much to me who the Lord used as an instrument in my salvation, but that he did it in the first place.
 
Last edited:
Your point is well taken. There are many brothers and sisters in Christ who believe or assume Arminian influenced theology.

However, I'm reflecting on whether we ought laud or disparage men so much with polls. We do, in the reformed theology, follow God, trying not to be undue followers of men or teachers, i.e. "respecters of persons."

A couple of the people on your list, such as Mr Nee, have some very serious doctrine and legacy error, and might not be rightly grouped together with others.

Those are problems with popularity "lists."
 
I really have a hard time benefiting from that type of preaching anymore. I used to be into almost all of the teachers you listed, but they all share the Keswick/"Higher Life" mentality of the Christian life, instead one that is more rooted in Word and Sacrament. Personally, I have spent a lot of time recovering from their teaching, by God's grace.
 
John Frame once wrote that he rather sit under the preaching of a good Arminian than a bad Calvinist!
 
I kinda like Oswald Chambers. I've found his My Utmost for His Highest useful in years past. I don't think he was Calvinistic.
 
John Frame once wrote that he rather sit under the preaching of a good Arminian than a bad Calvinist!

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I assume he is talking about the level of passion? As in a fiery Arminian vs. a cold Calvinist.

If so, it seems to me like they are saying they would rather hear passionate, bad theology rather than "cold", orthodox theology. It doesn't matter how fiery the preaching is, Arminianism is a ditch.
 
heh folks,
However, I'm reflecting on whether we ought laud or disparage men so much with polls. We do, in the reformed theology, follow God, trying not to be undue followers of men or teachers, i.e. "respecters of persons."

You didn't mention Billy Graham...


my list was not exaustive.. just some of the guys I like. The key question was who do people like.

A couple of the people on your list, such as Mr Nee, have some very serious doctrine and legacy error, and might not be rightly grouped together with others.

I havnt lumped them together for any other reason than 1) they are all arminian 2) I like some of their teaching.


I really have a hard time benefiting from that type of preaching anymore. I used to be into almost all of the teachers you listed, but they all share the Keswick/"Higher Life" mentality of the Christian life, instead one that is more rooted in Word and Sacrament. I personally have spent a lot of time recovering from their teaching, by God's grace.

There are dangers in some of these guys teachings, however potentially you could say that about all arminian theology since ultimately it will put some burden of justiufication or sanctification upon the believer??
 
John Frame once wrote that he rather sit under the preaching of a good Arminian than a bad Calvinist!

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I assume he is talking about the level of passion? As in a fiery Arminian vs. a cold Calvinist.

If so, it seems to me like they are saying they would rather hear passionate, bad theology rather than "cold", orthodox theology. It doesn't matter how fiery the preaching is, Arminianism is a ditch.

He meant it in the sense that much of Arminian preaching is not "doctrinal" preaching, per se. That is, good Arminian preachers don't make it a point to specifically get on an Arminian hobby horse and preach that way. Many are faithful to the specific text they are preaching on, and their faulty soteriology does not necessarily get in the way.
 
There are dangers in some of these guys teachings, however potentially you could say that about all arminian theology since ultimately it will put some burden of justiufication or sanctification upon the believer??

Yes, I would say that about all Arminian theology.
 
I'd just go right for the root. If I have to choose listening to someone mess up the Gospel - I'd just simply go with the Devil.

The Devil is the best Arminian preacher. He's been MOST used by God.
 
There are dangers in some of these guys teachings, however potentially you could say that about all arminian theology since ultimately it will put some burden of justiufication or sanctification upon the believer??

Yes, I would say that about all Arminian theology.

While this is true, to a point. It does not change the fact that many arminians have been deeply used of God. Many of their works are rich and insightful. etc etc

-----Added 2/19/2009 at 06:25:59 EST-----

Jon316 with these kind of threads you have me :gpl: you.

lol whatever do you mean?
 
John Frame once wrote that he rather sit under the preaching of a good Arminian than a bad Calvinist!

I'm not sure I understand that statement. I assume he is talking about the level of passion? As in a fiery Arminian vs. a cold Calvinist.

If so, it seems to me like they are saying they would rather hear passionate, bad theology rather than "cold", orthodox theology. It doesn't matter how fiery the preaching is, Arminianism is a ditch.

I think this is being defined a little too much as a dichotomy when it is more like a continuum. Especially in reference to the 20th century there are many preachers (including some mentioned on this thread) who would not agree with Calvinism in an abstract sense but taught Calvinistically in much of their practical teaching. This may have been contradiction in them but it still meant they could be godly and actually teach some true doctrine.

On that basis I have benefited from

1. CS Lewis
2. Paris Reidhead
3. Leonard Ravenhill
4. A.W. Tozer
 
Leonard Ravenhill no competition.

I really like Tozer too but dunno ravenhill's preaching was a bit more fired up and Tozer's mysticism angle I can't agree with.

Though if I remember correctly reading Paris reidhead's website he is leaning towards Calvinism but I dont think he taught it much and Leonard Ravenhill, he wasn't a Calvinist but I heard him preach for a few minutes on the fact that it is God's action that saved you before you chose him.
 
I think this is being defined a little too much as a dichotomy when it is more like a continuum. Especially in reference to the 20th century there are many preachers (including some mentioned on this thread) who would not agree with Calvinism in an abstract sense but taught Calvinistically in much of their practical teaching. This may have been contradiction in them but it still meant they could be godly and actually teach some true doctrine.

:agree:
 
Lee! :welcome:

fellow renfrewshireite ;)

-----Added 2/19/2009 at 06:33:07 EST-----

:ditto:
I think this is being defined a little too much as a dichotomy when it is more like a continuum. Especially in reference to the 20th century there are many preachers (including some mentioned on this thread) who would not agree with Calvinism in an abstract sense but taught Calvinistically in much of their practical teaching. This may have been contradiction in them but it still meant they could be godly and actually teach some true doctrine.

:agree:
 
Yeah, Arminius really seems like a likable guy, from what I've read of him. He was mainly trying to be true to his understanding before the Lord with what scripture said, and seemed very sincere and loving towards those that differed. He just didn't want to sign off on a theology that he thought took excessive straining to deduce from scripture. I have his 3-volume set of works, and enjoy reading his perspective at times, even though I disagree with his conclusions. So, he gets my vote.
 
H A Ironside

I love this guys teaching, the way he rips into the Holiness movement and the concept of Christian perfection is still thrilling to me.

I was very saddened to see how he attempted to undermine Pink's preaching whne I read Pink's biography.
 
Arminius, Oden, Wesley, Miley, Burt are often helpful.

hmm I only really know about Wesley. though I'm assuming Arminius is THEE arminius... I never thought of actually reading his stuff hmmm food for thought. :think:

William Pope Burt's Compendium of Christian Theology: Here

John Miley's Systematic isn't online, and though it is hard to find, it is probably the best Arminian systematic. (Thomas) Oden is a "post-conservative" arminian theologian. He is one of the better arminian scholars writing today. Once and a while I'll check ebay for cheap usd copies of their books.
For some reason many of the classic works in arminian theology have not been reprinted and are rare, if not impossible except in select libraries, to obtain. I've alwayed wondered whether arminian theologians (or theologically adept lay-people) worry at the ever-rising increase in Reformed reprints (on top of the thousands of works we already have easy access to), compared to the huge lack of arminian theologial works avaliable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top