# What's the majority consensus here about Alister Mcgrath?



## Reformedfellow

Mr. McGrath argues that evolution and Christianity CAN MIX. At around the 6:58 mark he is asked plainly if he is a creationist. Reply; "no".
Again, question; you're an evolutionist? Reply; "yes".


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBRKY8Qx9YQ


----------



## SolaScriptura

It would only be a problem for me if I was one of those chumps who think that I have to agree with someone on everything in order to agree with them on anything. Like anyone else - including Calvin - one must separate the wheat from the chaff.


----------



## J. Dean

McGrath has to be taken with a grain of salt on some issues. True, he has put out some very good pieces, but he's also said some things that I would disagree with him on.

SolaScriptura is right: no man, nor any document or saying of man, be it a confession, creed, doctrine, etc.,is infallible. That infallibility belongs to God and His word, and those things alone. We need to be very careful in not putting our absolute trust in anything or anyone outside of God Himself and His word.


----------



## Peairtach

> This worries me brethren. Please advise



It doesn't worry me about myself, because I could read "the good bits" of McGrath and reject his espousal of "theistic evolution". But if McGrath is commended to a less experienced Christian, he might embrace his erroneous and heretical views on Genesis.

I find the same thing goes through my mind with John Stott who wrote a lot of good stuff before espousing annhilationism. I still hear his books being recommended without qualification by Reformed men.

I haven't read much Stott or McGrath but I know that they've written a lot of good stuff but there's lots of other guys out there who've written the same/similar stuff without the doctrinal poison mixed in.

To the extent that these men have adopted "evangelicalism-with-liberal-stances", their books should come with a health warning, particularly for young and immature Christians and students.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

"Eat the meat, spit out the bones."


----------



## Peairtach

I think we must be very careful to point out their errors, particularly to Christians we think may lack discernment, if we feel the need to recommend them at all.


----------



## Peairtach

> Do you think we are doing a service to God by recommending to others to read and learn from men who do God the great disservice and dishonor by denying Him the title as sovereign creator?
> Wouldn't it be more wise to avoid such men altogether? (As scripture warns us to do.)



I've never recommended them, although I may have recommended C.S.Lewis, but I've heard others recommend them.


----------



## John Bunyan

But McGrath doesn't deny creation, he affirms the doctrine of Creatio ex Nihilo.

Now, if you're gonna stop reading anyone who is not a creationist, are you gonna ignore Augustine with his istantaneous creation of the world and the idea that 6 days of creation are merely 6 categorizations of creation?


----------



## lynnie

There are two kinds of Christian evolutionists. I don't agree with either of them, but I can tolerate the ones like Tim Keller who believe in a historical Adam. At some point in time God took a suckling primate at his momma's hairy breast, or perhaps he was a full grown mature member of his jungle tribe swinging through the trees, and God breathed into him a human soul with human intelligence and without sin, and he really did sin somehow (not sure how Eve and the fruit fits in but they do have a historical Adam). What Paul says in Romans about Adam is literally true for these people. I think we have to bear with them, I really do. Their position is not even truly scientific and I think they are decieved, but within their own logic and beliefs they have an Adam, a fall, sin, and Christ the second Adam our redeemer.

Then there are the evolutionists who are fully evolutionists and Adam is mythical, the fall and Eden and the serpent tempting her, and maybe everything right on up to Abraham is mythical. They maybe have an original human grouping of several thousands of initial "people", or maybe they just have a theistically motivated evolutionary path that led to modern man without any Adam. It varies. Those I reject and I don't want to submit myself to anything they write, it is just too far off into unbelief and biblical denial. Even if they sort of believe it all as a mythical poetic picture of sin, without a first Adam, I find it rather revolting. Yes indeed, I agree with you that this is a denial of essential doctrine.

So to go back to your original post, what sort of evolutionist is AM? I have no idea. If he is a Tim Keller guy I think you need to forbear. You may not agree with his Adam model, but at least he has an Adam who was made man by a sovereign miracle of God breathing a human soul into a primate that evolved, (as opposed to making him directly out of the dust of the ground on one day). That Adam fell and sin was imputed to all of us. Is that what AM holds to? 

Or is he the other kind of evolutionist? No literal Adam? Pete Enns sympathizer? You really must distinguish. 

I'd like to know myself if anybody knows the answer.


----------



## py3ak

Colin, you haven't been labelled a chump for promoting the doctrine of creation. Obviously all authors must be read with discernment, and some have a higher proportion of wheat to chaff than others. Of course, people also have different levels of solid grounding in the truth, and different ability to prove all things and hold fast only that which is good. We should all be honest with ourselves on our abilities in this area. I find that I can take unbelieving books on aspects of Scripture (say E.P. Sanders on the Gospels) only in small doses before they become oppressive to me. But C.S. Lewis' errors don't strike me as being difficult to spot or hard to reject. For someone else, though, it might be the other way around.

I agree with you that creation is a basic, fundamental doctrine of superlative importance; and works by authors who deny the Biblical doctrine of creation should be recommended very cautiously - to those who are well able to sift, and if there is a special reason (perhaps no one else has addressed a particular matter, or it is the only book available in a particular language, or there is need of a contrast to make a position emerge more clearly), not as a matter of course or to all indiscriminately.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Reformedfellow said:


> Never thought I would be labeled a "chump" among a reformed crowd for defending creation. Maybe I've come to the wrong place.



Colin, I apologize for giving you the impression that I was calling YOU a chump for defending creation. That wasn't my intent or point at all. 
Now, I will stick to my guns and say that one does not need to agree with EVERYTHING said by another in order for one to agree with ANYTHING. To assert otherwise is immature, and THAT is what I labeled. As others have said, simply accept what is good and reject what is bad.


----------



## lynnie

_The point is agreeing on, as Ruben so well stated, basic, fundamental doctrines of superlative importance. This INCLUDES creation. Otherwise, we are no longer even referring to the same God. _

I can't believe I'm even saying this as young earth creationist, geocentrist on top of that...but you are so wrong.

As I posted above and you seem to ignore, those who hold to an original Adam who was the first man, who had a God breathed soul without sin, who fell and whose sin was imputed to all men, refer to the same God, and the same Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 

Tim Keller is our brother and in the same covenant union with Christ that you are in. Even if his first Adam got to adulthood after millions of years of theistic evolution. Even if the word death means to him spiritual death, not the death of his biological mother and father and grandpop and great great greats who emerged from that primordial pool of scum. He is still our brother.

You have yet to say if McGrath holds to a literal first Adam, before you banish him to worshipping another God.


----------



## gordo

I don't think he denies creation. He just believes God created the world through evolution. The world was still created by God whether it took 7 days or millions of years.


----------



## lynnie

_I do not know what "form" / "method" of evolution McGrath adheres to, nor do I think it's relevant._

Brother, there are those who believe in an Adam, in a Covenant with God in the garden of Eden, with an Eve, the first two humans, with a God breathed human nature/soul, without sin, who chose to disobey Almighty God and who fell, and whose sin was imputed to all mankind. Those who believe this believe Paul's teaching in Romans is literal, not allegorical or myth or symbolic.

Some of those people think that the Adam I just described was the product of God ordained evolution. I disagree. So do you. But they worship the same God and believe in the same bible as truth.

This is highly relevant, and I don't mean to offend but you are showing some serious ignorance about the positions among those who hold to theistic evolution. It is highly relevant. Let me try stating this again another way:

The more passive we are in attitude towards understanding the difference between brethren who teach and believe in the literal words of Paul in Romans- even while adopting an evolutionary model,- and those who do not belive what Paul said about Adam is literal, the more dangerously blurry we become in arrogantly dismissing genuine brethren as worshipping another God.


----------



## Peairtach

It's "theistic evolutionists" and other evolutionists who believe they're related to chimps that are sadly the chumps.


----------



## gordo

God created the earth. *That's it.* That's all that matters. How it happened, I really don't care. And I am certainly not going to get upset at other Christians over it and discount certain believers because of it. Created in 7 days? Great! Created in 45,000,000 years? Great! Was God behind it all? Absolutely. God bless!


----------



## Unoriginalname

Reformedfellow said:


> How can you say evolution is relevant?


It is relevant because you run the risk of misrepresenting so of our brothers. Obviously it is important to strive to have the most proper interpretation of scripture, however not all faulty views are as systemic as others. There are plenty of individuals who would hold to what Lynnie described Keller as holding to. That does not effect interpretation as much as an Enns interpretation which leads to the denial of the Fall (or an incredible reinterpreting of it), an assault on Romans, and a breakdown of federal theology (with Christ being the second Adam and so on). 
Furthermore you keep stating that AM denies that God is the creator which is simply not true, AM denies YEC, there is a significant difference between what you have stated and the truth. Do not let your rhetoric get in the way of issue.


----------



## lynnie

Brother, I would not even keep trying here if I did not feel concern for your soul.

You are openly stating on a public Christian forum that certain people are not "referring to the same God" that orthodox Chriatianity refers to. That is a strong charge to make.

Let me repeat myself. Does AM "believe in an Adam, in a Covenant with God in the garden of Eden, with an Eve, the first two humans, with a God breathed human nature/soul, without sin, who chose to disobey Almighty God and who fell, and whose sin was imputed to all mankind." ? Well? does he or does he not? 

You are asking the wrong question and demonstrating serious ignorance between men who follow guys like Enns, essentially denying inerrancy, and men who hold to positions like Keller, affirming inerrancy.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Reformedfellow said:


> however I wonder where a line has to be drawn when it comes down to fundamental elements of our faith.



Folks are attempting to answer your question "I wonder where a line has to be drawn...." If you ask the question, you should not be "amazed" that there are a range of responses as to where individuals would draw a line. "Reformed" is confessional, but Reformed is not monolithic.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Reformedfellow said:


> The way we believe the doctrine and theology of creation has a PROFOUND effect on how we interpret the rest of scripture


Thats what we are trying to say, you seem to want to lump people who disagree with you into a pile so that it is easy to demonize them, instead of dealing with the specifics of their views. Misrepresenting your opponents is still misrepresenting at the end of the day. There are at least two forms of theistic evolution, nondenial of a historic Adam, and denial of historic Adam. You need to separate the two if you want to go anywhere in a discussion. I am amazed that you fail to see this.


----------



## J. Dean

On a related note, Iain Murray addresses McGrath in his book "Evangelicalism Divided" and as I recall he's quite critical of him. It's been a while since I've read the book, but as I recollect, it had something to do with McGrath glossing over matters that Murray says should not be glossed over (I'll have to dig the book out again).


----------



## Somerset

Peairtach said:


> This worries me brethren. Please advise
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't worry me about myself, because I could read "the good bits" of McGrath and reject his espousal of "theistic evolution". But if McGrath is commended to a less experienced Christian, he might embrace his erroneous and heretical views on Genesis.
> 
> I find the same thing goes through my mind with John Stott who wrote a lot of good stuff before espousing annhilationism. I still hear his books being recommended without qualification by Reformed men.
> 
> I haven't read much Stott or McGrath but I know that they've written a lot of good stuff but there's lots of other guys out there who've written the same/similar stuff without the doctrinal poison mixed in.
> 
> To the extent that these men have adopted "evangelicalism-with-liberal-stances", their books should come with a health warning, particularly for young and immature Christians and students.
Click to expand...


Excellent post, especially the last paragraph. The first Christian books I bought were recommended by our local Methodist minister -Paul (?) Yancy. Now I don't buy anything unless it is reviewed in a good reformed journal or recommended on here. The PB has cost me a lot in terms of books bought - but nothing in terms of books regretted.


----------



## Sviata Nich

[video=youtube;yL5su0zmpKM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL5su0zmpKM&feature=related[/video]


[video=youtube;jEhwPhwfMnk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEhwPhwfMnk&feature=related[/video]



I want to emphasize his words "_praise God as creator_". 
I think it should also be note he has co-edited commentaries by Calvin (including his commentary on Genesis), Luther and more with J.I Packer.


----------



## Unoriginalname

No one is denying that he supports TE, you are misrepresenting the fact that he still views God as the creator as well as refusing to see the difference between believing Adam is a special creation and still holding to evolution and believing he is fully the process of evolution. I do not think my earlier post could have been clearer as to what I mean.


----------



## John Bunyan

I don't think he's a liberal.

Liberals deny all important christian doctrines: the trinity, creatio ex nihilo, incarnation, the virgin birth, two-natured of Christ, substitionary atonement, biblical inspiration and sufficiency, etc. McGrath affirms them all - he just applies a non-conventional hermeneutics in certain places, but he keeps the essential.


----------



## Rufus

Reformedfellow said:


> Creation is no exception. If you are not representing God as the sovereign creator, who purposed to create, and did it as scripture tells us He did it- then you are no longer representing the God of scripture. And that is a dangerous place to wander off into.



Believing in Theistic Evolution doesn't deny that God is sovereign, He just takes some time with His Sovereignty, I don't agree with Theistic Evolution, but it doesn't mean that God's sovereignty is denied. 



> I think we need to be very careful of commending or associating with people who claim the name of Christ, yet who are opposed to FUNDAMENTAL and ESSENTIAL doctrines.
> As I stated in my original post, we are not referring here to the date of the exodus, or the author of Hebrews, or methods for baptism, etc.
> When it comes to the Bible's clear and absolute claims and doctrines, we must take a stand.
> Or else, where do you draw the line?
> Why not start recommending Joel Osteen? Or Joseph Smith? They make true statements. Just take them with a grain of salt right?
> (*note* my use of satire here is to make my point, please do not misinterpret any confronting or argumentative tone on my behalf dear brother.)



Where do you draw the line in the opposite direction i.e. how "Reformed" must one be? How "Calvinist" must one be. In some peoples eyes if your not a 5 pointer your a damned Arminian from the pit of Hell, in others Lutherans, Anglicans, and Presbyterians are damnable baby baptizers who hate God. Some (very few) people go as far as saying one must be a KJV only or one must "speak in tongues" to be saved.


----------



## py3ak

I think there are two separate issues.

1. Should McGrath's writings be recommended?
2. Do McGrath's beliefs constitute an attack on the Biblical doctrine of God, as well as on the Biblical doctrine of creation?

The answer to the first question depends on a number of factors, some of which are entirely extrinsic to McGrath (e.g., has anyone else done work on the demise of the second person singular form in English?), so your answer to that has no necessary connection to your answer to the second.

My answer to the second question is that ultimately every "hath God said" is in effect an attack on the Biblical doctrine of God; but by no means are such attacks necessarily direct, immediate, or conscious. I attack the Biblical doctrine of God in a similar way every time I sin.

However, it seems that the intent of the first question may actually be something more like, "Should churches give McGrath a platform, given his aberrant views." And to that, I think the answer is a resounding no.


----------



## py3ak

*Time out. Take some deep breaths, remember to be swift to hear and slow to speak, and hard to offend.*


----------



## py3ak

Reopened. Try to put the best construction possible on what other posters say; try to be clear and kind in what you say yourself; and if someone must be corrected do so gently.


----------



## Zach

While I do not think a theistic evolution position is at all Confessional (WCF 4.1) and I think guys who hold to a theistic evolutionary position have a serious misunderstanding of the scriptures and misrepresent the Confession it does not mean that they are not sincere brothers in Christ. While I'm not very familiar with McGrath, I don't think that we should ignore what someone like Tim Keller has to say just because he believes in theistic evolution.


----------



## jayce475

Attempts to figure out how much one can take away from fundamental doctrines so that a person can still be within the bounds of orthodoxy is seldom edifying and can at times be dangerous. Rather than spending my time figuring out and debating with others as to whether theistic evolutionists can still be considered true teachers and believers, I would much rather point away from the error and beseech those around me to believe in the Word of God as it is. The Bible says God created in 7 days, Adam and Eve were the first humans created by God, they fell and brought mankind along into death. The Bible says so, that settles it, I believe in it, and so should every child of God who claims to believe in the Holy Scriptures. Rather than deciding if these theologians are of the faith or not, why not pray for their eyes to be opened to embrace the plain truths of Scriptures regarding the doctrine of creation? As for whether they ought to be recommended reading, babes in Christ certainly ought to be properly guided if they do read books by these authors, lest they be greatly stumbled.


----------



## Mushroom

Sounds as if many here are saying that Keller, McGrath, et al, are 'short bussers' in their understanding of creation, or perhaps that we are on the AP bus and they're not. If that is the case, why would we want to 'weed through' what they have to teach? If they are so handicapped that they are unable to grasp as straightforward a teaching as ex nihilo creation in six days as scripture plainly declares, what else could they teach that wouldn't be suspect? I would say that reasoning is very generous on one hand and arrogant on the other, in that neither Keller nor McGrath impress me as 'short bus' types - they are both smarter than I am by many levels of magnitude. I used to really like Doug Wilson books. He tiptoed over the edge and fell into the gross error (heresy?) of federal vision. I don't read his books anymore, nor do I recommend them to others. Looking back, I can see the threads of his impending error even in his early writings, and to be honest, they had a detrimental effect on me - some years of wrestling with paedo-communion, etc. Why would I want to foist that on anyone else? On two occasions Paul stated in scripture that a little leaven leavens the whole lump. One had to do with acquiescing to gross open sin in a congregation, and the other addressed the danger of errant teaching. Denying the historical veracity of scripture in regards to creation could fall under both of those categories.

A difficult part of accepting God's sovereignty in all matters is having to face the reality that some folks we love (family or otherwise), some that are attractive, some that are eloquent, and some we just like, are simply not what we hoped or thought they were in relation to the truth. Playing peekaboo with their error by 'ignoring the bad parts' is not sound, not safe, and not wise. A little leaven really does leaven the whole lump. God was not just joshin' when He inerrantly inspired that warning.

When a man finds it necessary to conform scripture to incorporate a myth generated by the minds of unbelieving men (and in reality generated for the express purpose of denying God), he has stepped over a line that calls into question all that he has to say on that scripture.


----------



## Marrow Man

Going back to the discussion of McGrath: if I am not mistaken, his background is in biology. I believe he had an advanced degree (and perhaps had done advanced work) in the field of biology prior to his conversion to Christianity. That is not to give him a free pass, only to say that he brought in many presuppositions when he became a Christian, not all of which were necessarily good. When I was a new Christian, I thought I could find Christian references to God in Pink Floyd songs. That was naive and stupid, but that is what our unbiblical presuppositions do to us.

McGrath is also not Reformed, though I've read some things from him that seem cozy to some Reformed thinking on soteriology (e.g., his helpful analysis on the origin of "free will" language in the Early Christian Fathers). He has written some helpful things. His answering of the awful work of Richard Dawkins (Dawkins will actually converse with him on occasion, as they both are employed by Oxford) has been quite good. He had written some helpful things in the field of historical theology that I have benefited from. His work in apologetics is from a more classical approach, but there are valuable things there in as well.

No one on this side of glory is going to be perfect in his theology. I agree that his view on creation does give one pause, and that is why one would need to be cautious if this was the subject matter in question. But there are other things one can benefit from in reading McGrath.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Although I consider myself a young earth guy, I worry about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For instance, Luther and Calvin cited Augustine frequently in the development of Reformed theology, and based upon this thread we would have to "no go" Augustine's writings on election and salvation by grace based on the inclusion of Augustine of the Apochrypha, the sacrifice of the mass, baptismal regeneration, authoritative tradition, purgatory.....I could keep going. 

I think the original question of "where do you draw the line" has become "The Berlin Wall of Young Earth Creationism" in this thread. I know many dear saints who are "old earth" creationists. I will not hesitate to seek their opinions on other issues, and sift for myself. I don't think for a minute that makes me "non-Reformed." You can't respond (credibly) to a position with which you disagree without some study of that position, or else all you do is roast strawmen (see, e.g., the Caners). It seems to me with all charity, that "study to show thyself approved" does not mean "ONLY study those folks in lock step with your personal theology statement." I would draw the line "around" theistic evolution if I recomended, say Keller, to someone, and let them be edified by the rest. 

Peace,
Mark


----------



## Unoriginalname

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> "The Berlin Wall of Young Earth Creationism"


That amuses me.


----------



## Sviata Nich

Reformedfellow said:


> Have we not come a long way in reformed theology since Luther and Calvin? In their day, Romanism was THE ONLY game in town. We have been REFORMING a long way since then. In essence, we know better. I don't think the heresies of Augustine, or the errors of any reformer of the long past justifies accommodating such error today. We know better. And quite frankly, so should McGrath and Keller.
> 
> I think men of such high-profile lives and ministry, who have such an enormous audience and influence must fall under a higher standard of exegetical orthodoxy than your "old-earth" next door neighbor. Until such men can come to a proper biblical understanding of basic fundamental doctrines, such as a clearly stated 6 day creation and a literal historical Adam and Eve, they should be discouraged altogether by any of us who desire to point our weaker brothers, and our children to sound, faithful and Godly men as examples.



History is not a progressive line. We may have more information at our disposal, yes, but the human condition has not changed. If by "accommodate" you mean embracing the differences in thinking we have with others, then no, of course not - I agree with you. Why would anyone embrace an idea they disagree with? But, one can say I disagree with this, but I still love you, and we agree on many other crucial things, so I will not exclude you. 

These men are not old liberals in any sense of the word, nor are they the shallow relativistic, over-contextualized emergent's. I don't understand how someone who holds to God's transcendence and immanence, His triune nature, His incarnation, death, resurrection, His sovereignty and providence, scriptures authority etc...can be labeled as not understanding fundamental doctrines.

I am not aware of any passage of scripture or confession which relates ones faithfulness and Godliness to their belief or disbelief in a six day creation. I thought those were qualities measured by how one loves God, and how one loves their neighbour.


----------



## Zach

Reformedfellow said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although I consider myself a young earth guy, I worry about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For instance, Luther and Calvin cited Augustine frequently in the development of Reformed theology, and based upon this thread we would have to "no go" Augustine's writings on election and salvation by grace based on the inclusion of Augustine of the Apochrypha, the sacrifice of the mass, baptismal regeneration, authoritative tradition, purgatory.....I could keep going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have we not come a long way in reformed theology since Luther and Calvin? In their day, Romanism was THE ONLY game in town. We have been REFORMING a long way since then. In essence, we know better. I don't think the heresies of Augustine, or the errors of any reformer of the long past justifies accommodating such error today. We know better. And quite frankly, so should McGrath and Keller.
> 
> I think men of such high-profile lives and ministry, who have such an enormous audience and influence must fall under a higher standard of exegetical orthodoxy than your "old-earth" next door neighbor. Until such men can come to a proper biblical understanding of basic fundamental doctrines, such as a clearly stated 6 day creation and a literal historical Adam and Eve, they should be discouraged altogether by any of us who desire to point our weaker brothers, and our children to sound, faithful and Godly men as examples.
Click to expand...


Brother, I think you are throwing around the "H-word" too lightly and without grace and love for the people you are labeling. There is a difference between error and heresy. I am often guilty of violating the ninth commandment when talking about those who I disagree with, but I think it is important to remember that we are to promote our neighbor's good name.

Q. 77. What is required in the ninth commandment?
A. The ninth commandment requireth the maintaining and promoting of truth between man and man, and of our own and our neighbor's good name, especially in witness-bearing.


----------



## Rufus

Marrow Man said:


> I believe he had an advanced degree (and perhaps had done advanced work) in the field of biology prior to his conversion to Christianity.



He has D.Phil in molecular biophysics, as well as a doctorate in Divinity.


----------



## gordo

Sviata Nich said:


> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have we not come a long way in reformed theology since Luther and Calvin? In their day, Romanism was THE ONLY game in town. We have been REFORMING a long way since then. In essence, we know better. I don't think the heresies of Augustine, or the errors of any reformer of the long past justifies accommodating such error today. We know better. And quite frankly, so should McGrath and Keller.
> 
> I think men of such high-profile lives and ministry, who have such an enormous audience and influence must fall under a higher standard of exegetical orthodoxy than your "old-earth" next door neighbor. Until such men can come to a proper biblical understanding of basic fundamental doctrines, such as a clearly stated 6 day creation and a literal historical Adam and Eve, they should be discouraged altogether by any of us who desire to point our weaker brothers, and our children to sound, faithful and Godly men as examples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> History is not a progressive line. We may have more information at our disposal, yes, but the human condition has not changed. If by "accommodate" you mean embracing the differences in thinking we have with others, then no, of course not - I agree with you. Why would anyone embrace an idea they disagree with? But, one can say I disagree with this, but I still love you, and we agree on many other crucial things, so I will not exclude you.
> 
> These men are not old liberals in any sense of the word, nor are they the shallow relativistic, over-contextualized emergent's. I don't understand how someone who holds to God's transcendence and immanence, His triune nature, His incarnation, death, resurrection, His sovereignty and providence, scriptures authority etc...can be labeled as not understanding fundamental doctrines.
> 
> I am not aware of any passage of scripture or confession which relates ones faithfulness and Godliness to their belief or disbelief in a six day creation. I thought those were qualities measured by how one loves God, and how one loves their neighbour.
Click to expand...


Excellent post Kieth!


----------



## Peairtach

I've always believed that theistic evolution, of whatever stripe, is the liberal theologian's doctrine of creation.

Alister McGrath may have lots of good things to say but he's way off base on his doctrine of creation, including the creation of Man. I would warn people of that where the subject of McGrath arose.

The same goes for others like e.g. John Stott. It needs to be pointed out to people who're studying, reading, or may be using his books, that he was way off base on the fundamental doctrine of Hell.

In many ways these guys are more dangerous than the old-fashioned liberals. The liberals were over there, and the evangelicals were over here and never the twain did meet. Post-war, things have become progressively more confusing for the undescerning evangelical believer, to put it mildly.

*Keith*


> I am not aware of any passage of scripture or confession which relates ones faithfulness and Godliness to their belief or disbelief in a six day creation. I thought those were qualities measured by how one loves God, and how one loves their neighbour.



I think you need to make a distinction in these debates between the subject of whether or not someone seems to be a believer or not, and whether we should criticise, commend or warn about their doctrine.

A true believer can be so confused or plain sinful, that like Thomas, he doubts the resurrection of our Lord. Or he can be so wrong as to embrace Darwinism or annihilationism. That does not mean that we want his false-teaching to be increasingly disseminated, propagated and accepted.

The fact that these men are such good teachers in other ways, makes their doctrinal bloopers more acceptable to a wider evangelical and Reformed audience than if they were out-and-out Liberals.

Neo-Orthodoxy/Barthianism had a similar attraction to many evangelical and Reformed men.


----------



## John Bunyan

Some people here use the word "heretic" to often to refer to a very broad range of theological differences.

Heresy is to deny one of the basic doctrines of christianity: the substitionary atonement, the incarnation, the hypostatic union, the trinity, divine justice, God's existence and properties, the messianichood of Christ and his two natures, Christ's particularism, the sufficiency of God's revelation.


----------



## Mushroom

And the boundary markers get moved a little more.

I'm sure glad that I don't have to attend cocktail parties with the cognizant elite who would scoff at the idea that any being could create the universe in a mere 6 days. Methinks fear of that kind of ridicule is a catalyst for this kind of balderdash.


----------



## Philip

I'm going to jump in here with some thoughts:

I won't recommend McGrath unreservedly, but I do think he has a lot of good things to say. This man is one of the leading scholars on the reformation, in addition to his excellent arguments against naturalism and his defence of doctrine (which I am making use of to some extent in a thesis at the moment). He's an excellent scholar and one of the best defenders of historic orthodoxy on many points, and that's nothing to be sneezed at.

I also think that one has to extend charity to folks and remember context. McGrath is a British evangelical, which is at once often closer to confessional reformed theology on matters of doctrine than American evangelicalism and further from it on matters of Biblical interpretation and authority. How many current British evangelicals actually hold to 6-day creation?



Reformedfellow said:


> I think men of such high-profile lives and ministry, who have such an enormous audience and influence must fall under a higher standard of exegetical orthodoxy than your "old-earth" next door neighbor. Until such men can come to a proper biblical understanding of basic fundamental doctrines, such as a clearly stated 6 day creation and a literal historical Adam and Eve, they should be discouraged altogether by any of us who desire to point our weaker brothers, and our children to sound, faithful and Godly men as examples.



Here's the deal: I never recommend anyone without reservation. I recommend C.S. Lewis to people, but does that mean that I agree with his doctrines of creation, his leanings toward Boethianism, or his inclusivist tendencies? No. Just because you wouldn't let someone teach Sunday school at your church doesn't mean you should write them off completely or fail to recognize their real contributions. To do this is an injustice to them and (I think) a violation of the 9th commandment. 

Also remember that within reformed thought there is a spectrum of views on what "6-day creation" means. The PCA doesn't (officially) permit theistic evolution, but good reformed men may have Biblical reservations about holding to literal 6-day view on creation. 

If I recommend Thomas Aquinas as giving a good account of Divine Simplicity or analogy in theology, does this mean that I am recommending Catholicism? I don't think so.


----------



## gordo

Good post Philip.

I have always found creation/evolution debates to be one of the most detrimental arguments a Christian can get into with both other Christians and when witnessing to non-believers. 

As this thread has shown a bit, I have seen Christians who normally would agree on everything about the wonderfulness of God, break each other down over differing opinions on creation. I have also seen witnessing go horribly wrong when the un-believer asks about evolution and the Christian witnessing speaks of the 6 days of creation like it is a essential piece of saving faith, which completely takes the focus off the wonder and beauty of the Gospel. It is tough to watch Christian unity and evangelism break down over this endless debate.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

*If the foundations be destroyed*

This thread has really surprised me. The fact is, if any theologian had denied that Adam and Eve were real historical figures in any other age of the church, they would have been regarded as an out-in-out heretic. 

And to be clear as it relates to the opening post, in the interview in question, he is asked point blank:



> Interviewer: Are you a Creationist?
> McGrath: No.
> Interviewer: You're an Evolutionist?
> McGrath: Yes.



He doesn't even attempt to qualify these answers with further comment!

And I might add that the expression on his face when he affirms evolution appears to be one of delight. This exchange, as well as the others posted in this thread, does more than put him beyond the bound of Reformed confessionalism, this puts him in the arena of very serious error and even heresy.

So, in response to Reformedfellow's opening post: Yes, I would agree with you. This man espouses heresy (1) in his denial of the biblical account of creation; (2) in his denial of the historicity of Adam and Eve; and (3) in his affirmation of the scientific _theory_ of evolution.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Colin that seems like a bit of an acusation. I am quite sure most of continue to post because of your repeated refusal to properly represent mcgrath's views as well as repeated assault on the characters of posters on this board.

Also contrary to what you said to Zach you did catergorize AM as a heretic when you grouped him with Joseph Smith in an earlier post


----------



## Andres

Reformedfellow said:


> C. M. Sheffield said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't even attempt to qualify these answers with further comment!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His further comment is actually that "evolution makes the most sense".
> Not the biblical account of a being, namely God, creating it in a literal 6 days. But a God-hating man's "theory" makes the most sense.
> 
> This thread and responses have more than surprised, and disappointed me as well. We are far more likely to jump to the defense of men (despite their incredible errors and attacks on historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity) than we are the very Word of God itself. I could care less of my own reputation. Because of this thread I'm now the most despised person on the board it seems. Not for promoting evolution, but for criticizing a professed and PROMINENT "Christian" "leader" who does.
> 
> We love our rock-star pastors far too much than we love the Word of God.
Click to expand...


I didn't see where anyone in this thread disagreed with you on McGrath's view. I don't know of anyone on this board who would subscribe to theistic evolution. All the posters in this thread have labeled it as unconfessional and unscriptural, disagreeing with McGrath on this topic. What is it exactly you are wanting to happen?


----------



## Unoriginalname

Reformedfellow said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> 
> epeated refusal to properly represent mcgrath's views
> 
> 
> 
> All I have been saying is that he espouses evolution. My PROBLEM is with the fact that many people seem to shrug their shoulder at this like it's no big deal.
Click to expand...


That is not what is happening. We are just trying to make the distinction between potentially endorsing a book by someone and saying that everything they say is ok. I have books by Lutherans who believe in baptismal regeneration and Christ's physical presence at the supper yet it does not negate the fact they are good books. If you have a scruple endorsing a book that is fine but to accuse the author of being equatable to Joseph smith and accusing people who disagree with you to be weak is uncalled for.


----------



## Andres

I'm with Eric. I don't read of anyone in this thread who just shrugged their shoulders at McGrath's theistic evolution. As I already mentioned, every poster condemned McGrath's view. So, again I ask, what are you surpised/disappointed about?


----------



## Unoriginalname

Reformedfellow said:


> I did not EQUATE McGrath to Joseph Smith. MY POINT was in response to the statement to simply separate the good from the bad. That sounds easy, but in cases LIKE JOSEPH SMITH where he does say some things that are true- it is easy to be swept away into much more dangerous ground. So there needs to be a different solution.


Joseph Smith denies the gospel and promotes a false religion which is nothing close to what you could accuse McGrath to doing, so if that was your point, your hyperinflated rhetoric hid it. 


Reformedfellow said:


> Nor did I ever call anyone WEAK. What is uncalled for is your constant false accusations of me.


Did you ever type the words are weak, no but you implied multple times that anyone who disagreed with you is weak on doctrine or choosing men over God:



Reformedfellow said:


> We are far more likely to jump to the defense of men (despite their incredible errors and attacks on historic, orthodox, biblical Christianity) than we are the very Word of God itself.





Reformedfellow said:


> The way we believe, understand, and interpret the doctrine and theology of creation has a PROFOUND effect on how we interpret the rest of scripture. (even if this is an accepted "theistic-evolutionary" interpretation) It radically defines on ho we teach and catechize our children towards a biblical worldview.
> 
> It's far too important and fundamental to allow for or accommodate compromise.





Reformedfellow said:


> We love our rock-star pastors far too much than we love the Word of God.


----------



## J. Dean

Is theistic evolution erroneous? I believe so. The fact that evolution was primarily espoused by those who rejected Christianity and the Bible doesn't help it's case any. 

Is it damning heresy. No.... but I believe it can create a slippery slope toward undermining the Scriptures.


----------



## Philip

Reformedfellow said:


> Stop taking everything I say out of it's context. Stop incessantly accusing me of things I never said nor implied.
> 
> Nor did I ever call anyone WEAK. What is uncalled for is your constant false accusations of me.



Colin, why do I get the impression that you are taking constructive criticism as personal attack?



Reformedfellow said:


> I think it's a shrug of the shoulders when we continue to allow men who espouse evolution to have a platform in our churches. They may be brothers, they may be well spoken on certain other issues, but I think there are SOME THINGS (creating no exception) that a minister of the Word of God MUST GET RIGHT before he is qualified to have such a privilege in the Church.



Well, sounds like I need to chuck pretty much all my theology written before 1517.



Reformedfellow said:


> 1. those who say, while in disagreement with evolution, that it's "okay" for another Christian to have this worldview, and they still recommend and endorse these leaders "with cautions".



I don't think it's okay, I think it's wrong. But it doesn't mean that I think their work in other areas is completely useless or that I cannot recommend someone like McGrath on, say, Luther's view of the atonement vs. Calvin's. 



Reformedfellow said:


> I also notice an unbalance (hey, myself included) in engaging each other on the above and perhaps not a strong enough effort on behalf of those who are in the reach of these men to encourage an abandonment of their error, and an embrace the truth.



Again, I think here you need to be charitable: McGrath's context as an evangelical British Anglican is such that I would be more surprised to learn that he actually was a six-day creationist as opposed to holding to evolutionary theory. He's considered almost a Biblicist over there because he actually defends Scriptural teaching on a number of other issues. In terms of British evangelicalism, he's as conservative as it gets.

Again, I wouldn't allow him to teach Sunday school, but I'm not going to throw him out completely because of that.


----------



## Zach

Colin, as Andrew has pointed out, nobody is excusing McGrath. What I am saying is that God is gracious in that he often does not allow for our theological errors to be brought to their logical conclusions. I agree, theistic evolution is a slippery slope that can quickly result in rejecting a historical Adam and ultimately rejecting Christ as the true Second Adam. But, God does not allow everyone to fall down that slippery slope. Is it error? Yes. Is it unconfessional? Yes. Is it heretical? No. As Ruben pointed out earlier in this thread, we all attack the Biblical doctrine of God with our sin. Praise the Lord that we do not need to have perfect theology to be saved by the grace of God in Jesus Christ!


----------



## Peairtach

It's liberal theology with respect to the doctrine of creation. McGrath, like many evangelicals is trying to combine liberal and evangelical theology, which is bad for him and bad for those who think they can follow his example, because, after all, he's McGrath.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

But as has been pointed out, he flat-out denies that Adam and Eve were real people. The implications of such a false teaching are enormous for one's doctrine of man and sin. 



> *Romans 5:12-21*
> 
> Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.
> 
> *1 Corinthians 15:21-22 *
> 
> For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.



The Gospel is dependant on a literal, historical Adam. I don't believe I'm overstating the enormity of his error.


----------



## Philip

C. M. Sheffield said:


> The Gospel is dependant on a literal, historical Adam. I don't believe I'm overstating the enormity of his error.



Systematically, yes. If you believe that there was no such historical person as Adam, then if you were consistent, you would not believe the Gospel. Thankfully McGrath is not consistent and we can be praying that he becomes more consistent in allowing the Scriptures to show him how theologically important the historical Adam is.

Also, I should point out that it is my doctrine of sin and Christ's atoning work that leads me to believe in an historical Adam, not the other way around. The historical Adam is a logical implication, not a logical foundation (at least from my perspective).


----------



## Zach

Does McGrath reject a historical Adam? I am really not that familiar with McGrath but I was operating under the assumption that he was like Tim Keller who believes in theistic evolution but still maintains an historical Adam. I agree that an historical Adam is fundamental for understanding sin and the gospel. But, I agree with Philip that it is my understanding of Christ and his work that points to an historic Adam.


----------



## Peairtach

> but I was operating under the assumption that he was like Tim Keller who believes in theistic evolution but still maintains an historical Adam.



Genesis points to an historical Adam too. E.g. Moses gives the location of the Garden of Eden.

Keller's view is a compromise too far with liberalism, too. In the Gospel of Luke, Adam is called the Son of God. Keller is presumably holding to the ridiculous position that Adam was born to non-human parents.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

I would direct you to the videos in post #34. There is where he denies the historicity of Adam and eve.

And as to the question of whether your doctrine of Christ informs your thinking on Adam or vice versa, is irrelevant. So challenging my statement that 'the Gospel is dependant on a literal, historical Adam' strikes me as nitpicking semantics. The point was: it's an essential element of the Gospel.


----------



## chuckd

J. Dean said:


> Is theistic evolution erroneous? I believe so. The fact that evolution was primarily espoused by those who rejected Christianity and the Bible doesn't help it's case any.
> 
> Is it damning heresy. No.... but I believe it can create a slippery slope toward undermining the Scriptures.



Many scientific theories are espoused by those who reject Christianity, but they shouldn't be rejected based on that alone. I think something needs to be said here...ever since the Enlightenment or even a little prior (maybe Descartes), science and/or reason has been pitted against faith unfairly. Granted, it likely happen outside of Christianity by those who wanted to expel faith and the Church's hold from scientific discovery, but we have to remember that many scientific discoveries happened as a result of faithful Christians.

As a result of science and faith being torn apart, I think anything "new" in the realm of science is seen as from Satan. I'm not advocating the original ancestor theory (I personally think it's ridiculous), but based on fossils, carbon dating, and other things, I would at least like to consider that Augustine (who by the way is completely immune to any of this considering he predated this conversation about evolution by 1600 years) was on to something when he commented that Genesis 1 should be interpreted FIGURATIVELY. And that the earth is a little older than 6,000 years.

Another thing, we need to define "evolution." Lumping every and all theories that touch evolution into one lump is unfair, in my opinion. There's microevolution (birds beaks changing) and the original ancestor theory (we all came from a single celled organism)...and then everything in between.


----------



## py3ak

P. F. Pugh said:


> Also, I should point out that it is my doctrine of sin and Christ's atoning work that leads me to believe in an historical Adam, not the other way around. The historical Adam is a logical implication, not a logical foundation (at least from my perspective).



That is a little absurd. Of course the doctrines set out in Romans 5 imply the historical reality of Adam: but Paul takes the testimony of the Holy Spirit in Genesis as his foundation. To say that doctrine requires a particular history gives no support to the history unless both are authoritative revelation. And the doctrine is not more inspired than the history.


----------



## Peairtach

*Chuck*


> Another thing, we need to define "evolution." Lumping every and all theories that touch evolution into one lump is unfair, in my opinion. There's microevolution (birds beaks changing) and the original ancestor theory (we all came from a single celled organism)...and then everything in between.



Well that's different. Both YECs and OECs accept "micro-evolution", although some of them like to call it something else.

We're talking here about full-blown microbes to monkeys to man theistic evolution, not YEC or OEC. 

It's just bad doctrine on a major and foundational aspect of the faith. It would be alright if McGrath was a complete liberal, but because he says a lot of good on other areas, it means that his views on creation spread like bad leaven through the evangelical and Reformed world.


----------



## Philip

py3ak said:


> That is a little absurd. Of course the doctrines set out in Romans 5 imply the historical reality of Adam: but Paul takes the testimony of the Holy Spirit in Genesis as his foundation. To say that doctrine requires a particular history gives no support to the history unless both are authoritative revelation. And the doctrine is not more inspired than the history.



I don't think it at all absurd. The revelation of Christ and my view of Christ are what inform my view of Adam and how to read Genesis: I take Genesis as history because it forms the historical backstory which the Gospel takes for granted and without which there is no Gospel.


----------



## Afterthought

chuckd said:


> I think something needs to be said here...ever since the Enlightenment or even a little prior (maybe Descartes), science and/or reason has been pitted against faith unfairly. Granted, it likely happen outside of Christianity by those who wanted to expel faith and the Church's hold from scientific discovery, but we have to remember that many scientific discoveries happened as a result of faithful Christians.


I don't know if you saw this thread, but it may not be the worst of things to keep science and faith separated--at least not in the manner suggested in that thread (although it is possible you hold the view advocated in the aforementioned thread anyway, since "science and/or reason...pitted against faith unfairly" could mean that there is a fair way to pit them against each other). I also included a section from Descartes' writings in the thread; from what I understand of him, Descartes would accept Church dogma as reality but for the purposes of understanding the world better as it is now, he advocated looking beyond the realm that the Church says is reality and so look at a "hypothetical" universe that extends before Creation in the investigations of science. Of course, Descartes did also try deriving scientific laws from the nature of God.

I also had thought Augustine wasn't that familiar with Hebrew, but I suppose this post is mostly off topic anyway.


----------



## Unoriginalname

P. F. Pugh said:


> I don't think it at all absurd. The revelation of Christ and my view of Christ are what inform my view of Adam and how to read Genesis: I take Genesis as history because it forms the historical backstory which the Gospel takes for granted and without which there is no Gospel.


If you do not mind me running with your idea for a minute. It is not as if I need a prefaith in Adam in order to have faith in Christ. Obviously, the relationship that Christ has the second Adam would be underdeveloped and hurt in my thoughts but it is conceivable to have such a faith. I do not nessarily have to know any of the old testament history in order to know Christ initially. Hopefully as I grow in my knowledge of the Lord I would also grow in my understanding of how he has worked in history. Rejecting parts of that history could result in seriously crippling my understanding of scripture but it does not negate that. 
All that said I cannot see how this necessarily prevents McGrath from going historical theology, where his focus is primarily on the development of ideas in church history and not on exegesis. I do not know how many times we have  in saying theistic evolution is bad. It is bad, but people who have bad parts of their theology (dispensationalism, Lutheran view of sacraments, weaker views of inspiration) can still write good books especially in axillary disciplines such as historical theology or philosophical theology. If someone wants to suggest a person they have less problems with that is fine but I think it is unnecessary to continually need to assert that McGrath has a serious flaw in his view of creation.


----------



## py3ak

P. F. Pugh said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a little absurd. Of course the doctrines set out in Romans 5 imply the historical reality of Adam: but Paul takes the testimony of the Holy Spirit in Genesis as his foundation. To say that doctrine requires a particular history gives no support to the history unless both are authoritative revelation. And the doctrine is not more inspired than the history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it at all absurd. The revelation of Christ and my view of Christ are what inform my view of Adam and how to read Genesis: I take Genesis as history because it forms the historical backstory which the Gospel takes for granted and without which there is no Gospel.
Click to expand...


If it takes the NT to persuade you that the Old is historical, what persuades you that the New is historical? Or again, if your doctrine persuades you of a particular view of the text, what led you to the doctrine? Was it not the text itself? Christ points us to Moses as having convincing, convicting, and fundamental value. It is certainly understandable if that argument persuades you with regard to Moses - but that ought to be recognized as part of psychological history, not turned into a dogmatic position. Because the fact that Christ could appeal to and speak of Moses in that way shows that _acceptance of Moses was not dependent on the testimony of Christ_. According to Christ, if one will not hear Moses and the prophets, he will not believe though one rise from the dead - and the ongoing rejection of Christ by many even after the resurrection is a sad illustration of the truth of those words. 
To put it more simply, the fact that Christ and Paul take for granted that Adam is historical certainly confirms the point; the fact that they take it for granted highlights that we didn't objectively need confirmation, whatever confusions we may have gotten ourselves into.


----------



## Philip

py3ak said:


> Or again, if your doctrine persuades you of a particular view of the text, what led you to the doctrine? Was it not the text itself?



Ruben, I would say here that this is nothing more or less than Scripture interpreting Scripture. The logical priority that I am assigning is precisely a New Testament priority. If I didn't have faith in Christ, I would have no reason to believe that there was any such person as Adam.


----------



## py3ak

P. F. Pugh said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or again, if your doctrine persuades you of a particular view of the text, what led you to the doctrine? Was it not the text itself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ruben, I would say here that this is nothing more or less than Scripture interpreting Scripture. The logical priority that I am assigning is precisely a New Testament priority. If I didn't have faith in Christ, I would have no reason to believe that there was any such person as Adam.
Click to expand...


I thought as much. While I understand that this may be part of your own history, I believe you would be quite mistaken to turn it into a matter of doctrine. Genesis 3 is just as inspired as Romans 5, and they have equal authority. Indeed, the pattern of the NT itself is to bring people to Christ by pointing him out as the fulfillment of the Old. That is certainly one reason why even Gentiles without a previous commitment to the OT are pointed to it and instructed in it.
A vital part of the revelation of Christ is that he is the one that should come - they are not to look for another, because the coming one is here; to put it another way, _according to the Scriptures_ is as vital a part of the Gospel message as _died for our sins_. It is folly, it is slowness of heart, not to believe all that is written in the prophets. The fact that the NT presupposes and elevates the OT should be seen as part of their mutually confirming witness, not as the basis for our acceptance of the OT.


----------



## JennyG

John Bunyan said:


> I don't think he's a liberal.
> 
> Liberals deny all important christian doctrines: the trinity, creatio ex nihilo, incarnation, the virgin birth, two-natured of Christ, substitionary atonement, biblical inspiration and sufficiency, etc. McGrath affirms them all - he just applies a non-conventional hermeneutics in certain places, but he keeps the essential.


McGrath has fought a good fight against Dawkins and others, but through it all he seems to have managed to hold onto his academic standing - in Britain, too 
It may be unfair, but I can't help suspecting he keeps at least one toe on a "rock" that isn't Scripture. 
As others have said, that doesn't preclude the possibility of benefitting from his writing, but you can't relax when reading him


----------



## DMcFadden

My particular interest is historical theology. And, in this area McGrath is a wonderful read. He is (like C.S. Lewis, Tom Wright, or F.F. Bruce) broadly orthodox, albeit not as conservative as any of us on the PB. It is amusing to hear American evangelicals make him into something he is not: an American conservative evangelical. But, you will have a hard time dismissing his Reformation scholarship and will only fail to profit from it if you bring to it a chip on your shoulder. 

As has been mentioned repeatedly in this thread, you don't have to use the "h" word for every deviation from your own thinking. I am an Answers in Genesis YEC. But, many of posters on this board either took Old Testament from Kline or have adopted his views of the Framework Theory which does not require 6 day creation. I find it exegetically wrong and even unwittingly supportive of (or compatible with) things I consider dangerous. But, I REFUSE to throw rocks at that titan of Reformed orthodoxy and long time professor at Westminster Seminary (both coasts). For that matter, the great Charles Hodge argued for the antiquity of the earth and B.B. Warfield made his own accommodations with evolution. I think that they were wrong, but do not question their orthodoxy. 

McGrath is a brilliant scholar, devoted churchman, and great defender of the Christian faith against the new atheism. He is not the candidate for pastor of your church. Thank the Lord for great minds like this who argue on our side as much as he does.


----------



## Zork

*Alister Mcgraph*

Hi. This is my first post so lets hope its a good one. 
DMcFadden : I see what your getting at and I agree strongly with you that if we compromise with even the smallest of things in Scripture 
then everything will blow up in our faces. This isn't a question of do we read his books and "spit out the false". We need to take a stand for this kind of unscriptural teaching and "beliefs". We need to be alert to defend(contend like in JUDE) for our reformed faith.(For the weaker Brother sake. I personally think that if we start to compromise now then why do we call ourselves Reformed? What did our fathers of the faith do? Stand back and tolerate all this "apostacy" inside the Evangelicals? No Sir they did not. They grabbed the bull by the horns and they Contended earnestly for the Faith. They gave they're lives. They gave everything. I am ashamed to call myself reformed. Because they would die before they compromise on any level with scripture. There is so much compromise in the world already. The very least we can do is not to compromise with Scripture. Because if we do it what will we leave for the next generation? Only more compromise. Why do we even bother accepting and believing the creed and confessions?
We must be willing to draw the line. 
Reform:
Reform means to correct someone or something or cause someone or something to be better. (verb) 
Are we truly Reformers?

J.MacArthur said the following:
Im quoting "The real issue is the nature of God. To think of evolution as basically atheistic is to misunderstand the uniqueness of
evolution. Evolution was not designed as a general attack against theism. It was designed as a
specific attack against the God of the Bible, and the God of the Bible is clearly revealed through the
doctrine of creation. Obviously, if a person is an atheist, it would be normal for him to also be an
evolutionist. But evolution is as comfortable with theism as it is with atheism. An evolutionist is
perfectly free to choose any god he wishes, as long as it is not the God of the Bible. The gods
allowed by evolution are private, subjective, and artificial. They bother no one and make no absolute
ethical demands. However, the God of the Bible is the Creator, Sustainer, Savior, and Judge. All are
responsible to him. He has an agenda that conflicts with that of sinful humans. For man to be created
in the image of God is very awesome. For God to be created in the image of man is very comfortable.
[Bones of Contention: A Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1992), 188-
89.]
To put it simply, evolution was invented in order to eliminate the God of Genesis and thereby to oust
the Lawgiver and obliterate the inviolability of His law. Evolution is simply the latest means our fallen
race has devised in order to suppress our innate knowledge and the biblical testimony that there is a
God and that we are accountable to Him (cf. Romans 1:28). By embracing evolution, modern society
aims to do away with morality, responsibility, and guilt. Society has embraced evolution with such
enthusiasm because people imagine that it eliminates the Judge and leaves them free to do whatever
they want without guilt and without consequences.The evolutionary lie is so pointedly antithetical to
Christian truth that it would seem unthinkable for evangelical Christians to compromise with
evolutionary science in any degree. But over the past century and a half of evolutionary propaganda,
evolutionists have had remarkable success in getting evangelicals to meet them halfway.
Remarkably, many modern evangelicals--perhaps it would even be fair to say most people who call
themselves evangelicals today--have already been convinced that the Genesis account of creation is
not a true historical record. Thus they have not only capitulated to evolutionary doctrine at its starting
point, but they have also embraced a view that"


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Zork said:


> This isn't a question of do we read his books and "spit out the false". We need to take a stand for this kind of unscriptural teaching and "beliefs". We need to be alert to defend(contend like in JUDE) for our reformed faith.(For the weaker Brother sake. I personally think that if we start to compromise now then why do we call ourselves Reformed? "



Um. That is EXACTLY what Luther and Calvin did vis-a-vis their extensive citations of Augustine, they ate the meat and spit out the bones. Were they truly "Reformers?"

Since when is MacArthur "reformed?" Why are we referencing "non-reformed" theologians to support a reformed position, since that is essentially what got this thread kicked off in the first place?


----------



## Rufus

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Um. That is EXACTLY what Luther and Calvin did vis-a-vis their extensive citations of Augustine, they ate the meat and spit out the bones. Were they truly "Reformers?"



And that is what we, being Baptists and Presbyterians, have to do with Luther.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Hey zork glad to have you in this discussion. Before I begin I just want to say I can be a bit of a snark but I mean it as no personal assault. I find it amusing that you quoted a dispensationalist, who denies the covenantal structure of scripture and has a disorted view of the law to say that we cannot use the works of an evangelical who unfortunately subscribes to theistic evolution. I would contend that MacArthur's views do equal damage to the text as McGrath and that if it is possible to glean from one it is possible to glean from the other. It has been stated ad nausum (spelling?) that denying Adam leaves room for denying or misinterpreting Paul. Yet I would say the average yec dispensationalist has a far more skewed reading of Paul then McGrath at least from what I have seen.


----------



## Rufus

Unoriginalname said:


> Hey zork glad to have you in this discussion. Before I begin I just want to say I can be a bit of a snark but I mean it as no personal assault. I find it amusing that you quoted a dispensationalist, who denies the covenantal structure of scripture and has a disorted view of the law to say that we cannot use the works of an evangelical who unfortunately subscribes to theistic evolution. I would contend that MacArthur's views do equal damage to the text as McGrath and that if it is possible to glean from one it is possible to glean from the other. It has been stated ad nausum (spelling?) that denying Adam leaves room for denying or misinterpreting Paul. Yet I would say the average yec dispensationalist has a far more skewed reading of Paul then McGrath at least from what I have seen.



To be fair Zork may be a dispensationalist, as some others on the board are.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Rufus said:


> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um. That is EXACTLY what Luther and Calvin did vis-a-vis their extensive citations of Augustine, they ate the meat and spit out the bones. Were they truly "Reformers?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what we, being Baptists and Presbyterians, have to do with Luther.
Click to expand...


Exactly!


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Unoriginalname said:


> Hey zork glad to have you in this discussion. Before I begin I just want to say I can be a bit of a snark but I mean it as no personal assault. I find it amusing that you quoted a dispensationalist, who denies the covenantal structure of scripture and has a disorted view of the law to say that we cannot use the works of an evangelical who unfortunately subscribes to theistic evolution. I would contend that MacArthur's views do equal damage to the text as McGrath and that if it is possible to glean from one it is possible to glean from the other. It has been stated ad nausum (spelling?) that denying Adam leaves room for denying or misinterpreting Paul. Yet I would say the average yec dispensationalist has a far more skewed reading of Paul then McGrath at least from what I have seen.



To say that being a "leaky" dispensationalist is on the same plane as denying the historicity of Adem and Eve and rejecting the first three chapters of Genesis (maybe the first eleven chapters) is just ludicrous. 

And he was quoting MacArthur not because he's reformed but because he is a highly esteemed and godly brother who is more than competent to address the pernicious heresy of evolution.


----------



## py3ak

C. M. Sheffield said:


> lubricious



I think you may have meant "ludicrous". The other term seems less applicable, somehow.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

py3ak said:


> I think you may have meant "ludicrous". The other term seems less applicable, somehow.



Curse you AUTOCORRECT!!!


----------



## Unoriginalname

C. M. Sheffield said:


> To say that being a "leaky" dispensationalist is on the same plane as denying the historicity of Adem and Eve and rejecting the first three chapters of Genesis (maybe the first eleven chapters) is just lubricious.


I really do not see MacArthur as being that leaky to begin with and I think my point is well with in bounds. John MacArthur while being an esteemed brother, denies the basic covenantal structure of the Gospel and how it develops over redemptive history (even if you want to say reinterprets, then he no more reinterprets the covenant of grace then McGrath reinterprets Paul's use of Adam to be an archetypal representative for unredeemed humanity). He denies the historic definitions of the Law and should be regarded as an antinomian compared to the classic reformed position. He errs with regard to having the church be a new testament creation separate from the old testament. Finally his view of eschatology is idolatrous with his believe that the Jews could return to shadows with the reconstitution of the temple. My point is not to tear down MacArthur but to say that there is plenty of serious error in his work along with McGrath. Yet there is no reason that they cannot be read if someone feels their books could be beneficial for discussing a topic. If McGrath can be accused of heresy for his denial of Adam, MacArthur can be called to task for his denial of the covenant and law.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Unoriginalname said:


> My point is not to tear down MacArthur but to say that there is plenty of serious error in his work along with McGrath.



Well I would say calling MacArthur an idolater just about does it. I have never said that McGrath had nothing worth reading. But for you to put MacArthur's dispensationalism in the same category of denying creation is extreme. I find it offensive.


----------



## Unoriginalname

C. M. Sheffield said:


> MacArthur an idolater just about does it


My point is that believing that the Temple can some how be reinstated after Christ's death is idolatrous. I think I have teased out enough systematic errors that result from accepting dispensationalism to prove that it about equals McGrath's errors. Also earlier you argued that MacArthur is a leaky dispensationalist. If by this you mean he buys into some of the basic structure of dispensationalism without diving headlong into the errors that would arise if it was bought hook, line and sinker than it would be equally fair to call McGrath a "leaky" theistic evolutionist, because while he buys into a evolutionary origin of life he does not fall into the gross interpretive error that he should if it was taken to its logical ends. I think that McGrath to MacArthur is a fair comparison.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Unoriginalname said:


> My point is that believing that the Temple can some how be reinstated after Christ's death is idolatrous. I think I have teased out enough systematic errors that result from accepting dispensationalism to prove that it about equals McGrath's errors. Also earlier you argued that MacArthur is a leaky dispensationalist. If by this you mean he buys into some of the basic structure of dispensationalism without diving headlong into the errors that would arise if it was bought hook, line and sinker than it would be equally fair to call McGrath a "leaky" theistic evolutionist, because while he buys into a evolutionary origin of life he does not fall into the gross interpretive error that he should if it was taken to its logical ends. I think that McGrath to MacArthur is a fair comparison.



I disagree. I didn't "argue" that MacArthur was a "leaky" dispensationalist. That's what he calls himself. And while I've listened to the man for years, I've never heard or read anything about reinstating temple worship. You're going to need to substantiate that claim before I accept it.

But again, denying creation as McGrath does, so far exceeds the error of dispensationalsim (bad though it is) that to compare them is truly ludicrous.


----------



## Unoriginalname

C. M. Sheffield said:


> And while I've listened to the man for years, I've never heard or read anything about reinstating temple worship. You're going to need to substantiate that claim before I accept it.


I was taking that from his study bible's notes on Ezekiel 40:38-47, He likens them to a sort of Millennial Lord's supper or something. Please remember my point in all the talk of MacArthur to say if we can admit he has serious error and still find some of his works to be useful I do not think it is too much to say that McGrath has serious errors but can still have useful works. I brought MacArthur up to establish that the "eat the wheat spit out the chaff" or "eat the meat spit out the bones" is a legitimate concept.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

C. M. Sheffield said:


> But again, denying creation as McGrath does, so far exceeds the error of dispensationalsim (bad though it is) that to compare them is truly ludicrous.



So, are you going to cross out every reference to Augustine in Calvin, Luther, Sproul.....ludicrous is as ludicrous does.


----------



## DMcFadden

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is that believing that the Temple can some how be reinstated after Christ's death is idolatrous. I think I have teased out enough systematic errors that result from accepting dispensationalism to prove that it about equals McGrath's errors. Also earlier you argued that MacArthur is a leaky dispensationalist. If by this you mean he buys into some of the basic structure of dispensationalism without diving headlong into the errors that would arise if it was bought hook, line and sinker than it would be equally fair to call McGrath a "leaky" theistic evolutionist, because while he buys into a evolutionary origin of life he does not fall into the gross interpretive error that he should if it was taken to its logical ends. I think that McGrath to MacArthur is a fair comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. I didn't "argue" that MacArthur was a "leaky" dispensationalist. That's what he calls himself. And while I've listened to the man for years, I've never heard or read anything about reinstating temple worship. You're going to need to substantiate that claim before I accept it.
> 
> But again, denying creation as McGrath does, so far exceeds the error of dispensationalsim (bad though it is) that to compare them is truly ludicrous.
Click to expand...


It is a standard feature of dispensational premillennialism to believe that there will be a reinstitution of temple worship and bloody sacrifices in the "third Temple." Some, like LaHaye, speak of this as a memorial observance rather than a true reinstatement of the sacrificial system. Nevertheless, it is a standard part of the eschatology of dispensational premillennialism to see the rebuilding of the temple and return to sacrifices. This necessarily follows from the premise of a "literal" hermeneutic with respect to prophetic passages. Since they may not be taken figuratively, symbolically, or typically, they must be historically fulfilled in national Israel.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Unoriginalname said:


> Please remember my point in all the talk of MacArthur to say if we can admit he has serious error and still find some of his works to be useful I do not think it is too much to say that McGrath has serious errors but can still have useful works.



What is truly frustrating is that this point keeps being made even though I never said anything to the contrary or that he didn't have anything useful to say. Sure he has some useful books and points of view in other areas. 

What I have said is that denying the biblical account of creation, the historicity of Adam and Eve is heresy. I simply can not and will not admit such a position as being within the pale Christian orthodoxy. It strikes at the very foundations of the Faith.


----------



## Unoriginalname

C. M. Sheffield said:


> What is truly frustrating is that this point keeps being made even though I never said anything to the contrary or that he didn't have anything useful to say. Sure he has some useful books and points of view in other areas.


I did not post this directly towards you. I mainly posted this because the question of this thread was can McGrath's material be utilized. I was attempting to use that post to simply remind people why I brought up MacArthur. I am sorry if it appeared like I was accusing you of something, I did not mean it that way.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Unoriginalname said:


> I did not post this directly towards you. I mainly posted this because the question of this thread was can McGrath's material be utilized. I was attempting to use that post to simply remind people why I brought up MacArthur. I am sorry if it appeared like I was accusing you of something, I did not mean it that way.



Ah, duly noted.


----------



## Zork

OKAY OKAY. Stay calm guys. I know he(DR MacArthur) has Despentational views. I didn't mean to cause all this havoc. I only quoted DR.J.MacArthur because the article was relevant on our discussion.(I agree with what he says.) And before you accuse him of being all that you say he is check this out. MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing
Thing is don't you think his views are compatible with reformed Theology?
If NO please correct me.(Scripture Please)
Are we really going to put him in the same category as Alister Mcgraph? 
If so why do you say that?

I don't know everything(What I mean is I am open to correction(Biblical please)) all I know is that in South Africa(Where I live.LOL) we don't see any true reformed guys(Teachers) We seriously have to many Charismatic/Pentacostal pastors. Dr.MacArthur has truly changed my life. He is n great teacher, Really respect him for all his hard work. I know everyone has something he is struggling with.(In the scripture no one understands everything) 
I downloaded all I can find from Authors like:
CH.Spurgeon, J.Owen, J.Calvin, M.Luther, G.Whitefield, J.Bunyan and the rest of Puritans. We are truly blessed to have examples like that.(Please more authors will be appreciated, we don't have any Seminary or true reformed Colleges here in South Africa(With or without Seminary I will change South Africa(God Wills, Thats why I joined PURITANBOARD(Need Some Puritan friends.LOL. Not looking good is it.  ).
Forgive me for going off topic(Forgive me if my English grammar is bad, not 1st language) 

Back to the point I was trying to make, The true question was that dead people are dead, they can't be corrected so we read the good and "spit out the bones"(Must inform weaker brothers though.) 

But what if the Pastor/Teacher/Theologian is still alive and we can correct him?
But what do we do when there are major errors? Shouldn't we correct? There is so much sin and tolerance with SIN, so much compromise its making me sick.(We all compromise with something even if its a Tv program, not reaching to the poor, widows and orphans etc) 
But should we compromise within the evangelicals? Shouldn't we earnestly contend for the truth? Isn't that what our reformed fathers did? Isn't that what Jude is warning about(Apostacy)? 

I am not questioning your views guys, I am Learning from this because I don't have any other "Reformed" people to chat to so bare with me.

I am truly blessed to be "Reformed". 2nd year now. From error to truth.(From Charismatic to Reformed) TO GOD THE GLORY.
Guys please correct me where I am wrong. Please give me scripture or studies so I can investigate. 

Thank you.


----------



## Zork

Please assist me with this.

Dispensational theology refers to the unified teachings of Dispensationalism that address what other views teach as divergent theologies in the Old Testament and New Testament. Its name reflects a view that biblical history is best understood as a series of dispensations, or separated time-periods, in the Bible.

I'm quoting
"But when people try to pin me down to some kind of system all I would say this, here is the sum total of my dispensationalism. One sentence, "There is a true future for national Israel." Period, paragraph. Why do I believe that? Because that's exactly what Scripture says. Old Testament, New Testament. I'm not content to just imbibe a theology passed down through centuries, as respected as it might be. And many covenant theologians are absolutely at the very pinnacle of biblical scholarship and understanding of the great doctrines of grace and things like that and we applaud them and we affirm them and we revere them and we stand with them and love them and appreciate them for that. I just don't understand why they change the rules of the game when they get to Israel.

What is to be gained by that? I know what is to be lost. It's the call into question the faithfulness of God and to call into question the straightforward interpretation of Scripture. The difference is not a difference in exegesis. If somebody's wondering why are some people covenant theologians and some people what's called futuristic premillennialist believing in a literal future as outlined in Scripture. For Israel including the millennial kingdom. What is the difference? It's not exegetical. That is, it's not in the words, it's not in the syntax or the grammar or the lexicography of the language. It's not a difference in what the text says. We don't disagree on what it says. We just flatly disagree at this point.

We say it means what it says. They say it doesn't mean what it says. It means what we say it means. Now have an authority problem because you've now presupposed that it has to mean something other than what it says. Once you say it's not literal then you can't know what it is and why would you do that? Why? Why not, except a literal, historical, normal understanding of Scripture and if it yields a future for Israel, I'm not going to be sad. I'm going to be glad, because that means God keeps His what? His promises. Why would I want to come up with a system that has God voiding out His promises and then while I might have done away with the problem regarding Israel, for reason I'm not sure, I've got a problem regarding God."
-J.MacArthur


----------



## Zork

Colin Doyle:
I am standing in AWE!! Mouth open, can't believe what I just read.(Speechless)
This was the most inspiring and insightful advice I have ever been given.
Thank you very much. Wow Brother, you don't know how much I appreciate the advice. 
I have never really personally met Reformed believers, Church I attend are a bit different in believe but still the closest to Reformed. 
The closest Reformed Church from me is 150KM. Financially can't make it there every Sunday.

I knew true believers of Christ will be different from what I am use to.(Spiritual and Knowledge based seasoned with fruit of the spirit. LOL)
That is the reason I joined the Puritanboard, I wanted to know if Reformed people are different. I reached out to many groups of people(Churches).
Searched for Reformed Brothers to chat to, wanted to ask questions. See what they are doing for the Faith.
Places like(gty.org, pyromaniacs and a few other places). I had so many questions. Needed some friends, even if it was just a once a month email buddy(Brother in Christ).
Well I know everybody is busy and they probably get millions of mails like mine. Had to take a chance. 
From then on I searched and studied everything I could find on the Reformed Theology.
I have quite a collection now but what does knowledge help me if I don't know how to apply it.(Am I showing good fruits that will last, Am I truly saved?)

I want to thank you for the reply, It really means a lot to me.(I have always read about Good fruit, Meekness, love(agape), kindness etc.) 
But never really seen it in someone, until now.

I heard a sermon once and the Preacher said "To become a godly man you must just observe and examine the life of a true man of GOD"
I know the Scripture is enough to change you into Christ's likeness. I know that the Spirit will lead you.
I can relate to what that preacher said that day, You will see how to treat your wife, children, strangers, widows, orphans, devotional time with Almighty God, Prayers, Diligence, speech, never compromising, how he deals with confrontation or people who doesn't see everything he does.
WOW, wouldn't it be great to personally know someone like that.


----------



## J. Dean

C. M. Sheffield said:


> Unoriginalname said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is not to tear down MacArthur but to say that there is plenty of serious error in his work along with McGrath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would say calling MacArthur an idolater just about does it. I have never said that McGrath had nothing worth reading. But for you to put MacArthur's dispensationalism in the same category of denying creation is extreme. I find it offensive.
Click to expand...

Eat the meat and spit out the bones, right?


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Keep sight of this. No one here says "don't correct the brother." NO ONE. No one is saying "don't defend the word of God." NO ONE. Some are merely saying "Learn what you can, if you can, without necessarily putting the brother on the banned list." Much like Paul, God may not be done with him yet. 

Peace.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Zork said:


> OKAY OKAY. Stay calm guys. I know he(DR MacArthur) has Despentational views. I didn't mean to cause all this havoc. I only quoted DR.J.MacArthur because the article was relevant on our discussion.(I agree with what he says.) And before you accuse him of being all that you say he is check this out. MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing
> Thing is don't you think his views are compatible with reformed Theology?
> If NO please correct me.(Scripture Please)
> .



This should help get you started on seeing the incompatibility: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur

By all means, listen to the MP3 lectures listed on that page as audio resources. 

MacAurthur is reformed in his soteriology, but he is not "Reformed." Driscoll is much the same (but has WAY more issues).


----------



## Zork

Reformedfellow said:


> Brother Ronny,
> 
> (In view of throwing things off topic from the thread) I'm happy to encourage you brother.
> There are some really godly men on here, and though I've only been signed up for a very short time, I have learned a lot and been strengthened and challenged in many areas. You will profit greatly from the learning and wisdom that some of these men will be able to help you with. Don't be afraid or embarrassed to keep ask questions.
> Like I said, you and I are in similar situations. Here in Japan truly reformed churches are almost non-existent. The reason I cam to the board was for the very same reasons as you, so don't be afraid to stay in touch though email as well. I'd be happy to be your penpal. Anyway, I hope for now some of the guys here will be able to answer some of those important questions you asked above. Sorry to throw things



He He. Was waiting for the Off topic comment. Sorry not yet figured the "How to post my own topics and blogs"

---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------




GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> OKAY OKAY. Stay calm guys. I know he(DR MacArthur) has Despentational views. I didn't mean to cause all this havoc. I only quoted DR.J.MacArthur because the article was relevant on our discussion.(I agree with what he says.) And before you accuse him of being all that you say he is check this out. MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing
> Thing is don't you think his views are compatible with reformed Theology?
> If NO please correct me.(Scripture Please)
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This should help get you started on seeing the incompatibility: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur
> 
> By all means, listen to the MP3 lectures listed on that page as audio resources.
> 
> MacAurthur is reformed in his soteriology, but he is not "Reformed." Driscoll is much the same (but has WAY more issues).
Click to expand...



Okay wait a minute so I can go look at the meaning of "soteriology". 
Thank you I appreciate it. Will listen to it.


----------



## Zork

Zork said:


> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother Ronny,
> 
> (In view of throwing things off topic from the thread) I'm happy to encourage you brother.
> There are some really godly men on here, and though I've only been signed up for a very short time, I have learned a lot and been strengthened and challenged in many areas. You will profit greatly from the learning and wisdom that some of these men will be able to help you with. Don't be afraid or embarrassed to keep ask questions.
> Like I said, you and I are in similar situations. Here in Japan truly reformed churches are almost non-existent. The reason I cam to the board was for the very same reasons as you, so don't be afraid to stay in touch though email as well. I'd be happy to be your penpal. Anyway, I hope for now some of the guys here will be able to answer some of those important questions you asked above. Sorry to throw things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He He. Was waiting for the Off topic comment. Sorry not yet figured the "How to post my own topics and blogs"
> 
> ---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> OKAY OKAY. Stay calm guys. I know he(DR MacArthur) has Despentational views. I didn't mean to cause all this havoc. I only quoted DR.J.MacArthur because the article was relevant on our discussion.(I agree with what he says.) And before you accuse him of being all that you say he is check this out. MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing
> Thing is don't you think his views are compatible with reformed Theology?
> If NO please correct me.(Scripture Please)
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This should help get you started on seeing the incompatibility: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur
> 
> By all means, listen to the MP3 lectures listed on that page as audio resources.
> 
> MacAurthur is reformed in his soteriology, but he is not "Reformed." Driscoll is much the same (but has WAY more issues).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay wait a minute so I can go look at the meaning of "soteriology".
> Thank you I appreciate it. Will listen to it.
Click to expand...




LOL.
Soteriology (Greek σωτηρία sōtēria "salvation" from σωτήρ sōtēr "savior, preserver" + λόγος logos "study" or "word"[1]) is the study of religious doctrines of salvation.

Got it.
Okay but what does it mean to be reformed? Must your Theology etc. line up with all the confessions and creeds etc.?
And if you differ on few point does it make you less reformed?
Then the question will be what points hay?

I watched a DVD called Amazing Grace, History and Theology of Calvinism.
I loved it, It was a foundation to build on(Reformed). 
Have you seen it?
If yes please comment on the accuracy of it.
I saw a list of people they named as Reformed like J.Piper and a few others.
Is he reformed?

I guess by the sound of it you must first thoroughly(Diligently) study a authors works before you trust him.(Scary)


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Zork said:


> [Okay but what does it mean to be reformed? Must your Theology etc. line up with all the confessions and creeds etc.?
> And if you differ on few point does it make you less reformed?
> Then the question will be what points hay?)



I will try in my feeble way to help here. The definition of "Reformed" as used in common evangelicalism is sort of like nailing jello to a tree. In essence, "Reformed" is used to mean "Calvinistic in one's soteriology." See, for instance Challies take on the definition: What It Means To Be Reformed | Challies Dot Com

However, on THIS board, the brothers and sisters hold to a more distinctive view. This is a "confessional" board, becaused to be Reformed IS to be confessional. You had to subscribe to a reformed confession to get in the door here. What is right, proper, and "Reformed" is governed by the Confessions. Most "Reformed" folks adhere to the Westminster, or its London 1st Cousin. I would submit that if you are on this board, "Reformed" equals "confessional" and as Joshua and Ruben so frequently point out, looking back to the Confessions and scripture proofs are the first line of defense on points of "Reformed doctrine." My poor paraphrase would be that the Scriptures tell us WHAT we believe, and the Confessions tell us how to accurately SAY what we confess the scriptures to teach. 

This is a blog post from a Reformed Baptist on the broader issue that I liked, for what its worth: 
Life in Christ: What does it Mean to be Reformed?



Zork said:


> I watched a DVD called Amazing Grace, History and Theology of Calvinism.
> I loved it, It was a foundation to build on(Reformed).
> Have you seen it?
> If yes please comment on the accuracy of it.
> I saw a list of people they named as Reformed like J.Piper and a few others.
> Is he reformed?



I think I have that DVD, I would have to dig around. I am not sure Piper holds to a specific confession. He is a continualist, so I would grant him "very reformed in soteriology/Christology" but not "confessional" to my knowledge. Others here will surely know more. His "TULIP" series is quite good. I would avoid him on other issues. 



Zork said:


> I guess by the sound of it you must first thoroughly(Diligently) study a authors works before you trust him.(Scary)



There is no free lunch, my friend. However, if you post on this board you want a "totally safe" author on any given subject, you will get a plethora of excellent responses. Mostly old dead guys, again. They have stood the test of time.


----------



## py3ak

Zork said:


> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother Ronny,
> 
> (In view of throwing things off topic from the thread) I'm happy to encourage you brother.
> There are some really godly men on here, and though I've only been signed up for a very short time, I have learned a lot and been strengthened and challenged in many areas. You will profit greatly from the learning and wisdom that some of these men will be able to help you with. Don't be afraid or embarrassed to keep ask questions.
> Like I said, you and I are in similar situations. Here in Japan truly reformed churches are almost non-existent. The reason I cam to the board was for the very same reasons as you, so don't be afraid to stay in touch though email as well. I'd be happy to be your penpal. Anyway, I hope for now some of the guys here will be able to answer some of those important questions you asked above. Sorry to throw things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He He. Was waiting for the Off topic comment. Sorry not yet figured the "How to post my own topics and blogs"
> 
> ---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> OKAY OKAY. Stay calm guys. I know he(DR MacArthur) has Despentational views. I didn't mean to cause all this havoc. I only quoted DR.J.MacArthur because the article was relevant on our discussion.(I agree with what he says.) And before you accuse him of being all that you say he is check this out. MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing
> Thing is don't you think his views are compatible with reformed Theology?
> If NO please correct me.(Scripture Please)
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This should help get you started on seeing the incompatibility: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur
> 
> By all means, listen to the MP3 lectures listed on that page as audio resources.
> 
> MacAurthur is reformed in his soteriology, but he is not "Reformed." Driscoll is much the same (but has WAY more issues).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay wait a minute so I can go look at the meaning of "soteriology".
> Thank you I appreciate it. Will listen to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> Soteriology (Greek σωτηρία sōtēria "salvation" from σωτήρ sōtēr "savior, preserver" + λόγος logos "study" or "word"[1]) is the study of religious doctrines of salvation.
> 
> Got it.
> Okay but what does it mean to be reformed? Must your Theology etc. line up with all the confessions and creeds etc.?
> And if you differ on few point does it make you less reformed?
> Then the question will be what points hay?
> 
> I watched a DVD called Amazing Grace, History and Theology of Calvinism.
> I loved it, It was a foundation to build on(Reformed).
> Have you seen it?
> If yes please comment on the accuracy of it.
> I saw a list of people they named as Reformed like J.Piper and a few others.
> Is he reformed?
> 
> I guess by the sound of it you must first thoroughly(Diligently) study a authors works before you trust him.(Scary)
Click to expand...


Ronny, questions can so easily get buried in a long thread like this one that if you don't get an answer you might be better off starting a new one. There is an area called "the Wading Pool" specifically set aside for answering questions from those who are new to the Reformed faith - that's often your best bet for a clear, non-controversial discussion.


----------



## Philip

Here's part of my worry about writing off Christians who still cling to evolution:

Where should the debate over evolution take place? Because it can't take place with the world. You can't have a meaningful debate with Richard Dawkins over it because he doesn't accept Scripture. The debate is fundamentally over the interpretation of Scripture and thus it is inherently a debate inside the Church.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Reformedfellow said:


> So, I wouldn't be too scared off by MacArthur's dispensationalism


Without reopening an old debate Dispensationalism as a whole (not necessarily MacArthur's brand) has considerable damage to the church over the last 100 or so years. I would not trust any book on old testament theology written by a dispensationalist, nor would I consider it wise to suggest a book by a dispensationalist to someone who is unaware of where they err. The denial of the covenant and law is as equal in foundation as creation.


----------



## JML

Reformedfellow said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The debate is fundamentally over the interpretation of Scripture and thus it is inherently a debate inside the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philip,
> It's not a debate. Creation, "within the Church", is a non-debatable. We are not talking about who wrote the book of Hebrews here. That's a debate.
> Evolution is a flat-out denial of fundamental and foundational Christian doctrine.
> Sorry brother. It's absolutely unacceptable to show hospitality to this kind of attack on scripture.
Click to expand...


----------



## Zork

Unoriginalname said:


> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, I wouldn't be too scared off by MacArthur's dispensationalism
> 
> 
> 
> Without reopening an old debate Dispensationalism as a whole (not necessarily MacArthur's brand) has considerable damage to the church over the last 100 or so years. I would not trust any book on old testament theology written by a dispensationalist, nor would I consider it wise to suggest a book by a dispensationalist to someone who is unaware of where they err. The denial of the covenant and law is as equal in foundation as creation.
Click to expand...


Okay I read a lot of stuff today about Dispensationalism, I went through all I can find on DR J.MacArthur and "Leaky-Dispensationalist". 
He doesn't support this view fully, he doesn't deny it either.(LOL. Paradox). Bhahahahaha.   Got carried away sorry.
I need a simple explanation please. I have listened to hundreds of J.MacArthur sermons. And Hundreds of CH.Spurgeon sermons(Sometimes think Dr.J.MacArthur is copy and pasting CH.Spurgeon) They are so alike in quality. 

Obviously I don't understand Dispensationalism and the harm its doing. 

Help a brother out and explain how.

I'm going to Post a new thread with this question.


----------



## Philip

Reformedfellow said:


> Sorry brother. It's absolutely unacceptable to show hospitality to this kind of attack on scripture.



Colin, there are two kinds of people who believe evolution: unbelievers and confused and/or ignorant believers. This isn't the trinity or a doctrine which separates the church from the world---maybe in a century or two it will be, but not at the moment. We have to accept that many who are brothers are simply in error on this point and while we may correct them, we do so by appeal to Scripture, which inherently means that this is a debate within Christianity.

I'm not suggesting that we go liberal and start ordaining men who believe in evolution. I am saying that we ought to recognize first that many who are on the other side of the fence from you and I are genuine believers, and genuinely confused, not seeing the implications of denying a historical Adam and a historical fall. And like dispensationalists, Roman Catholics, and others with whom I have strong disagreements, I will recommend people who happen to be theistic evolutionists when they write something useful. I don't let my hangups about Eastern Orthodoxy keep me from recommending Gregory of Nazianzus; I don't let my questions about some of his positions keep me from recommending C.S. Lewis; I don't let my reservations about theistic evolution keep me from recommending Alistair McGrath. 

There's no such thing as a "safe" writer outside the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And often I find myself understanding Scripture better after reading something that I disagree with. I find I am more likely to fall into the errors of my allies than those of my opponents. Reading those with whom you disagree forces you to deepen your understanding.


----------



## Zork

*Lord Help us*



P. F. Pugh said:


> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry brother. It's absolutely unacceptable to show hospitality to this kind of attack on scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin, there are two kinds of people who believe evolution: unbelievers and confused and/or ignorant believers. This isn't the trinity or a doctrine which separates the church from the world---maybe in a century or two it will be, but not at the moment. We have to accept that many who are brothers are simply in error on this point and while we may correct them, we do so by appeal to Scripture, which inherently means that this is a debate within Christianity.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that we go liberal and start ordaining men who believe in evolution. I am saying that we ought to recognize first that many who are on the other side of the fence from you and I are genuine believers, and genuinely confused, not seeing the implications of denying a historical Adam and a historical fall. And like dispensationalists, Roman Catholics, and others with whom I have strong disagreements, I will recommend people who happen to be theistic evolutionists when they write something useful. I don't let my hangups about Eastern Orthodoxy keep me from recommending Gregory of Nazianzus; I don't let my questions about some of his positions keep me from recommending C.S. Lewis; I don't let my reservations about theistic evolution keep me from recommending Alistair McGrath.
> 
> There's no such thing as a "safe" writer outside the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And often I find myself understanding Scripture better after reading something that I disagree with. I find I am more likely to fall into the errors of my allies than those of my opponents. Reading those with whom you disagree forces you to deepen your understanding.
Click to expand...





P. F. Pugh said:


> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry brother. It's absolutely unacceptable to show hospitality to this kind of attack on scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin, there are two kinds of people who believe evolution: unbelievers and confused and/or ignorant believers. This isn't the trinity or a doctrine which separates the church from the world---maybe in a century or two it will be, but not at the moment. We have to accept that many who are brothers are simply in error on this point and while we may correct them, we do so by appeal to Scripture, which inherently means that this is a debate within Christianity.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that we go liberal and start ordaining men who believe in evolution. I am saying that we ought to recognize first that many who are on the other side of the fence from you and I are genuine believers, and genuinely confused, not seeing the implications of denying a historical Adam and a historical fall. And like dispensationalists, Roman Catholics, and others with whom I have strong disagreements, I will recommend people who happen to be theistic evolutionists when they write something useful. I don't let my hangups about Eastern Orthodoxy keep me from recommending Gregory of Nazianzus; I don't let my questions about some of his positions keep me from recommending C.S. Lewis; I don't let my reservations about theistic evolution keep me from recommending Alistair McGrath.
> 
> There's no such thing as a "safe" writer outside the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And often I find myself understanding Scripture better after reading something that I disagree with. I find I am more likely to fall into the errors of my allies than those of my opponents. Reading those with whom you disagree forces you to deepen your understanding.
Click to expand...


Question, Isn't He in our camp and teaching Heresies?
Thing is that it could be harmful to NEW believers if you recommend his books.(I know you wont do that to new believers)
Shouldn't we contend for the Faith, against Apostasy? "Jude"
The guy is still alive, why don't we reason(contend) with him and show him out of scripture that He is wrong?
Like our Fathers of the Faith did, and the Apostles before them.


O Lord the Wretched man that I am give me understanding. Enlighten the eyes of my heart and make me brave as those who got martyred for the Faith.
Father, Make the strong(Wise, Rich in Knowledge) brave, give them the courage to fight for the faith. Never compromising, Never giving up ground for
the enemy. Bless the Lord O my soul. To YOU all the glory and honor forever and ever. Amen.


----------



## Philip

Reformedfellow said:


> Isn't McGrath an Anglican priest?



Yes. In the Church of England, he's considered an extreme conservative---McGrath is more qualified for office than the current Archbishop of Canterbury. If I were part of the Church of England, I'd have to work with him and others even more problematic for reforms that are even more fundamental. 



Reformedfellow said:


> Sorry forgot about this quote. What's the difference between supporting the ordination of an evolutionist and supporting an already ordained man who is an evolutionist?



What do we mean by support here? If we simply mean recommending his scholarship in helpful areas, I do that with all kinds of people who aren't ordained. Again, he's one of the best in many areas of historical theology.



Zork said:


> Thing is that it could be harmful to NEW believers if you recommend his books.



Depends on the new believer. There are certain authors that I only recommend to those who are already well-grounded and need challenges of this kind in order to grow.



Zork said:


> Shouldn't we contend for the Faith, against Apostasy? "Jude"



He's not apostate, he's a Christian. He is just in error on his doctrine of creation.



Zork said:


> The guy is still alive, why don't we reason(contend) with him and show him out of scripture that He is wrong?



Nothing wrong with this. No reason to reject his real contributions to scholarship and apologetics, though.


----------



## Filipe Luiz C. Machado

Mcgrath is evidential in his works - no good for pious students.


----------



## Peairtach

I think some are more tolerant of theistic evolution than other errors e.g. denial of Hell.


----------



## jayce475

John Lanier said:


> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> 
> The debate is fundamentally over the interpretation of Scripture and thus it is inherently a debate inside the Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Philip,
> It's not a debate. Creation, "within the Church", is a non-debatable. We are not talking about who wrote the book of Hebrews here. That's a debate.
> Evolution is a flat-out denial of fundamental and foundational Christian doctrine.
> Sorry brother. It's absolutely unacceptable to show hospitality to this kind of attack on scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Zork

Thank you that was very helpful.

"My poor paraphrase would be that the Scriptures tell us WHAT we believe, and the Confessions tell us how to accurately SAY what we confess the scriptures to teach. "

WOW, Nicely said.

---------- Post added at 03:54 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:49 PM ----------




py3ak said:


> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reformedfellow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Brother Ronny,
> 
> (In view of throwing things off topic from the thread) I'm happy to encourage you brother.
> There are some really godly men on here, and though I've only been signed up for a very short time, I have learned a lot and been strengthened and challenged in many areas. You will profit greatly from the learning and wisdom that some of these men will be able to help you with. Don't be afraid or embarrassed to keep ask questions.
> Like I said, you and I are in similar situations. Here in Japan truly reformed churches are almost non-existent. The reason I cam to the board was for the very same reasons as you, so don't be afraid to stay in touch though email as well. I'd be happy to be your penpal. Anyway, I hope for now some of the guys here will be able to answer some of those important questions you asked above. Sorry to throw things
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He He. Was waiting for the Off topic comment. Sorry not yet figured the "How to post my own topics and blogs"
> 
> ---------- Post added at 05:21 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:17 PM ----------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GulfCoast Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zork said:
> 
> 
> 
> OKAY OKAY. Stay calm guys. I know he(DR MacArthur) has Despentational views. I didn't mean to cause all this havoc. I only quoted DR.J.MacArthur because the article was relevant on our discussion.(I agree with what he says.) And before you accuse him of being all that you say he is check this out. MacArthur: Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist is a Premillennialist « Faith by Hearing
> Thing is don't you think his views are compatible with reformed Theology?
> If NO please correct me.(Scripture Please)
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This should help get you started on seeing the incompatibility: Riddleblog - A Reply to John MacArthur
> 
> By all means, listen to the MP3 lectures listed on that page as audio resources.
> 
> MacAurthur is reformed in his soteriology, but he is not "Reformed." Driscoll is much the same (but has WAY more issues).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Okay wait a minute so I can go look at the meaning of "soteriology".
> Thank you I appreciate it. Will listen to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> Soteriology (Greek σωτηρία sōtēria "salvation" from σωτήρ sōtēr "savior, preserver" + λόγος logos "study" or "word"[1]) is the study of religious doctrines of salvation.
> 
> Got it.
> Okay but what does it mean to be reformed? Must your Theology etc. line up with all the confessions and creeds etc.?
> And if you differ on few point does it make you less reformed?
> Then the question will be what points hay?
> 
> I watched a DVD called Amazing Grace, History and Theology of Calvinism.
> I loved it, It was a foundation to build on(Reformed).
> Have you seen it?
> If yes please comment on the accuracy of it.
> I saw a list of people they named as Reformed like J.Piper and a few others.
> Is he reformed?
> 
> I guess by the sound of it you must first thoroughly(Diligently) study a authors works before you trust him.(Scary)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ronny, questions can so easily get buried in a long thread like this one that if you don't get an answer you might be better off starting a new one. There is an area called "the Wading Pool" specifically set aside for answering questions from those who are new to the Reformed faith - that's often your best bet for a clear, non-controversial discussion.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Forgive me I'm still figuring out whats what and whats where.
Have so many things to learn, So many questions, So many loving, wise and kind Reformers here. HE HE. Couldn't help myself.


----------

