# Favorite Non Reformed Theologian



## Reformingstudent

Just wanted to know if anyone here has a favorite teacher/preacher they like to hear sometimes who may not be Reformed in their theology.
I got to the point that all I ever listen to is Reformed sermons from Sermon Audio or Renewing your Mind and any where else I can find them. I find it difficult to listen to my former favorites any more but I still like to listen to Irvin Lutzer at times. My one time favorite preacher was E.V. Hill. John Ankerberg was another I liked even though he was mostly a teacher. I feel like I have grown some since becoming Reformed in my theology I find it hard listening to things I sometimes feel I have out grown. Is that being too prideful? I am just learning like everyone else (at a some what slower pace of course ) and want to grow in my understanding of the things of the Lord.
Any way that was just a thought I had. I also liked reading books by (dare I say it?) Dave Hunt. See I have come a long way.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Joel Osteen






But Seriously call me crazy but I listen to Charles Stanley every morning on the radio.


----------



## jogri17

norman geisler


----------



## jogri17

but lutzer is good friends w/ RC SProul and MacArthur. And Ankerberg is a calvinist. He was a fighter w/ the reformed alliance (nickname i made up for: MacArthur, Sproul, Kennedy) and provided the forum for debate over ECT.


----------



## Herald

Chuck Swindoll. I enjoy his stories and the lilt of his voice. He seems like he's a real nice guy.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Chuck Swindoll. I enjoy his stories and the lilt of his voice. He seems like he's a real nice guy.





On my local FM Christian Station they have Swindoll on at 8:00 followed by Stanley and I usually listen to both of them.


----------



## Herald

Stanley's voice grates against my ear drums. I can't listen to him for more than 15 seconds.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Stanley's voice grates against my ear drums. I can't listen to him for more than 15 seconds.



Well he does tell you to listen about every 15 seconds...


----------



## caddy

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Chuck Swindoll. I enjoy his stories and the lilt of his voice. He seems like he's a real nice guy.


 
Yep. I remember his "seasons" devotional books as some of my first books as I became more and more the reader...


----------



## Pilgrim

Lutzer is baptistic and dispensationalist, so he certainly is not Reformed. But he does embrace the doctrines of grace. 

Probably my favorite non reformed theologian right now is Russell Moore.


----------



## Pilgrim

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stanley's voice grates against my ear drums. I can't listen to him for more than 15 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he does tell you to listen about every 15 seconds...
Click to expand...


Or "Watch this!"


----------



## Herald

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stanley's voice grates against my ear drums. I can't listen to him for more than 15 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he does tell you to listen about every 15 seconds...
Click to expand...


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Benny Hinn












Just Kidding!


Aren't the words "non-reformed" and "theologian" mutually exclusive?


----------



## Theogenes

Martin Luther...He's Lutheran, not Reformed...


----------



## Pilgrim

The late S. Lewis Johnson was a Calvinistic dispensationalist. One can listen to him with great profit without adopting his whole system.


----------



## N. Eshelman

I like Chuck Swindoll's preaching as well. He usually has really good insight into the text as well as a voice that this junior preacher covets!


----------



## danmpem

Pilgrim said:


> Lutzer is baptistic and dispensationalist, so he certainly is not Reformed. But he does embrace the doctrines of grace.
> 
> Probably my favorite non reformed theologian right now is Russell Moore.



He's not reformed? Somehow I got the idea he was...

And he's definitely one of my favorites too.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I use to listen to J. Vernon McGee every evening while doing the dishes. I enjoyed listening to his southern drawl. The man was a mess theologically but he sure wanted people to know Christ. Then after he was done Lester Roloff's Family Altar would come on. It was entertaining radio. 

I would ride the McGee Bible Gus to the Family Altar. Those were the days. Back in the 80's. I haven't listened to much television or radio preachers since. I use to watch D. James Kennedy on Sundays. But that has subsided these last few years.


----------



## Reformingstudent

jogri17 said:


> but lutzer is good friends w/ RC SProul and MacArthur. And Ankerberg is a calvinist. He was a fighter w/ the reformed alliance (nickname i made up for: MacArthur, Sproul, Kennedy) and provided the forum for debate over ECT.




Ankerberg is a Calvinist?? I did not know that.  Thanks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Reformingstudent said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but lutzer is good friends w/ RC SProul and MacArthur. And Ankerberg is a calvinist. He was a fighter w/ the reformed alliance (nickname i made up for: MacArthur, Sproul, Kennedy) and provided the forum for debate over ECT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ankerberg is a Calvinist?? I did not know that.  Thanks.
Click to expand...


He was a 4 pointer last I heard. The LA thing was lacking.


----------



## Pilgrim

danmpem said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lutzer is baptistic and dispensationalist, so he certainly is not Reformed. But he does embrace the doctrines of grace.
> 
> Probably my favorite non reformed theologian right now is Russell Moore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not reformed? Somehow I got the idea he was...
> 
> And he's definitely one of my favorites too.
Click to expand...


People tend to assume that because he is at Southern Seminary. I heard an interview with him where when asked, he said he was not a Calvinist and this was hinted at in _Why I Am a Baptist_ too. Regardless, I think he is one of the better young theologians today.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Pilgrim said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lutzer is baptistic and dispensationalist, so he certainly is not Reformed. But he does embrace the doctrines of grace.
> 
> Probably my favorite non reformed theologian right now is Russell Moore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not reformed? Somehow I got the idea he was...
> 
> And he's definitely one of my favorites too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People tend to assume that because he is at Southern Seminary. I heard an interview with him where when asked, he said he was not a Calvinist and this was hinted at in _Why I Am a Baptist_ too. Regardless, I think he is one of the better young theologians today.
Click to expand...


Wow! I didn't think he was Reformed, but I assumed he was at least a Calvinist. He fills in for Mohler on his program when he's out. I wouldn't think Mohler would want a non-Calvinist doing that.


----------



## SolaGratia

Oprah Winfrey, Yeah Right! But, At least she sounds just like another theologian, Dr. R. Godfrey.


----------



## Reformingstudent

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Chuck Swindoll. I enjoy his stories and the lilt of his voice. He seems like he's a real nice guy.



Not sure how true it is, but someone once told me a while back that Swindoll was becoming Calvinistic in his theology. That would be great. Loved his book, the Grace Awakening.


----------



## Pilgrim

Barnpreacher said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not reformed? Somehow I got the idea he was...
> 
> And he's definitely one of my favorites too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to assume that because he is at Southern Seminary. I heard an interview with him where when asked, he said he was not a Calvinist and this was hinted at in _Why I Am a Baptist_ too. Regardless, I think he is one of the better young theologians today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I didn't think he was Reformed, but I assumed he was at least a Calvinist. He fills in for Mohler on his program when he's out. I wouldn't think Mohler would want a non-Calvinist doing that.
Click to expand...


People were surprised when C.J. Mahaney preached for John MacArthur when he was on vacation a few years ago given Mac's well known views on charismaticism. Mohler's Calvinistic views are well known, but he rarely brings it up on his show unless someone calls in with a question about it.


----------



## Reformingstudent

North Jersey Baptist said:


> Stanley's voice grates against my ear drums. I can't listen to him for more than 15 seconds.



And I thought it was just me.


----------



## Pilgrim

Reformingstudent said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Swindoll. I enjoy his stories and the lilt of his voice. He seems like he's a real nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how true it is, but someone once told me a while back that Swindoll was becoming Calvinistic in his theology. That would be great. Loved his book, the Grace Awakening.
Click to expand...


Like a lot of Dallas Seminary grads, he has a high view of God's sovereignty compared to the average evangelical. Many of them have held what are essentially 4 point views, but 5 pointers there have been rare. Reportedly that was one reason for the departure of longtime Prof. S. Lewis Johnson years ago.


----------



## Reformingstudent

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stanley's voice grates against my ear drums. I can't listen to him for more than 15 seconds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well he does tell you to listen about every 15 seconds...
Click to expand...


----------



## Pilgrim

I used to like to listen to Adrian Rogers sometimes as well.


----------



## Reformingstudent

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I use to listen to J. Vernon McGee every evening while doing the dishes. I enjoyed listening to his southern drawl. The man was a mess theologically but he sure wanted people to know Christ. Then after he was done Lester Roloff's Family Altar would come on. It was entertaining radio.
> 
> I would ride the McGee Bible Gus to the Family Altar. Those were the days. Back in the 80's. I haven't listened to much television or radio preachers since. I use to watch D. James Kennedy on Sundays. But that has subsided these last few years.



I forgot about those guys. I used to hear them all the time on a Radio station from Little Rock, AK. KAAY 1090. Also used to be a pentecostal preacher who came on every night railing against drinking, smoking and almost every thing else we Presbyterians like.


----------



## christianyouth

A.W. Tozer


----------



## Pilgrim

Donald Gray Barnhouse was another good one. He was the minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church but he was also dispensational.


----------



## Ivan

I like Swindoll. I've listen to him off and on for years, probably over thirty years. 

My secret indulgence is Adrian Rogers. I know...he's a stinker when is comes to Calvinism and the DoG. I have a friend who was a friend of Rogers...and that friend is a believer in the DoG. 

A few years ago when Adrian past from this world I asked my friend about his thoughts about the passing of his friend. "Well, Ivan, for one thing Adrian has his theology straighten out now!"

How true.


----------



## caoclan

Pilgrim said:


> I used to like to listen to Adrian Rogers sometimes as well.



I also like Jeff Noblit at 1st Baptist of Muscle Shoals, AL. He is Calvinist for sure, but I'm not sure of his eschatology. Paul Washer is a member of his church (He would be another I like listening to, especially when I need a good, strong dose of the Gospel and the Holiness of God and the sinfulness of man).


----------



## caoclan

Also some guy named Dr. C. Matthew McMahon.


----------



## Zenas

C.S. Lewis.


----------



## Pergamum

I think the Bible Answer Man guy, Hank Haanagraf (sp?) does a good job of answering many questions posed by non-believers. 

I tried to bait him once and sent him a question on limited atonment and he sent me a pamphlet back explaining both views on the atonement without pushing for one. That won me some respect for him. Also his book The Last Disciple is interesting.


----------



## Reformingstudent

Pilgrim said:


> Donald Gray Barnhouse was another good one. He was the minister of Tenth Presbyterian Church but he was also dispensational.



We listen to his messages every morning. He was good.


----------



## bookslover

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I use to listen to J. Vernon McGee every evening while doing the dishes. I enjoyed listening to his southern drawl. The man was a mess theologically but he sure wanted people to know Christ. Then after he was done Lester Roloff's Family Altar would come on. It was entertaining radio.
> 
> I would ride the McGee Bible Gus to the Family Altar. Those were the days. Back in the 80's. I haven't listened to much television or radio preachers since. I use to watch D. James Kennedy on Sundays. But that has subsided these last few years.



I never liked McGee. You only had to listen to him for five minutes to realize why it took him five years to get through the Bible.


----------



## bookslover

Pilgrim said:


> The late S. Lewis Johnson was a Calvinistic dispensationalist. One can listen to him with great profit without adopting his whole system.



A Calvinistic dispensationalist? How does that work? Aren't those two things mutually exclusive?


----------



## Me Died Blue

I do second the mention of Ankerberg. I would submit Hank Hanegraaff as well, who, for all of his doctrinal errors, has still been very effective in critiquing a lot of the most bizarre movements and beliefs in broad evangelicalism, and drawing a lot of evangelical Christians back to the basics of Scripture and the historic creeds of the Church.

I would imagine almost everyone here has benefited at one time or another from C. S. Lewis, but he is certainly not a theologian - more of a Christian philosopher.

Certainly my favorite non-Reformed preacher I've ever heard is Rev. Chris Beard, the current senior pastor of the church in which I was raised. Unlike so many preachers in the denomination, he is incredibly faithful in sticking to the text of the Word and really bringing out what it means redemptively to the people of God in the congregation, as well as in their living.


----------



## Gage Browning

*Low Calvinist*



Reformingstudent said:


> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Swindoll. I enjoy his stories and the lilt of his voice. He seems like he's a real nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how true it is, but someone once told me a while back that Swindoll was becoming Calvinistic in his theology. That would be great. Loved his book, the Grace Awakening.
Click to expand...


I echo the sentiments about Chuck Swindoll...
He is at least passionate about the inerrant and infallable Word of God. There is way too much preaching today that is void of passion. He is Amaraldyan.


----------



## mossy

bookslover said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I use to listen to J. Vernon McGee every evening while doing the dishes. I enjoyed listening to his southern drawl. The man was a mess theologically but he sure wanted people to know Christ. Then after he was done Lester Roloff's Family Altar would come on. It was entertaining radio.
> 
> I would ride the McGee Bible Gus to the Family Altar. Those were the days. Back in the 80's. I haven't listened to much television or radio preachers since. I use to watch D. James Kennedy on Sundays. But that has subsided these last few years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never liked McGee. You only had to listen to him for five minutes to realize why it took him five years to get through the Bible.
Click to expand...


It always surprises me how easily such ungracious comments can roll off a Christians tongue. 

Terry


----------



## Ivan

caoclan said:


> Also some guy named Dr. C. Matthew McMahon.



He isn't Reformed?! I think I saw a pig fly!!


----------



## danmpem

Barnpreacher said:


> Wow! I didn't think he was Reformed, but I assumed he was at least a Calvinist. He fills in for Mohler on his program when he's out. I wouldn't think Mohler would want a non-Calvinist doing that.



That's exactly where I got the idea he was a Calvinist. There were people who would call asking about the doctrines of grace and all that, and he would help them think with him as to how he defines certain words, what limits he puts on human will, etc. I would be interested in seeing something recent he's said or written to show he's not a Calvinist.

And even then I wouldn't believe him. He just needs to come out of the closet and admit he's a 5-pointer!


----------



## Pilgrim

bookslover said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The late S. Lewis Johnson was a Calvinistic dispensationalist. One can listen to him with great profit without adopting his whole system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Calvinistic dispensationalist? How does that work? Aren't those two things mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...


Well, a Dispensational couldn't subscribe to the confession. I was using the term Calvinistic to denote the fact that he taught the doctrines of grace. Johnson was very similar in belief to MacArthur. Even though he was at DTS for many years, he was a strong voice against the no lordship teaching.


----------



## Timothy William

christianyouth said:


> A.W. Tozer





Though i stopped listening to any of his sermons after he said something particularly disagreed with, along the lines of denying Total Depravity. (That was also the thing which first put me off C S Lewis.)


----------



## Reformingstudent

Timothy William said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.W. Tozer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though i stopped listening to any of his sermons after he said something particularly disagreed with, along the lines of denying Total Depravity. (That was also the thing which first put me off C S Lewis.)
Click to expand...


C.S. Lewis denied total depravity? I did not know that. Is that the stand his church denomination takes as well I wonder? 
I don't really know any thing about the Anglican church or what they teach other than it is going in the wrong direction from what I see and hear on the news.


----------



## DMcFadden

This was a really tough question. I don't really enjoy ANY Arminian theologians. However, if you stretch it to cognate fields and preachers, I can come up with a few names.

Actually a NT specialist more than a "theologian," but I especially appreciate the work of Ben Witherington (Asbury). Although an Arminian, he has been on the side of the angels more than once defending the historicity of the NT texts and standing up to apostates like Bart Ehrman.

I like Roger Olson's wide knowledge of theology, but can't stand his own views.

In terms of Godly character and personal integrity, you can't do any better than Billy Graham and Jack Hayford.

Bob Gundry was the smartest human being I ever met. My 32 units of Greek and NT from him was an epiphany. He has since gone down some roads I cannot appreciate at all.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

Does anyone know if Ravi Zaccharias is Reformed or not?


----------



## Simply_Nikki

servantofmosthigh said:


> Does anyone know if Ravi Zaccharias is Reformed or not?



I love listening to him speak, he's such a smart man and gives excellent evidentiary apologetic defenses, but I get the sense he's probably not reformed, though he and RC Sproul seem pretty close.


----------



## Simply_Nikki

danmpem said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! I didn't think he was Reformed, but I assumed he was at least a Calvinist. He fills in for Mohler on his program when he's out. I wouldn't think Mohler would want a non-Calvinist doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly where I got the idea he was a Calvinist. There were people who would call asking about the doctrines of grace and all that, and he would help them think with him as to how he defines certain words, what limits he puts on human will, etc. I would be interested in seeing something recent he's said or written to show he's not a Calvinist.
> 
> And even then I wouldn't believe him. He just needs to come out of the closet and admit he's a 5-pointer!
Click to expand...


I went to Moody Bible Church for about 6 months, I thought they were somewhat reformed leaning, or at least calvinistic. I was always on the edge, wondering if they were or not. Then an easter sermon removed all doubt when I heard Dr. Lutzer say.. something like (and this is not a direct quote) "Jesus is standing, knocking at the door of your heart why won't you let him in?"

I still thing he is a very good preacher though. But I left his church soon after that and joined a presbyterian one.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Hi:

Paris Reidhead - Ten Shekels and a Shirt convicts me every time I hear it:

SermonAudio.com - Ten Shekels and a Shirt - HIFI

-CH


----------



## Mayflower

Maybe for some on the board not so well known, but my three favourites whom are not so reformed are:

Jacobus Arminius, Pelagius & Pope Benedictus 
!!!


----------



## AV1611

St. Athanasius is a fave of mine.


----------



## caoclan

bookslover said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The late S. Lewis Johnson was a Calvinistic dispensationalist. One can listen to him with great profit without adopting his whole system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Calvinistic dispensationalist? How does that work? Aren't those two things mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...


Not for Dr. MacArthur.


----------



## RamistThomist

Barnpreacher said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not reformed? Somehow I got the idea he was...
> 
> And he's definitely one of my favorites too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to assume that because he is at Southern Seminary. I heard an interview with him where when asked, he said he was not a Calvinist and this was hinted at in _Why I Am a Baptist_ too. Regardless, I think he is one of the better young theologians today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I didn't think he was Reformed, but I assumed he was at least a Calvinist. He fills in for Mohler on his program when he's out. I wouldn't think Mohler would want a non-Calvinist doing that.
Click to expand...


He would be more Calvinistic than most, but he doesn't say the Shibboleths correctly. Mohler has him fill in because Moore is...frankly, he is just awesome.

My favorite non-Reformed theologians would be Oliver O'Donovan, John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock


----------



## RamistThomist

David Bentley Hart. 
David Bentley Hart - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The David B. Hart Appreciation Blog

David Bentley Hart - OrthodoxWiki


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

bookslover said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> The late S. Lewis Johnson was a Calvinistic dispensationalist. One can listen to him with great profit without adopting his whole system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Calvinistic dispensationalist? How does that work? Aren't those two things mutually exclusive?
Click to expand...


SLJ was a soteriological Calvinist and yet a dispensationalist. He held to the five points and the understanding that regeneration logically precedes faith, but he never gave up his dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is mutually exclusive of Covenant Theology, not the Five Points.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Martin Luther.


----------



## Theogenes

CalvinandHodges said:


> Hi:
> 
> Paris Reidhead - Ten Shekels and a Shirt convicts me every time I hear it:
> 
> SermonAudio.com - Ten Shekels and a Shirt - HIFI
> 
> -CH



Robert,
I listened to Paris Reidhead's Ten Shekels and a Shirt back in the mid 1970's! It truly is a convicting message. I still have the cassette tape. I had some of his other tapes as well. He's good, you just have to push the Arminianism aside.
Thanks for the reminder!
Jim


----------



## kvanlaan

I'd have to say Paul Washer. (He calls himself a 'biblicist', not a 'Calvinist' and I'm putting him on this list b/c I've heard him say he'd "never baptise a baby." Go figure.) 

I haven't heard much from Tozer, but heard the following quote attributed to him and really liked it:



> A.W. Tozer : I can tell how much God you have by how much entertainment you need.


----------



## yeutter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I use to listen to J. Vernon McGee every evening while doing the dishes. I enjoyed listening to his southern drawl. The man was a mess theologically but he sure wanted people to know Christ.



I used to enjoy McGee . J. Vernon McGee started out a Presbyterian if memory serves me aright. He was a real mix of Calvinism, Arminianism and Dispensationalism in his radio days.


----------



## Pilgrim

A couple of other favorites are W.A. Criswell  and Leonard Ravenhill.


----------



## Pilgrim

Simply_Nikki said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! I didn't think he was Reformed, but I assumed he was at least a Calvinist. He fills in for Mohler on his program when he's out. I wouldn't think Mohler would want a non-Calvinist doing that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly where I got the idea he was a Calvinist. There were people who would call asking about the doctrines of grace and all that, and he would help them think with him as to how he defines certain words, what limits he puts on human will, etc. I would be interested in seeing something recent he's said or written to show he's not a Calvinist.
> 
> And even then I wouldn't believe him. He just needs to come out of the closet and admit he's a 5-pointer!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to Moody Bible Church for about 6 months, I thought they were somewhat reformed leaning, or at least calvinistic. I was always on the edge, wondering if they were or not. Then an easter sermon removed all doubt when I heard Dr. Lutzer say.. something like (and this is not a direct quote) "Jesus is standing, knocking at the door of your heart why won't you let him in?"
> 
> I still thing he is a very good preacher though. But I left his church soon after that and joined a presbyterian one.
Click to expand...


Obviously there's some disconnect at work between his belief and practice. Either that or he has changed his views. In _The Doctrines That Divide_ he defends Calvinistic soteriology.


----------



## Pilgrim

servantofmosthigh said:


> Does anyone know if Ravi Zaccharias is Reformed or not?



No. He is an evangelist with the Christian and Missionary Alliance.


----------



## yeutter

Reformingstudent;423379 C.S. Lewis denied total depravity? I did not know that. Is that the stand his church denomination takes as well I wonder?
I don't really know any thing about the Anglican church or what they teach other than it is going in the wrong direction from what I see and hear on the news.[/SIZE said:


> [/FONT]



Most Anglicans, even high church anglo-catholics, believe in total depravity in the same sence that Luther did.
The Anglican 39 Articles are a reformed document though many have strayed far from their roots.


----------



## yeutter

AV1611 said:


> St. Athanasius is a fave of mine.


My favorite is St. Thomas Aquinas.


----------



## servantofmosthigh

And, of course, let's also not forget Marva Dawn. Her works on "worship" are some of the best.


----------



## KMK

Reformingstudent said:


> Just wanted to know if anyone here has a favorite teacher/preacher they like to hear sometimes who may not be Reformed in their theology.
> I got to the point that all I ever listen to is Reformed sermons from Sermon Audio or Renewing your Mind and any where else I can find them. I find it difficult to listen to my former favorites any more but I still like to listen to Irvin Lutzer at times. My one time favorite preacher was E.V. Hill. John Ankerberg was another I liked even though he was mostly a teacher. I feel like I have grown some since becoming Reformed in my theology I find it hard listening to things I sometimes feel I have out grown. Is that being too prideful? I am just learning like everyone else (at a some what slower pace of course ) and want to grow in my understanding of the things of the Lord.
> Any way that was just a thought I had. I also liked reading books by (dare I say it?) Dave Hunt. See I have come a long way.



Define 'Reformed'. 


I have benefited greatly from the preaching of Calvary Chapel's Jon Courson.


----------



## christianyouth

Timothy William said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> A.W. Tozer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though i stopped listening to any of his sermons after he said something particularly disagreed with, along the lines of denying Total Depravity. (That was also the thing which first put me off C S Lewis.)
Click to expand...




Yeah, I am leery when listening to him because of his belief in the 'second work of grace', *but* he has some very good things to say on Christian living. His good outweighs his bad, in my opinion.


----------



## Timothy William

yeutter said:


> Reformingstudent;423379 C.S. Lewis denied total depravity? I did not know that. Is that the stand his church denomination takes as well I wonder?
> I don't really know any thing about the Anglican church or what they teach other than it is going in the wrong direction from what I see and hear on the news.[/SIZE said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/FONT]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most Anglicans, even high church anglo-catholics, believe in total depravity in the same sense that Luther did.
> The Anglican 39 Articles are a reformed document though many have strayed far from their roots.
Click to expand...


I haven't been an Anglican for over a decade, but unfortunately I doubt this is true. _Some_ Anglo-Catholics hold to Total Depravity in some sense, after all the RC Church and the Ecumenical creeds uphold total depravity in some sense. But many ACs regard the 39 Articles as an outdated, irrelevant document, useful for historical purposes only, if that. And total depravity is one of the first doctrines they deny.

As for C S Lewis, the older I get, the more issues I have with his writings. I actually find that his denial of TD is the root of many other errors; for example, if you believe that the unregenerated man is capable of good works, it is a small step to claim that he does not belong in Hell, as only a perfectly rotten man would deserve that, and then to see some kind of good in all kinds of religions, whereby Muslims or Hindus can get to Heaven because of the good they did despite their ignorance. From there, he can hardly not accept Catholics and Orthodox as his fellow believers.

Oddly enough, I was an Anglican, and an as yet unconverted teenager, when I first read Lewis' denial of TD and thought "that's not correct." I'm sure I had never heard the phrase "total depravity" in my life, though I may have read the 39 Articles by that stage.


----------



## AV1611

yeutter said:


> My favorite is St. Thomas Aquinas.



I have not read a great deal of him, but I plan to. Where should I start?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is St. Thomas Aquinas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not read a great deal of him, but I plan to. Where should I start?
Click to expand...


Peter Leithart has an essay on him in_ Revolutions in Worldview_, but I ain't read it.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Peter Leithart has an essay on him in_ Revolutions in Worldview_, but I ain't read it.



Ta, all I have read of Aquinas was some of his work on the civil magistrate but that was a while ago.


----------



## RamistThomist

AV1611 said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is St. Thomas Aquinas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not read a great deal of him, but I plan to. Where should I start?
Click to expand...


Well, with primary material you kind of have to go with him. Problem is it usually isn't cheap. 

However, Peter Kreeft has given a compendium of Thomas' work. It is _Summa of the Summa_. It is an abridged edition of the _Summa Theologiae_. Its strength is that you get to read Thomas and it has Kreeft's wonderful footnotes. The weakness is it seems choppy at times.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Adam Clarke's Commentary is often entertaining. Of his commentary C. H. Spurgeon wrote:



> Adam Clarke is the great annotator of our Wesleyan friends; and they have no reason to be ashamed of him, for he takes rank among the chief of expositors. His mind was evidently fascinated by the singularities of learning, and hence his commentary is rather too much of an old curiosity shop, but it is filled with valuable rarities, such as none but a great man could have collected...If you consider Clarke wanting in unction, *do not read him for savour but for criticism,* and then you will not be disappointed.


 --Commenting on Commentaries (page 10).


----------



## Reformingstudent

KMK said:


> Reformingstudent said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just wanted to know if anyone here has a favorite teacher/preacher they like to hear sometimes who may not be Reformed in their theology.
> I got to the point that all I ever listen to is Reformed sermons from Sermon Audio or Renewing your Mind and any where else I can find them. I find it difficult to listen to my former favorites any more but I still like to listen to Irvin Lutzer at times. My one time favorite preacher was E.V. Hill. John Ankerberg was another I liked even though he was mostly a teacher. I feel like I have grown some since becoming Reformed in my theology I find it hard listening to things I sometimes feel I have out grown. Is that being too prideful? I am just learning like everyone else (at a some what slower pace of course ) and want to grow in my understanding of the things of the Lord.
> Any way that was just a thought I had. I also liked reading books by (dare I say it?) Dave Hunt. See I have come a long way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define 'Reformed'.
> 
> 
> I have benefited greatly from the preaching of Calvary Chapel's Jon Courson.
Click to expand...


What ever you guys here on the PB tell me it is. Duh! 


Just kidding.

Those who believe in the Sovereignty of God, the 5 Solas, the 5 points of Calvinism to start with and have a desire to grow and learn more of the things of God. Not easy believe-ism as taught in many modern churches. Also to some point the desire to worship God in the way that He chooses for us to worship Him not any ole way we please to. Most of all Reformation is a condition of ones heart as well as outward performance. So I guess I would say that "Reformed" means being put in line with the Word of God and all that it teaches.

Really though


----------



## JOwen

John MacArthur


----------



## Me Died Blue

Reformingstudent said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Define 'Reformed'.
> 
> 
> I have benefited greatly from the preaching of Calvary Chapel's Jon Courson.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ever you guys here on the PB tell me it is. Duh!
> 
> 
> Just kidding.
> 
> Those who believe in the Sovereignty of God, the 5 Solas, the 5 points of Calvinism to start with and have a desire to grow and learn more of the things of God. Not easy believe-ism as taught in many modern churches. Also to some point the desire to worship God in the way that He chooses for us to worship Him not any ole way we please to. Most of all Reformation is a condition of ones heart as well as outward performance. So I guess I would say that "Reformed" means being put in line with the Word of God and all that it teaches.
> 
> Really though
Click to expand...


I would suggest more precise thinking on what you/we really mean by "Reformed" - for the sake of our own understanding, and also for the sake of fruitful discussion with people unfamiliar with aspects of Reformed theology with whom we have opportunities to talk about things.

Here's what I mean: In your post above, you essentially listed as the qualities of being "Reformed" as: 1) divine sovereignty, 2) five Solas, 3) TULIP, 4) a desire to grow in the Lord, 5) a rejection of easy-believism, and 6) at least some recognition of the Regulative Principle. You then (rightly) noted that all of those issues involve the heart just as much as the mind and actions, and summarized them by noting (again, rightly) that they are all in-line with the Word of God.

Now, are those six things you noted all essential elements of Reformed theology? Absolutely! But nothing particularly sets them apart from many other issues that are equally vital to Reformed theology: Some examples are Covenant Theology; the Creator-creature distinction; a rejection of hyper-individualism and a recognition of the central role of the Church in God's plan for His people; the full sufficiency of Scripture for the edification and spiritual knowledge of believers; the centrality of the Cross and the Gospel; a recognition of the value of remembering the wisdom of past generations of believers; God's glory as the highest priority of everything...

I could go on. But the point is that no "list" of a few doctrines or emphases will ever be able to encompass the either the "core" or the "distinctives" of Reformed theology. That is because it is a comprehensive worldview coming from the whole of Scripture, and as can be seen from the various Reformed confessional standards, they don't emphasize, say, the doctrines of grace, or Lordship Salvation, or the Regulative Principle, or other things about worship, any more than it emphasizes other particular elements. To be sure, _compared to_ more foundational doctrines, there are going to be some issues that are more "minor" in application and substance, such as lapsarianism, common grace, millennial views, and theonomy. But at the same time, we will never be able to give an "A, B, C, D..." list and present it to people as the "necessary components" of Reformed theology. I imagine one reason we're all tempted at times to do so is because different doctrines are under more attack than others during different centuries and generations. For instance, until the Synod of Dort, no Reformed church or theologian knew anything of "five points." To be sure, they are effective in explaining to people the Reformed understanding of who does what in salvation, but originally, they only came to be emphasized as a group since they were the five chief doctrines that the Arminians challenged out of the Reformed system of theology as a whole.

You also (again, rightly) identified a piety of heart and a desire to grow in the Lord as a chief and necessary component of Reformed theology, and also pointed out that we indeed understand Reformed theology to ultimately be the natural result of "being put in line with the Word of God and all that it teaches." But the problem with _defining_ it by either of those two criteria is that _all_ evangelical Christians have a desire to grow closer to God, and likewise believe their theology to be most in-line with the Word of God.

So if it's not inclusive enough to explain Reformed theology by the six-part list you initially described, and yet if we have to be more specific than simply saying "the full teaching of the Word of God," what _is_ a good path to take in explaining Reformed theology to people? I would say going to our confessions. Why? I try to describe the basis for that here.


----------



## reformedlostboy

Pilgrim said:


> servantofmosthigh said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does anyone know if Ravi Zaccharias is Reformed or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. He is an evangelist with the Christian and Missionary Alliance.
Click to expand...

that definitely qualifies him as my choice for favorit unreformed theologian/preacher/evangelist/apologist ... whatever kind of label we would want to put on him. I love hearing him speak because he challenges me to think about things. Thinking about everything I have been taught in the past is one way God worked in me for reformation. Ravi helps me to think about evangelism in a whole new way and I like how he can explain almost anything or answer any question with a cross centered approach.


----------



## Hippo

I have a real soft spot for Harry A. Ironside, "Holiness- the false and the true" is an amazing book and pretty much anything he wrote is worth reading.


----------



## py3ak

Assuming we have to exclude theologians before the Reformation, or the category simply doesn't apply. Therefore, Karl Rahner.


----------



## danmpem

Augustine! Oh, wait...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pilgrim said:


> Simply_Nikki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's exactly where I got the idea he was a Calvinist. There were people who would call asking about the doctrines of grace and all that, and he would help them think with him as to how he defines certain words, what limits he puts on human will, etc. I would be interested in seeing something recent he's said or written to show he's not a Calvinist.
> 
> And even then I wouldn't believe him. He just needs to come out of the closet and admit he's a 5-pointer!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to Moody Bible Church for about 6 months, I thought they were somewhat reformed leaning, or at least calvinistic. I was always on the edge, wondering if they were or not. Then an easter sermon removed all doubt when I heard Dr. Lutzer say.. something like (and this is not a direct quote) "Jesus is standing, knocking at the door of your heart why won't you let him in?"
> 
> I still thing he is a very good preacher though. But I left his church soon after that and joined a presbyterian one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously there's some disconnect at work between his belief and practice. Either that or he has changed his views. In _The Doctrines That Divide_ he defends Calvinistic soteriology.
Click to expand...



Dr. Lutzer is a Calvinist. I met him at a Reformation and Revival Conference at First Baptist Church of Carmel, Indiana back in the early to mid 90's. I have even heard him defend Calvinism on Moody Radio when He was the Pastor at Moody. I don't know if he is still there or not.


----------



## Pilgrim

Hippo said:


> I have a real soft spot for Harry A. Ironside, "Holiness- the false and the true" is an amazing book and pretty much anything he wrote is worth reading.



He is another good one. I don't know whether he was Calvinistic in his soteriology or not. He was dispensationalist, but unlike Chafer et.al. he upheld the Lordship of Christ. He wrote a book titled _Unless Ye Repent_ or something like that that attacked the no lordship teaching.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I imagine not many of you guys have never heard of Gil Rugh. I use to listen to him a lot on the radio about 15 years ago. He has a radio program called Sound words. I always appreciated his radio program. 

Everyone on the radio that I use to listen to was always dispensational which drove me crazy but that was how it was. I felt I was a man on a island all alone in Indianapolis when I returned from the military service.


----------



## RamistThomist

AV1611 said:


> yeutter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is St. Thomas Aquinas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not read a great deal of him, but I plan to. Where should I start?
Click to expand...


Amazon.com: A Summa of the Summa: Thomas: Books

(a good cheap reading of Aquinas. You get to read him and get Kreeft's insights, but does not do justice to St Thomas' eschatological foundationalism. As John Milbank points out, Kreeft (not by name) and others read a correspondence theory of truth back into Aquinas.

Amazon.com: Truth in Aquinas (Radical Orthodoxy): John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock: Books
(Expensive, but one of the best books I have read. Ultra hard to read, but worth it. Makes the claim that Aquinas held to a neo-platonic ontology of participation over against standard Aristotelian readings of Aquinas)

Amazon.com: The Christian Philosophy Of St Thomas Aquinas: Etienne Gilson: Books

(the basic Thomist treatment of Aquinas. straightfoward)

Amazon.com: After Aquinas: Versions of Thomism: Fergus Kerr: Books

(very easy to read and quite provacative in its suggestions)

Amazon.com: Revolutions in Worldview: Understanding the Flow of Western Thought: W. Andrew Hoffecker: Books

(contains Leithart's essay on medieval theology, easily worth the price of the book)


----------



## Barnpreacher

Piper, MacArthur, Mohler.


----------



## danmpem

Barnpreacher said:


> Piper, MacArthur, Mohler.



Piper and Mohler aren't Reformed? Well, I know they aren't Reformed in the Presbyterian sort of way, but I think being Reformed Baptists are close enough.


----------



## Ivan

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Dr. Lutzer is a Calvinist. I met him at a Reformation and Revival Conference at First Baptist Church of Carmel, Indiana back in the early to mid 90's. I have even heard him defend Calvinism on Moody Radio when He was the Pastor at Moody. *I don't know if he is still there or not.*



Yes, he is still there and doing quite well. He has at least two programs on Moody Radio. He's a good one.


----------



## Barnpreacher

danmpem said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper, MacArthur, Mohler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piper and Mohler aren't Reformed? Well, I know they aren't Reformed in the Presbyterian sort of way, but I think being Reformed Baptists are close enough.
Click to expand...


All three men regularly borrow from the dispensational principles of Scripture. I would think that would disqualify them from being "Reformed." I know this is an ongoing argument. Maybe it would have helped if the thread would have been entitled, favorite non-Calvinist theologian.


----------



## Grymir

Karl Barth


----------



## Grymir

Just Kidding.  Ravi Zacharias is perhaps my fav. J. Vernon McGee is up there! His bible bus is good, but come Sunday, that man knew how to preach!! I also like to listen to Fulton John Sheen (especially his black and white days) and read First Things. That's about as non-reformed as you can get. Besides Barth.


----------



## timmopussycat

Robert Farrar Capon (Canadian Anglican, I think) of whose work I know only one paragraph but it is choice: 



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



Anybody know where this comes from? I found it attributed to Capon but no source was given.


----------



## danmpem

Barnpreacher said:


> All three men regularly borrow from the dispensational principles of Scripture. I would think that would disqualify them from being "Reformed." I know this is an ongoing argument. Maybe it would have helped if the thread would have been entitled, favorite non-Calvinist theologian.



Gotcha. One thing I was wondering, when did/does Piper borrow from any Dispensational principles? I thought he was somewhere between CT and NCT.


----------



## DMcFadden

danmpem said:


> Gotcha. One thing I was wondering, when did/does Piper borrow from any Dispensational principles? I thought he was somewhere between CT and NCT.



Wild stab in the dark . . . 

Piper idolizes his old NT prof Dan Fuller. Fuller has been roundly criticized for his attempt to cobble together a mediating position which reconceptualizes CT. In fairness to Piper he does not hold his mentor's views on justification, faith, and obedience. Still, critics of Fuller sometimes attribute to Piper the sins of the mentor. I think it would be a significant error to find dispensational elements in Piper, but I do not claim to be a scholar on the Piper corpus.


----------



## Barnpreacher

> What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology?
> Download:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> By DG Staff January 23, 2006
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> There are three main theological camps on the issues of law, gospel, and the structuring of God's redemptive relationship with humankind: dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology. Many have written to us asking about the differences between these three views, and so before discussing John Piper's perspective we will give an overview of each.
> 
> Dispensationalism
> It can be hard to summarize dispensational theology as a whole because in recent years multiple forms of it have developed. In general, there are three main distinctives.
> 
> First, dispensationalism sees God as structuring His relationship with mankind through several stages of revelation which mark off different dispensations, or stewardship arrangements. Each dispensation is a "test" of mankind to be faithful to the particular revelation given at the time. Generally, seven dispensations are distinguished: innocence (before the fall), conscience (Adam to Noah), government (Noah to Babel), promise (Abraham to Moses), Law (Moses to Christ), grace (Pentecost to the rapture), and the millennium.
> 
> Second, dispensationalism holds to a literal interpretation of Scripture. This does not deny the existence of figures of speech and non-literal language in the Bible, but rather means that there is a literal meaning behind the figurative passages.
> 
> Third, as a result of this literal interpretation of Scripture, dispensationalism holds to a distinction between Israel (even believing Israel) and the church. On this view, the promises made to Israel in the OT were not intended as prophecies about what God would do spiritually for the church, but will literally be fulfilled by Israel itself (largely in the millennium). For example, the promise of the land is interpreted to mean that God will one day fully restore Israel to Palestine. In contrast, non-dispensationalists typically see the land promise as intended by God to prophesy, in shadowy Old-covenant-form, the greater reality that He would one day make the entire church, Jews and Gentiles, heirs of the whole renewed world (cf. Romans 4:13).
> 
> In many ways it is thus accurate to say that dispensationalism believes in "two peoples of God." Although both Jews and Gentiles are saved by Christ through faith, believing Israel will be the recipient of additional "earthly" promises (such as prosperity in the specific land of Palestine, to be fully realized in the millennium) that do not apply to believing Gentiles, whose primary inheritance is thus "heavenly."
> 
> Covenant Theology
> Covenant theology believes that God has structured his relationship with humanity by covenants rather than dispensations. For example, in Scripture we explicitly read of various covenants functioning as the major stages in redemptive history, such as the covenant with Abraham, the giving of the law, the covenant with David, and the new covenant. These post-fall covenants are not new tests of man's faithfulness to each new stage of revelation (as are the dispensations in dispensationalism), but are rather differing administrations of the single, overarching covenant of grace.
> 
> The covenant of grace is one of two fundamental covenants in covenant theology. It structures God's post-fall relationship to mankind; pre-fall, God structured His relationship by the covenant of works. The covenant of grace is best understood in relation to the covenant of works.
> 
> The covenant of works, instituted in the Garden of Eden, was the promise that perfect obedience would be rewarded with eternal life. Adam was created sinless but with the capability of falling into sin. Had he remained faithful in the time of temptation in the Garden (the "probationary period"), he would have been made incapable of sinning and secured in an eternal and unbreakable right standing with God.
> 
> But Adam sinned and broke the covenant, and thereby subjected himself and all his descendants to the penalty for covenant-breaking, condemnation. God in His mercy therefore instituted the "covenant of grace," which is the promise of redemption and eternal life to those who would believe in the (coming) redeemer. The requirement of perfect obedience for eternal life is not annulled by the covenant of grace, but is rather fulfilled by Christ on behalf of His people, since now that all are sinners no one can meet the condition of perfect obedience by his own performance. The covenant of grace, then, does not set aside the covenant of works but rather fulfills it.
> 
> As mentioned above, covenant theology emphasizes that there is only one covenant of grace, and that all of the various redemptive covenants that we read of in the Scripture are simply differing administrations of this one covenant. In support, it is pointed out that a covenant is in essence simply a sovereignly given promise (usually with stipulations), and since there is only one promise of salvation (namely, by grace through faith), it follows that there is therefore only one covenant of grace. All of the specific redemptive covenants we read of (the Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc.) are various and culminating expressions of the covenant of grace.
> 
> New Covenant Theology
> New covenant theology typically does not hold to a covenant of works or one overarching covenant of grace (although they would still argue for only one way of salvation). The essential difference between New Covenant Theology (hereafter NCT) and Covenant Theology (CT), however, concerns the Mosaic Law. CT holds that the Mosaic Law can be divided into three groups of laws--those regulating the government of Israel (civil laws), ceremonial laws, and moral laws. The ceremonial law and civil law are no longer in force because the former was fulfilled in Christ and the latter only applied to Israel's theocracy, which is now defunct. But the moral law continues.
> 
> NCT argues that one cannot divide the law up in that way, as though part of the Mosaic Law can be abrogated while the rest remains in force. The Mosaic Law is a unity, they say, and so if part of it is canceled, all of it must be canceled. On top of this, they say that the New Testament clearly teaches that the Mosaic Law as a whole is superseded in Christ. It is, in other words, no longer our direct and immediate source of guidance. The Mosaic Law, as a law, is no longer binding on the believer.
> 
> Does this mean that believers are not bound by any divine law? No, because the Mosaic Law has been replaced by the law of Christ. NCT makes a distinction between the eternal moral law of God and the code in which God expresses that law to us. The Mosaic Law is an expression of God's eternal moral law as a particular code which also contains positive regulations pertinent to the code's particular temporal purpose, and therefore the cancellation of the Mosaic Law does not mean that the eternal moral law is itself canceled. Rather, upon canceling the Mosaic Law, God gave us a different expression of his eternal moral law--namely, the Law of Christ, consisting in the moral instructions of Christ's teaching and the New Testament. The key issue that NCT seeks to raise is: Where do we look to see the expression of God's eternal moral law today--do we look to Moses, or to Christ? NCT says we look to Christ.
> 
> There are many similarities between the Law of Christ and Mosaic Law, but that does not change the fact that the Mosaic Law has been canceled and that, therefore, we are not to look to it for direct guidance but rather to the New Testament. For example, England and the US have many similar laws (for example, murder is illegal in both countries). Nonetheless, the English are not under the laws of America, but of England. If an English citizen murders in England, he is held accountable for breaking England's law against murder, not America's law against murder.
> 
> The benefit of NCT, its advocates argue, is that it solves the difficulty of trying to figure out which of the Mosaic laws apply to us today. On their understanding, since the Mosaic Law is no longer a direct and immediate source of guidance, we look to the Law of Christ for our direct guidance. Although the Mosaic Law is no longer a binding law code in the NT era, it still has the authority, not of law, but of prophetic witness. As such, it fills out and explains certain concepts in both the old and new covenant law.
> 
> John Piper's position
> John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.
> 
> Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.
> 
> In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.
> 
> Further Resources
> 
> On covenant theology:
> 
> O. Palmer Robertson, Christ of the Covenants
> Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 7
> Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology
> Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology
> The Covenants: The Structure of Redemption
> 
> On dispensationalism:
> 
> Craig Blaising and Darrell Bock, Progressive Dispensationalism
> Vern Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists
> 
> On new covenant theology:
> 
> Sound of Grace
> What is New Covenant Theology?
> Sola Gratia's New Covenant Theology Page
> John Reisenger, Abraham's Four Seeds
> Tom Wells and Fred Zaspel, New Covenant Theology: Description, Definition, Defense
> 
> On a biblical theology of the Mosaic Law:
> 
> Tom Schreiner, The Law and Its Fulfillment
> Frank Thielman, Paul & the Law
> Wayne Strickland, ed., Five Views on Law and Gospel



What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


I try not to make this stuff up. I learned long ago that gets you nowhere fast.


----------



## pilgrim3970

Pilgrim said:


> Reformingstudent said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> North Jersey Baptist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Swindoll. I enjoy his stories and the lilt of his voice. He seems like he's a real nice guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how true it is, but someone once told me a while back that Swindoll was becoming Calvinistic in his theology. That would be great. Loved his book, the Grace Awakening.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like a lot of Dallas Seminary grads, he has a high view of God's sovereignty compared to the average evangelical. Many of them have held what are essentially 4 point views, but 5 pointers there have been rare. Reportedly that was one reason for the departure of longtime Prof. S. Lewis Johnson years ago.
Click to expand...



The pastor of Northwest Bible Church in OKC (reformed baptist) is a DTS grad. However, I am not sure if he adopted the Calvinist view during or after his time there.

There are actually a number of DTS guys who have come into the REC over the past few years.


----------



## pilgrim3970

favorite non-reformed teacher?

Don't really have any current teachers that I care for.

I do like Thomas a Kempis' Imitation of Christ. I also find food for thought in the Philokalia which is a collection of Eastern Orthodox writings. 

Someone mentioned Lutherans - I actually have begun reading Lutheran works with some regularity.


----------



## Scott1

I have long respected the service, life example and teaching ability of 

Dr Donald R Hubbard


----------



## AV1611

Presbyterian Deacon said:


> Adam Clarke's Commentary is often entertaining. Of his commentary C. H. Spurgeon wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Adam Clarke is the great annotator of our Wesleyan friends; and they have no reason to be ashamed of him, for he takes rank among the chief of expositors. His mind was evidently fascinated by the singularities of learning, and hence his commentary is rather too much of an old curiosity shop, but it is filled with valuable rarities, such as none but a great man could have collected...If you consider Clarke wanting in unction, *do not read him for savour but for criticism,* and then you will not be disappointed.
> 
> 
> 
> --Commenting on Commentaries (page 10).
Click to expand...



I quite like Clarke. He makes a great use of Lightfoot which is pretty interesting, esp regarding 1 Corinthians 12-14


----------



## Pilgrim

Barnpreacher said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper, MacArthur, Mohler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Piper and Mohler aren't Reformed? Well, I know they aren't Reformed in the Presbyterian sort of way, but I think being Reformed Baptists are close enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All three men regularly borrow from the dispensational principles of Scripture. I would think that would disqualify them from being "Reformed." I know this is an ongoing argument. Maybe it would have helped if the thread would have been entitled, favorite non-Calvinist theologian.
Click to expand...


Ryan,

Can you give an example of "Mohler borrowing from the dispensational principles of Scripture?" I read his blog from time to time but only occasionally listen to his radio show online.


----------



## danmpem

Barnpreacher said:


> What does John Piper believe about dispensationalism, covenant theology, and new covenant theology? :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library
> 
> 
> I try not to make this stuff up. I learned long ago that gets you nowhere fast.



 That was the article that I read as well. Thanks for that.


----------



## Barnpreacher

Pilgrim said:


> Barnpreacher said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Piper and Mohler aren't Reformed? Well, I know they aren't Reformed in the Presbyterian sort of way, but I think being Reformed Baptists are close enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All three men regularly borrow from the dispensational principles of Scripture. I would think that would disqualify them from being "Reformed." I know this is an ongoing argument. Maybe it would have helped if the thread would have been entitled, favorite non-Calvinist theologian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ryan,
> 
> Can you give an example of "Mohler borrowing from the dispensational principles of Scripture?" I read his blog from time to time but only occasionally listen to his radio show online.
Click to expand...


Chris,

I cannot. Perhaps I should not have lumped Mohler in with MacArthur and Piper. And when all is said and done I don't believe that Piper believes much dispensationalism at all. I've listened to his views on national Israel and they seem to lean more dispensational than Reformed. But other than that I don't think Piper is very dispensational at all. I know MacArthur's views on end times, national Israel etc. lean toward dispensationalism, so I was probably unjustly lumping Mohler in with those two without knowing for sure where he stands on issues like that.


----------



## Barnpreacher

And there is Piper's view on the Covenant of Works that seems pretty out of step with Reformed theology as well. I posted his thoughts on the matter here: 

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/piper-covenant-works-30946/

I would be interested to see what side Mohler would line up with on an issue like this.


----------



## RamistThomist

Calvin help the blogger who feeds too much upon non-Reformed thougt!


----------



## Pilgrim

Barnpreacher said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not reformed? Somehow I got the idea he was...
> 
> And he's definitely one of my favorites too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People tend to assume that because he is at Southern Seminary. I heard an interview with him where when asked, he said he was not a Calvinist and this was hinted at in _Why I Am a Baptist_ too. Regardless, I think he is one of the better young theologians today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I didn't think he was Reformed, but I assumed he was at least a Calvinist. He fills in for Mohler on his program when he's out. I wouldn't think Mohler would want a non-Calvinist doing that.
Click to expand...


Dr. Mohler apparently is on vacation this week and Dr. Russell Moore is filling in. On today's program in about the 22nd minute Moore stated in response to a question about evangelism that he does not believe in limited atonement.


----------



## westminken

Would John Hannah at DTS count? He is reformed but teaches at the mecca of dispensationalism. If so, he is my favorite.


----------



## JM

C. F. W. Walther is worth reading.


----------



## DMcFadden

Judging by the high bar for accepting people as truly Reformed on the PB . . .

In order of ascending degrees of reformedness . . .

Barth (just to tick off Tim - Grymir who would consider him completely unreformed)
Luther 
Erickson
Grudem
Piper
Owen (hey, I thought he was Reformed but he was a congregationalist after all)


----------



## Grymir

DMcFadden said:


> Judging by the high bar for accepting people as truly Reformed on the PB . . .
> 
> In order of ascending degrees of reformedness . . .
> 
> Barth (just to tick off Tim - Grymir who would consider him completely unreformed)
> Luther
> Erickson
> Grudem
> Piper
> Owen (hey, I thought he was Reformed but he was a congregationalist after all)



Barth ?!?  Oh man, that's it. I just called the Mormons, and gave them your address and told them you wanted to become a Mormon. So they'll be knocking at your door. Expect it when you least expect it. Next week it will be the JW's unless you renounce Barth.  Man, I love being on the PB!! I wish other people were as wise as you DMcFadden. To be able to say such things, and to appreciate the jocularities and subtle nuances is refreshing, and show a grasp of the subject I wish more people had.


----------



## Pilgrim

Barnpreacher said:


> And there is Piper's view on the Covenant of Works that seems pretty out of step with Reformed theology as well. I posted his thoughts on the matter here:
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/piper-covenant-works-30946/
> 
> I would be interested to see what side Mohler would line up with on an issue like this.



I'm not sure in that instance. I've only recently started listening to the podcasts with any regularity, but in one recent program he clearly contradicted the old school dispensational approach of saying part of the NT is for Israel (i.e. Sermon on the Mount) and part is for the church. On eschatology he appears to be in the historic premil camp, having argued that position in a symposium on eschatology at SBTS a few years ago.


----------

