# John R. W. Stott



## KMK (Jan 11, 2008)

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


----------



## Mayflower (Jan 11, 2008)

KMK said:


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



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


----------



## Ivan (Jan 11, 2008)

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


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 11, 2008)

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

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


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 11, 2008)

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


----------



## Ivan (Jan 11, 2008)

timmopussycat said:


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



Praise God!


----------



## py3ak (Jan 11, 2008)

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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 11, 2008)

KMK said:


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



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


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 11, 2008)

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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 11, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


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



 

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


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 11, 2008)

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



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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 11, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> > We on PB might think we have got it 100% right, but Calvin's estimate seems more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that can't be right, since baptism is a war zone here, as is textual criticism and theonomy!



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


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 11, 2008)

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

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


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 11, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> > We on PB might think we have got it 100% right, but Calvin's estimate seems more accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that can't be right, since baptism is a war zone here, as is textual criticism and theonomy!



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


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 11, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


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



Well, obviously...

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


----------



## timmopussycat (Jan 11, 2008)

DMcFadden said:


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



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


----------



## KMK (Jan 11, 2008)

greenbaggins said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > greenbaggins said:
> ...



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


----------



## Bygracealone (Jan 11, 2008)

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

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

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


----------



## Ivan (Jan 11, 2008)

_Basic Christianity_ is a wonderful work that I benefitted from in my young Christian life. I just bought a copy to have in my library. I haven't read _Between Two Worlds_ yet, but I will.


----------



## Kevin (Jan 11, 2008)

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

If he never wrote anything else, that one book would be enough. in my opinion.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 12, 2008)

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

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

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

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


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 12, 2008)

Ivan said:


> His early works are worth reading.


----------



## A5pointer (Jan 12, 2008)

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


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Jan 12, 2008)

A5pointer said:


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



Edward Donnelly deals with it in his book _Heaven and Hell_ (published by Banner of Truth).


----------

