The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Any Non Calvinist Theologies worth reading?

What would be a theology from non calvinistic perspective worthwile to read then? Maybe someone like a Norman Geisler, or?

Are you serious? I think you jest. Why would anyone want to read error when they need to learn what is good. Please tell me that you are joking. If not, then I would suggest that you first study the Scriptures and read the Puritans and sound theology.

By the way. Welcome to The Highway Discussion Board.

I have read charasmatic theology, Reformed, Baptist, and liked to get into seeing the basis of why someone would hold to their views, see how they understand the Bible, in order to have means to read and discern what they are trying to state!

You are certainly free to study what you will thinking that reading the myriad heretical and heterodox authors out there. I cannot help but think how the Apostles were so disadvantaged by only knowing Scripture and not having all these aberrant sources available to them like you do.

You remind me of a few past students I had in the motorcycle safety courses I taught. They came into the course knowing little about motorcycles and nothing about how to actually ride one correctly. Yet, they couldn't wait to get out of the course and immediately buy a 1100cc sport bike. Unfortunately, most of these people ended up crashing their bike, suffering injury and in a couple of cases death. So again, why spend what little time you have reading material that espouses error when you really need to do is become knowledgeable and competent in what God's written Word teaches?

Then pardon my response. I wasn't sure that you were being serious or not. I see now that you are serious about this pursuit. Of course, you are free to satisfy your curiosity. I have read my share of junk theology over the years and wish that I had spent my time better reading something good. My advice to you would be to consider what you are actually seeking for. The Lord Jesus prayed, as is recorded in John 17:17 "Sanctify them in the truth: thy word is truth." It is through the Scriptures that we are made holy. So, I might encourage you to guard your reading.

One might want to appear well read and an academic of sorts but what eternal difference will it have without a real knowledge of Truth?

Pilgrim
I agree with you. However I believe there are exceptions to the rule. For example, someone like James White studies what his opponent believes in order anticipate how to respond to them. I have also helped a young Christian to be able to deal with a false teacher before; because I understood what the false teacher believed. However, wisdom should be used in what we read and why we are reading it. Regardless, the best thing we can do is get to know our own theology; so we will recognise false doctrine when we see it.
Tom

I suppose one could call James White and other 'professional' apologists exceptions, but they really aren't exceptions when you think about it. Such men were FIRST and FOREMOST thoroughly knowledgeable in the doctrines of Scripture and then furthered their studies in order to refute certain errors and defend the faith. One of the primary qualifications for an elder, for example, is that Paul wrote:

The old adage, "A little knowledge can be dangerous" is worthy of note. Before I went off to seminary, a wise man counseled me to be certain that I had my theology already together.

The writer to the Hebrews chided his readers:

In Paul's epistles, he first expresses his disappointment, even anger, for those who so quickly depart from the truth (he taught them personally and thus knew that they had heard the truth of God, of Christ, the Spirit, the gospel and salvation) and entertained error. You will notice that he never spends much time dealing with the specifics of the errors involved, and there were many, but rather sets forth once again God's truth; right doctrine and right living.

Lastly, I really need to mention that it is essential that learning doctrine is NEVER, EVER to be an end in itself!! . What needs to happen is that all of God's truth enter the heart as well as the mind. One must, with the Spirit's grace and power, love the truths of God and that they are the primary focus of their life. This is the best defense against error. The difference, and noting that illustrations often are inadequate, is like someone reading Cliff's Notes vs. someone reading a book and which transforms their thinking and life. Learning little pat answers to refute error has little merit. One can spew out lots of Bible passages to prove that the Son of God became man, was crucified, dead and buried and raised from the dead and that salvation is only to be found in Him. But the man who KNOWS Christ by the Spirit is far superior in every way.

I was involved in a cult outreach group in College, so in addition to the scriptures, learned from their own sources what they believed and why, in order to use the Bible to refute them ...

Same way when in Cgarasmatic church, used those sources and books to see why they believe as they do, and used scripture to refute them.

I was raised up on Dospy theology also early on, so knowing how that group thinks and view scriptures, used my studies in reformed theology to refute thatteaching...

maybemy basic problem is in being a "tolerant calvinist?"

I consulted other theologies mainly to know why they teach and think, as means to apply scriptures to refute them and try to lead others toa sound doctrine!

I fully agree with you on this, as one of my biggest problems since the Lord saved me was to balance just raking in all of those authors and theologies, and not spending much moretime in the scriptures, and howto actually apply into my walk what I now know...

Application of theology learned is all important...

What is YOUR definition of "tolerant Calvinist"?

I would yend to see that calvinism teaches the truth of the Gospel as per the Bible, but that those teach semi Pelor arminian viewpoints are not outright heretics, but confused and not consistant in how they understand this!


So they would be saved despite theit confusion in some areas , as they still held to being sinners, Jesus died for their sins, and rose from the dead!

You would be a "tolerant Calvinist". I'll reserve commenting further.

I will, however, ask you a couple questions. IF, as you claim that Arminians, semi-Pelagians... and by logical necessity Roman Catholics, and those who adhere to most sects are simply confused and their salvation is sure, then why bother arguing about doctrine at all? Of course, your position categorically denies propositional truth, which Francis Schaeffer called "true truth", aka: absolute truth. This is akin to John Frame's heresy of "multi-perspectivalism". So, it appears you are holding to the position that there is no "one Gospel" which is antithetical to what Paul taught in Scripture... is that true?

No, what I am trying to say here is that there is only ONE true Gospel, and that Pauline version of it is indeed that held in the Reformed community, but that God does still choose to save outHis elect in Christ from churches that have wrong gospel, such as say church of Rome/Westlyn/Methodist/AOG etc, but once saved, should depart to a good cgurch!

God still saves those whom He chose to save in Christ, and once He saves them by grace alone/faith al;one, then time to leave for right church and teaching!

And tell me please, how are those in non-Reformed churches who are taught a false gospel saved? Are you saying that the Holy Spirit of God, who brings the true gospel to those who have been predestined by God, is active in bringing the false gospel and saving individuals? Wouldn't that bring a legitimate charge against God of being guilty of dissimulation? Your position is indefensible from a biblical position.

FYI, Federal Vision holds to those things which you claim are the only requirements for one to be deemed saved. Why not include them too?