Evangelical Christian leaders from around the world are mourning the death of evangelical figure John Stott, who died Wednesday at the age of 90.
An Anglican theologian from the U.K., Stott was the chief architect of the 1974 Lausanne Covenant and the author of over 50 Christian books in which he took complex theology and explained it in a way lay people could understand. One of his most popular books was Basic Christianity (1958), which has been translated into more than 60 languages, according to Christian book publisher InterVarsity Press. He has also influenced millions of Christians through other well-known titles including Christ the Controversialist (1970), Issues Facing Christians Today (1984) and the one he always considered his best: The Cross of Christ (1986).
Graham helped organize the international meeting that unveiled the Lausanne Covenant, a historic document that served as a...
I say with Spurgeon, that Calvinism is merely a nickname for the gospel!
"To be clear what God Himself says to us and teaches us in the Bible is TRUTH and to the measure we are in agreement with His word we are right and where we aren't we're wrong."
And are you 100% in agreement in your deeds and beliefs with the Word?
and if not where is the cut-off point that sends you to Hell, 75% 80% 90% 99%?
Rob wrote: Dear Michael, Again, I do not agree with Stott, but I do not see why we cannot make allowances for sin in his life, the sin of misreading the text, on this point! I really hope we can all make allowances for sin in each other’s lives or else we are all going to be harshly treated by one another. For instance, was Stott's view of Hell, any less God honouring and unbiblical, than Arminianism? And if Stott, has been consigned to Hell by the SA community for his aberrant views of what we are saved from, then should all Arminian’s also be consigned there, for their aberrant views of salvation in tota?? We must be very careful when it comes to pronounce the death sentence upon those, who happen to err on something like this!
Rob I wasn't addressing Stott, I was address your post considering the importance of believing Biblically or not in hell.
Since you mentioned Arminianism what makes you imgaine modern day Calvinism (he really wasn't a prophet nor an apostle was he) is any more God honoring and genuinely Biblical?
To be clear what God Himself says to us and teaches us in the Bible is TRUTH and to the measure we are in agreement with His word we are right and where we aren't we're wrong.
Again, I do not agree with Stott, but I do not see why we cannot make allowances for sin in his life, the sin of misreading the text, on this point! I really hope we can all make allowances for sin in each other’s lives or else we are all going to be harshly treated by one another.
For instance, was Stott's view of Hell, any less God honouring and unbiblical, than Arminianism?
And if Stott, has been consigned to Hell by the SA community for his aberrant views of what we are saved from, then should all Arminian’s also be consigned there, for their aberrant views of salvation in tota??
We must be very careful when it comes to pronounce the death sentence upon those, who happen to err on something like this!
Rob wrote: Stevo, In Stott's view (which I disagree with) people would be saved from the wrath of God displayed in their utter destruction. Again I ask is our salvation based on what we believe we are saved from? Or on the grace of God, displayed in Christ's death for His elect? And faith in that death? Is it Justification by faith, in Christ alone, by grace alone through faith alone, as taught in the Scriptures alone to the glory of God alone? or on the basis of what we believe about the destination of the wicked?
Rob Let's see, If one believes (quote) their Jesus saves them from being eternally slapped in the face with smelly fish how in the world are they trusting in God's grace to be saved (that would be genuine salvation from sin and its rightful terrifying judgment)?
It is hugely important to understand Biblically and clearly what Jesus saves one from (and to) in salvation, lest one have an imaginary Jesus and a damnable imaginary salvation.
And yes that would include a Biblical belief in a very real hell UNLESS of course you want to make Jesus out to be a liar.
In Stott's view (which I disagree with) people would be saved from the wrath of God displayed in their utter destruction. Again I ask is our salvation based on what we believe we are saved from? Or on the grace of God, displayed in Christ's death for His elect? And faith in that death?
Is it Justification by faith, in Christ alone, by grace alone through faith alone, as taught in the Scriptures alone to the glory of God alone?
or on the basis of what we believe about the destination of the wicked?
Rob wrote: Is one's view on the eternal state of the wicked, the basis of their salvation?
I agree Rob, our view of God's wrath and how it will be played out is not the basis for our salvation. Good point, thanks. I wasn't all that fond of Mr Stott due to his ecumenical positions that he took and endorsed, but that is a different issue altogether.
Who knows if I'll be missed by Evangelicals? But then I'm not in a high position and preaching false doctrine. Stott, won't be missed, because of the many false doctrines that he held. He may be missed by Anglicans, but then that isn't a Christian Church.
However, Muhammadans may very well miss him, Christian Leaders Invite Muslims to Love God, Neighbors Together [Excerpts]. Actually an Arminian and a person completely wrong about Calvinism (Calvinism & Arminianism) Dave Hunt whose website the above article comes from, will be much more missed by Evangelicals much more than Stott when his eventual demise occurs because he is still a Christian, it is doubtful that Stott was. Pity.
John Stott won't be missed by conservative Protestants. He certainly was not one of us. I really do suggest SA viewers read the article that SA has put up to link to. Stott believed in the unbiblical idea of annihilation. The Consequences of Not Believing.
From, the article,"At the Church of England, Stott played a key role as a leader of evangelicalism, and was regarded as instrumental in persuading evangelicals to play an active role in the denomination rather than leaving it." The Anglican Church is not Christian! They say the believe in the Bible, human reason, and tradition. It is is Sola Scriptura, not Scripture plus+ As far as I can see, Scripture is ignored in the Anglican church. Just like people should Come out of the Catholic Church they should also come out of the Anglican one.
This man could very well have been a very likely, kindly, gentleman. I would suppose as the English might put it a bloke you wouldn't mind having a pint with at your favorite pub. But still, he was a false teacher.
"The first and second National Evangelical Anglican Conferences that met at Keele and Nottingham in the UK in 1967 and 1977, respectively, were primed to launch and further the new policy of Anglican Evangelicals towards ecumenism. There was a now desire on the part of New Evangelicals to be united with ritualistic Anglicans, who were essentially Roman Catholic in belief and practice; and liberals who believed in a fallible Bible. Leading Evangelicals, such as John Stott and J.I. Packer, endorsed the statements from these. John Stott, who chaired the first conference at Keele, made clear that the conference was accepting not only Anglo-Catholics and liberals, but Roman Catholics also: “All who confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures and therefore seek together to fulfill their common calling to the glory of one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit have a right to be treated as Christians, and it is on this basis that we wish to talk with them." (R.Bennett)
1
There are a total of 52 user comments displayed | add new comment |
Dr. David P Murray | 12/6/2009
COMMENTS | 
Pity.
I really do suggest SA viewers read the article that SA has put up to link to. Stott believed in the unbiblical idea of annihilation. 
nomenclature: "
john uk
i have to go out, but i just wanted to say that i shall..."
