Does anyone know if there are any "liberal" works in Logos 4 Platinum that I should be extra cautious about?
Liberal can be a relative term. Some would say Calvin was liberal because he believed regeneration was an ongoing process. )even though historically it was held that way( I am sure there are liberal works in platinum, but as long as you are grounded in the truth you will be fine. I read both liberal, and conservative works.. I read every perspective I can. A wise man has many counselors.
Some would say Calvin was liberal because he believed regeneration was an ongoing process.
Are you sure about that? All I could confirm was the total opposite. Calvin held a "Monergistic Regeneration" while Arminianism holds a "synergistic" view but I'd like to know if I'm wrong since I am studying Calvin and am right now reading B. B. Warfield's "Calvin and Calvinism"
Sure I actually started a topic on this subject in my forum. I have been going through Calvin 500 and finding very good stuff. You can follow the link on under my post it goes to my forum. If I was to quote the info here this discussion will get off topic. Look under the general section there is a post on "calvin and regeneration" also a post in soteriology under "calvin and justification". Blessings in your studies, feel free to respond to those quotes...
forum.divinesoteriology.com
Sure I actually started a topic on this subject in my forum. I have been going through Calvin 500 and finding very good stuff. You can follow the link on under my post it goes to my forum. If I was to quote the info here this discussion will get off topic. Look under the general section there is a post on "calvin and regeneration" also a post in soteriology under "calvin and justification". Blessings in your studies, feel free to respond to those quotes... forum.divinesoteriology.com
OK I found it just a few minutes ago in the book Repentance and Remission on page 242. I'll take a look at your forum . . . Oops I found the Fourm but I cant find the topic.
Those commenting on Calvin say he held the same view as Luther but if you read what he says himself he seems to go both ways. It's as if he uses the word in more than one context/definition. I'll figure it out in a year or two when I've read a lot more. It took me three years to read John Owen. I'm sure it will take me longer than that to read John Calvin. I get distracted easily.
Calvin saw justification and regeneration to be very similar doctrines. See his contention with Osiander... God justifies but it is not just a matter of him declare us righteous. But he also conforms into the righteousness of Christ. (regeneration)
There are a few topic on it.
http://forum.divinesoteriology.com/index.php?tid=25
http://forum.divinesoteriology.com/index.php?tid=26
This thread was kind of derailed.
To the OP, I'd say that there is nothing theologically liberal that I am concerned about. Furthermore, there is a good balance of material, so consult multiple references and you'll be fine. Has anybody come across works that you'd like to bring to the attention of the OP?
This thread was kind of derailed. To the OP, I'd say that there is nothing theologically liberal that I am concerned about. Furthermore, there is a good balance of material, so consult multiple references and you'll be fine. Has anybody come across works that you'd like to bring to the attention of the OP?
Thanks for bringing it back on topic.
I think you should be extra cautious about everything you read [:)] Every writer will have various biases and its important to interact with what they actually say rather than what label they may wear.
To answer you question more helpfully, be careful when reading bible dictionaries and encyclopedias - they have a broad range of contributors and you may not even know who's writing a particular article; it's useful to look at more than one and see if they're saying similar things. Most commentary series have a range of authors and there can be variety within any commentary series in the views of the authors, this is particularly noticeable in some of the more scholarly commentary sets like Word, Anchor Yale Bible, Hermeneia (popular Logos titles, but not in Platinum); whereas BECNT, Pillar, NICOT/NICNT tend to be consistently conservative.
Don't be afraid to read broadly, it's important to be able to benefit and learn from the insights of scholars of any persuasion, even if you might ultimately come to different conclusions...
Be extra cautious of Arminian Spammers also! [;)]
I have the same collection. I have read a lot of books from it and will read a lot more.
I would be wary of every single one of them with the exception of the Bible. [Y]
Be extra cautious of Arminian Spammers also!
Wow!
Calvin sounds pretty Arminian in the sense that he believed baptism washed away our sins. The Bible says we're justified by faith, not baptism. I'm glad we could simply be Biblicists and neither Calvinist or Arminian! [8-)]
"We ought to consider that at whatever time we are baptised, we are washed and purified once for the whole of life. Wherefore, as often as we fall, we must recall the remembrance of our baptism, and thus fortify our minds, so as to feel certain and secure of the remission of sins." Institutes of Christian Religion IV, xv, 3
Hermeneia, Anchor, and ICC are all liberal generally but that does not mean they have nothing to offer. Quite often liberal scholars have great insights into the technical grammar of the texts they are commenting on.
Derek,
If you just want something 'safe', then probably Platinum is not for you. What makes Bible study exciting is finding out truth for yourself. Doing that always brings the danger that you will come up with bad ideas, possibly influenced by other 'bad' theologians, possibly just influenced by your own weaknesses and sinful nature.
However, I believe Bible study was intended by God to be public. Many early Christians couldn't read, it took more than 1,500 years of Christian history until it was normal for Christians to own even part of the Bible themselves. That's why I always recommend studying the Bible as a corporate activity - either corporate in that you teach publicly what you learn privately, or in that you study as part of a group. That way we can learn from one another and others can help is be discerning where we need it. If we study alone, we'll probably be led astray by our own prejudices and sinfulness. After all, that's one of the reasons God gave us churches [:)]
Hey All,
I'm actually just ranking some of the books as I'm exploring which ones will suit me the best as I begin my Logos Platinum Journey. I agree with reading material from all angles and affirm Sola Scriptura, I would never put Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon, Carson, or Piper, or any theologian above the Bible.
I'm just not familiar with the majority of the works/contributors in Platinum, and when staring at 1200 resources, I'd like to prioritize my efforts to know what levels of caution I use on various texts.
IE: if there has been liberal contributions to a resource (liberal in the sense they deny the infallibility and sufficiency of scripture, and perform poor exegesis/hermeneutics) I may read those when I'm on top of my game and able to better discern error from truth, or have the time to investigate deeper, but when I'm just perusing some resources before I go to bed and just want something solid to chew on with less discernment and limited time to dig into...
Are there any resources to look at more critically than others?
Well said - thank you.
Blessings,
Floyd
As I peruse this thread I too am interested in how many of those "godless" liberal authors are in the products put out by Logos.
"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." - which ones are you going to read then?
As I peruse this thread I too am interested in how many of those "godless" liberal authors are in the products put out by Logos. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." - which ones are you going to read then? Floyd
Apparently only the ones that meet my definition of what is acceptable theological reflection...
Unless you are attempting a bit of sarcasm (I hope so), I find this to be sad - very sad.
I don't want to get too involved in this thread. However, I own several bible programs (Logos, PC-Study Bible, Quickverse, WORD Search) all of which have advanced level libraries that contain "safe" works. I do not find works in the Christian Tradition from author's like Tillich, Cone, Reuther, or even Post-modern works all of which have been taught in the main line Methodist Seminaries that I have attended. It appears to me that the question of "safe" works in e-book formats the real issue is the lack of diversity in those libraries in terms of theological reflection. While I haven't done an exhaustive search in every product on every work it is indeed sad if these "godless" works are missing because the consumers may not buy them or they don't agree with ones theological tradition. As a general rule Logos, and just about everyone else in this market niche, can be ruled as "safe" products imo for good or bad reasons.
Not having had any formal Theology training, I too would be happy to hear about any liberal theology on Logos.
However, I own several bible programs (Logos, PC-Study Bible, Quickverse, WORD Search) all of which have advanced level libraries that contain "safe" works.
While I appreciate Logos overtures to Lutheran, Catholic and Jewish publishers, I am still astonished by the comparative lack of diversity in the available resources. I see it as a problem of users having to reach a critical mass to create the demand for a broad selection. My own favorite presses (and theologians) tend towards: Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican, Jewish and UCC. Of course, there are individual theologians and topics that are broader than this generality. I am also astonished at the number of people on the forums who assume that anyone here is from the other end of the theological spectrum.
Can you confirm that Calvin is speaking of WATER Baptism here? And not Spirit Baptism?
Sorry, that last post is for Jason Saling.
I am also astonished at the number of people on the forums who assume that anyone here is from the other end of the theological spectrum.
Do you mean that you don't think there are ANY "liberals" who post on the forums?
There certainly are, but the number of people (OP & responders) who assume a conservative stance when asking for advice on resources is amusing.
FYI: a friend (a priest) of mine always told me that I was one of the most conservative Catholics he knew - I was positively medieval and it wasn't my fault that that now looked liberal. So I think that if we take the standard model conservative=old ways, liberals=new ways this is actually the most liberal forum I've ever seen: Old ways < 1400 A.D.; new ways >1400 A.D. [:D]
Martha,
I obviously agree that some people do assume that everyone else here is a conservative (take it as a compliment!), but I'm not sure the OP did. After all, he titled his post "Question for Experienced Reformed Conservatives", which suggests that he knew there would be people of many persuasions reading the thread. There's no need to be specific if everyone's a reformed conservative.
Mark
Do you mean that you don't think there are ANY "liberals" who post on the forums? There certainly are, but the number of people (OP & responders) who assume a conservative stance when asking for advice on resources is amusing. FYI: a friend (a priest) of mine always told me that I was one of the most conservative Catholics he knew - I was positively medieval and it wasn't my fault that that now looked liberal. So I think that if we take the standard model conservative=old ways, liberals=new ways this is actually the most liberal forum I've ever seen: Old ways < 1400 A.D.; new ways >1400 A.D.
FYI: a friend (a priest) of mine always told me that I was one of the most conservative Catholics he knew - I was positively medieval and it wasn't my fault that that now looked liberal. So I think that if we take the standard model conservative=old ways, liberals=new ways this is actually the most liberal forum I've ever seen: Old ways < 1400 A.D.; new ways >1400 A.D.
I don't think the OP assumed all here were conservative. Note that this post is entitled "Question for Experienced Reformed Conservatives." I am conservative, but not reformed, so I assume he was not asking for my help.
Mark,
I was responding to Rene's observation regarding resources used in the Methodist seminaries. I didn't intend to imply anything about any specific poster, merely about Rene's observation and the overtures Logos has made with regards to a broader balance.
MJ
I think the only way to answer that is to know your authors. Also many conservative authors may believe things that you don't. I happen to love R. C. Sproul, but I am not a convenant theologian. I happen to love John Piper, but I am a cessationist. etc. etc.
Any book written by man has the potential to contain error. How much depends on the man and how closely he follows the clear teaching of Scripture. Even the most liberal guy may have some excellent nuggets of truth. It just depends how much trash do you want to read to find them.
. It just depends how much trash do you want to read to find them.
One man's trash, is another man's treasure.
AFTERTHOUGHT !!!!!
Phil 2:12-13
This is one sentence from a point Calvin is making concerning forgiveness of sins. If you read sections 1-5 you will see his point and how this fits into the overall point. You always must keep statements in context.
If you had continued on and read 4 then you would have read "That we are washed from our sins by the blood of Christ. And what is the sign (emphasis added) and evidence of that washing if it be not baptism?" Baptism follows regeneration and faith in God. Please check the context of my statements and you will see it fits within the flow of Calvin's point. I will never ask anybody to take my word.
Please go back and read this entire book. I think you missed the point.
One more thing, Reformed Theology compared to Arminian is about God centered monergistic theology (Reformed) versus a man centered synergistic theology. I don't get your point about biblicists. That is like Caner's famous statement about not being a Calvinist or an Arminian but he was a baptist.
And what does later theologies or theologians add to this 500 year old debate?
I encountered this thread for the first time tonight.
That there is a question whether there are any works in Logos 4 that users "should be extra cautious about" astounds me. I am one of those "liberals" (even worse, the unpublished kind!) "Conservative" folks have nothing to be extra cautious about from us... other than that you might for a moment understand how other followers of Jesus seek truth and life from Scripture. "Liberal" and "conservative" are divisive, judgmental code words for many -- especially for people who have taken hardened positions in either camp; it's hard to imagine that being healthy for the Body.
In seminary, my preaching professor counseled us to pay attention to "conservative" commentaries, particularly commending the genre's penchant for accurate, insightful textual criticism. In my ministry, I have discovered the wisdom of that professor's recommendations.
May I offer simple reminder: "Conservatives" and "liberals" quite often differ in theological application and conclusions. But we're still all part of the same, magnificent Body. There is nothing about either your faith (wherever you stake your theological tent) or the Logos 4 resources you use to defend it about which I or anyone else needs be extra cautious.
Bill Coley
[Y]
Actually reformed theology is only monergistic concerning regeneration. Reformed theology teaches synergism in sanctification. Hence perseverance of the saints. Historically John Calvin and Martin Luther believed that faith preceded regeneration. They also believed regeneration was an ongoing process.
Luther and early Lutheran theology make no systematic distinction between justification and sanctification but view justification as itself transformation and rebirth (see CA Apol. 4.72, 117–18, 313). Subsequent disputes led to the standardization of a sharp distinction between the two in much Protestant theology, with the aim of keeping renewal of life out of justification, for fear of imperiling the believing sinner’s certainty of salvation in Christ. (For a Lutheran version of this distinction, see → Formula of Concord, SD 3.38–41, 54.)
Erwin Fahlbusch and Geoffrey William Bromiley, vol. 3, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leiden, Netherlands: Wm. B. Eerdmans; Brill, 1999-2003), 96.
If you do not own this book I would recommend purchase
With that being said, can one be monergistic and still believe that faith precedes regeneration? Seeing as there are two active agents which implies synergism.
That there is a question whether there are any works in Logos 4 that users "should be extra cautious about" astounds me. I am one of those "liberals" (even worse, the unpublished kind!) "Conservative" folks have nothing to be extra cautious about from us... May I offer simple reminder: "Conservatives" and "liberals" quite often differ in theological application and conclusions. But we're still all part of the same, magnificent Body.
Bill,
Whilst I wouldn't have phrased the question in the way that the original poster did, it may be the fact it astounds you shows you don't really understand many conservatives. Many people here don't find the question astounding at all. I don't know you, your theology, nor your experience of Christ, so please don't take the following comments to necessarily apply to you. But if we are to be followers of Jesus in any meaningful sense, we need to recognise the following:
Those who are strong, and in a position to teach others, would probably be better exercising opposition, rather than caution. But discernment (a clear biblical virtue!) is something that is learnt, and those who are only beginning to learn should rightly exercise caution. To say that one is astounded to hear a believer wanting to exercise caution when he reads about Christian doctrine, would seem to me to fly in the face of both New and Old Testament teaching.
Actually reformed theology is only monergistic concerning regeneration. Reformed theology teaches synergism in sanctification.
Blair,
I'm not the sharpest one here but I believe that's false. I'm reformed and I believe (and I think that all those who are reformed) believe that sanctification is no less a work of God than regeneration. (Philippians?)
In other words...we persevere because it's His will that we do....we bring nothing to the table ether before, during or after regeneration....only the empty hand of faith...(and it's HIS faith
Mark this seems like an odd response to me. Asking if some author or theological work on a Logos web site is sort of like an individual asking a movie reviewer what movies that individual will find offensive. As best as I can understand this is a private company that just happens to produce "christian" ebooks who by the nature of its audience will seek to find the least offensive (i.e. most conservative) works that will sell to that audience. This product doesn't require a check of ones relationship with Christ, nor is it a Church Council to check orthodoxy, nor has it been assigned by God to enforce such truth claims of one or another "favored" author(s). My suspicion is that if a person has to ask if there are offensive works in a Logos product he or she will find something offensive no matter how orthodox, safe, or true a particular product is guaranteed to be. Honestly look at the various companies in this industry and find the "liberal" works produced by any given company...imo this general lack of diversity is itself going to limit the saleability of any bible software to a larger audience. For example last time I asked in my middle of the road seminary Logos is not even sold with a discount on campus. I'm not sure when we will ever be safe from them.
Actually reformed theology is only monergistic concerning regeneration. Reformed theology teaches synergism in sanctification. Blair, I'm not the sharpest one here but I believe that's false. I'm reformed and I believe (and I think that all those who are reformed) believe that sanctification is no less a work of God than regeneration. (Philippians?) In other words...we persevere because it's His will that we do....we bring nothing to the table ether before, during or after regeneration....only the empty hand of faith...(and it's HIS faith
Your right it is not a work. Monergism is one active agent. Synergism is two active agents. We are not passive in believing I believe faith is an used in the active over 1000 times in the new testament. The scripture continually exhorts us to perservere. We do perservere because of him
“Now to the one who is able to keep you from falling, and to cause you to stand, rejoicing, without blemish before his glorious presence, ” (Jude 24, NET)
I also agree with Calvin that faith brings us empty handed to God (Romans 4) makes a sharp distinction between faith and works. Proving that faith is not a work..
Merriam-Webster, I. (2003). Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary. (Eleventh ed.). Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Synergism is two agents that interact. So looking at justification we see two active agents interacting. We believe he justifies. Sanctification, we persevere, he sanctifies. Of course it is because him we believe and because him we persevere. But the point is there are still two active agents interacting with each other. The basic definition of synergism has been two active agents interacting.
Blessings, I hope this clarified my point a little better
I think we are still not connecting...
How about this statement to clarify...
We persevere BECAUSE it's his will (active) that we do...we are not "partners" in that He could want us to but yet we thwart his plans.....as in a partnership...
I'm not saying we don't actively "persevere" but it's HIS doing that we persevere..
Philippians 2:13:
for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
We desire to do the right things, and our performance of them (or even lack of performance) is due to Him...
I just don't see that as any different than believing...same thing....it's all God....yet we beleive....
is that more clear?
Mark,I considered several avenues of response to your reply, none of which satisfied because all of them resulted in my participation in the kind of divisive, separatist dialogue with which the Church – or at least its conservative and liberal component parts – is already far too familiar. For example, in the few minutes of reflection I gave to this reply, I could not find one response that would not call upon, and therefore grant unhelpful prominence to, the theological and hermeneutical differences that often distinguish “liberals” from “conservatives.” In a detached, dispassionate, academic setting, discussions of such differences can edify participants. Sadly, when the attached and passionate of the Church engage them, the result is often judgment and separation.So, I offer only this: In addition to the wary caution or faithful opposition you bring to your encounter with parts of the magnificent Body different from yours, remember that thing Jesus said about logs and splinters, as well as the poignant mention Paul gave to seeing through glass dimly.... And I will do the same.Blessings,Bill
Hi Bill & All,
Bill's response was exactly what I needed to better clarify my question. My intention with my initial resource question was not to be divisive, throw stones, or point out splinters. My question was not to begin debates on who's right, or why Liberals or Conservatives are too open or closed minded. My question was purely in reference to what you said about: "theological and hermeneutical differences that often distinguish 'liberals' from 'conservatives.' "
I am a lay-person in a reformed conservative circle. I work many hours at a secular job, and have many chores around the house. I do not have hours and hours to dig through pages and pages of documents to discern which ones are from this or that theological/denominational school of thought, and I need a place to start. I would like to build much of my foundation of knowledge in conservative works that do not deny or even question the infallibility of scripture, virgin birth, death burial and resurrection of our Lord, or propagate various versions of synergistic works-righteousness.
This is why my subject was: "Question for Experienced Reformed Conservatives." I labeled it this way so that "Experienced Reformed Conservatives" would answer my question, not to start a fight or be divisive. I was hoping that those that were not Experienced Reformed Conservatives would see the subject and say: "Oh, I'm not an Experienced Reformed Conservative, so his question isn't for me" and move on. I was hoping to get only a few responses only discussing the hermaneutical and theological positions of resources offered in the Logos platinum package. I did not want to begin a debate on Calvin & Luther's view of baptism, the close-mindedness of conservatives, or whether or not one should be discerning when reading extra-biblical material.
I apologize if my question has caused any to stumble, and I'd be more than happy to further clarify my resource qustion, further clarify my theological position and reasonings, or carry further conversation on through e-mail.
Thank You,
DerekLBrowning@gmail.com
This is why my subject was: "Question for Experienced Reformed Conservatives." I labeled it this way so that "Experienced Reformed Conservatives" would answer my question, not to start a fight or be divisive. I was hoping that those that were not Experienced Reformed Conservatives would see the subject and say: "Oh, I'm not an Experienced Reformed Conservative, so his question isn't for me" and move on. I was hoping to get only a few responses only discussing the hermaneutical and theological positions of resources offered in the Logos platinum package. I did not want to begin a debate on Calvin & Luther's view of baptism, the close-mindedness of conservatives, or whether or not one should be discerning when reading extra-biblical material. I apologize if my question has caused any to stumble, and I'd be more than happy to further clarify my resource qustion, further clarify my theological position and reasonings, or carry further conversation on through e-mail. Thank You, DerekLBrowning@gmail.com
Thank you for your response, and for the clarity with which you express the original intent of this thread. In a perfect world, we would apologize for hijacking your question in order to pursue personal agenda. But this is not a perfect world; this is the Church. [:)]
I pray God's blessings upon your search for resources that meet your needs.
Now, as for all those posters who posted things I didn't agree with!....
Bill
Two tiny quick points - I want to bring clarity to my original post, not unhelpful extend an argument.
Thanks for this 'clarification'. You said it brilliantly. Let me attempt a brief answer, and perhaps show you why its a difficult question to answer.
The main reason is that many of the resources are tools to help you study the Bible better, rather than resources which offer a fully formed theological system of teaching. Take, for example, TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament). By your definitions, almost entirely written by continental liberals. I use it often, and it's very helpful, and very dangerous. Helpful, because it's comprehensive and thorough in giving definitions and contexts to words. But dangerous because some of the methodology they use is in appropriate to biblical studies (there's a tendency to assume that a meaning for a word can be determined from its etymology, and that the way a word is used in a Christian context will necessarily be very similar to how it's used in a Judaistic or Graeco-Roman context).
So, here's my advice:
And to help a little more specifically, looking at http://www.logos.com/contents/platinum I would be reasonably comfortable with most of the resources in platinum, as being written by those close to evangelicalism. Personally, I'd be less comfortable with the theological position of many of the resources in the "ministry" section.
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
