Ray Stedman

Edwin Bowden said:

I would like to see Ray Stedman's works available in Logos format.

AMEN!

I occasionally go to the PBC site to see if there is any relevant material.

Blessings,

Floyd

Ted Hans said:

Edwin Bowden said:

I would like to see Ray Stedman's works available in Logos format.

Peninsula Bible Church makes his works available in PDF format.

 

Great to have in Logos, i add my vote to this request.

Blessings,

Sir T

Please pardon my ignorance, but who in the world in Ray Stedman and what kind of material does he write?  Apparently he must be well enough known for someone in Jolly Old England to be aware of him.

Edwin Bowden said:

I would like to see Ray Stedman's works available in Logos format.

I was privileged to hear Ray Stedman while in college.  I was an active member of Intervarsity Christian Fellowship in the late 60's and early 70's - the IVCF leadership arranged for Rev. Stedman to speak at one or two of our weekend conferences.  I also had the privilege (though I don't remember why) of visiting the Peninsula Bible Church and hearing Stedman preach from his own pulpit during that time.  I would greatly appreciate having the works of this preacher's preacher available via Logos.

Yours because His,

Floyd

Ted Hans said:

George Somsel said:

The problem is that according to the web site you referenced he is apparently a dispensationalist.  That takes him of the list all by itself.

Hi George i am no dispensationist but leaving Ray Stedman's dispensationism aside as an expositor he is good.

George apart from the fact that you are a Christian what school of thought best represent your views, of course none but help me out here.

 Wayne Grudem systematic theology comes the closest in representing my views, although on the eternal generation of the Son Grudem leaves me saying hmmmm. Now don't get a heart attack because i mentioned Grudem - i am a five point Calvinist.  

Sir T

I "Sir T"eenly wouldn't fault you for being a Calvinist since I went to Calvin College and Seminary myself.  While I am now an Episcopalian [Anglican Communion to you Brits] I remain a Calvinist though I would imagine that I'm a somewhat strange bird among Calivinists.  I haven't read Grudem's Systematics.  I got turned off by him with his "Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" bit.  He obviously doesn't know his Greek very well.  He may be OK otherwise, but I couldn't say.  I started out as a member of the Episcopal Church when I was in Massachusetts and wanted to have my daughter baptised but there wasn't a Christian Reformed Church nearby and I had my membership transferred for that reason.  I was originally very "low church", but I have grown to appreciate much of the liturgy.  I still would not be considered "high church".

Ted Hans said:

George Somsel said:

I "Sir T"eenly wouldn't fault you for being a Calvinist since I went to Calvin College and Seminary myself.  While I am now an Episcopalian [Anglican Communion to you Brits] I remain a Calvinist though I would imagine that I'm a somewhat strange bird among Calivinists.  I haven't read Grudem's Systematics.  I got turned off by him with his "Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" bit.  He obviously doesn't know his Greek very well.  He may be OK otherwise, but I couldn't say.  I started out as a member of the Episcopal Church when I was in Massachusetts and wanted to have my daughter baptised but there wasn't a Christian Reformed Church nearby and I had my membership transferred for that reason.  I was originally very "low church", but I have grown to appreciate much of the liturgy.  I still would not be considered "high church".

 

Thanks George, you are an Anglican to me just don't follow in the footsteps of King Henry

Sir T.

 

I'm ready for wife #3.  OFF WITH HER HEAD !

Edwin Bowden said:

I would like to see Ray Stedman's works available in Logos format.

Peninsula Bible Church makes his works available in PDF format.

I agree

Philip Spitzer said:

George Somsel said:

The problem is that according to the web site you referenced he is apparently a dispensationalist.  That takes him of the list all by itself.

Are you trying to say that in another time and place you might have followed him?

Perhaps when I was young and didn't know any better.

George,

for the record; I'm a little different, I'd still check out Ray's stuff, but would steer clear of his dispensationalist views.

You might like this:

http://www.againstdispensationalism.com/95theses.shtml

bob

Okay, I have a question. First, I have been "raised" in the church as a dispensationalist. I have begun to change that view as my view of a pre-tribulational rapture has been changed. I believe in a premallianal post tribulation rapture.  I am now struggling to discover which "camp" I most fit: progressive dispenstional, covenantal, or what?

Or there any other "camps" out there? I would just as soon be in the Biblical camp. [:)] 

Daniel R. Smith said:

Okay, I have a question. First, I have been "raised" in the church as a dispensationalist. I have begun to change that view as my view of a pre-tribulational rapture has been changed. I believe in a premallianal post tribulation rapture.  I am now struggling to discover which "camp" I most fit: progressive dispenstional, covenantal, or what?

Or there any other "camps" out there? I would just as soon be in the Biblical camp.  

Of course there are other views.  Get 4 theologians together and you will have 5-6 different views.  There is also the Post-millenial position which was at one time fairly popular but which has fallen into disfavor (I think 2 world wars had something to do with that).  Then there is the correct view which is the Amillenial position which I hold.  [;)] (Sorry, couldn't resist).  You won't find any mention of a "rapture" in the Apocalypse which is where you would expect to find it.  Some have been rather creative in finding ways to insert it into the book, but it is about like putting a VW Beetle front on a Rolls Royce -- it just doesn't fit.  While it does speak of a thousand year period in Revelation, I don't think you can take that literally since it seems to be a standard apocalyptic trope for the blessedness of the kingdom (which is NOW).  Then in addition if you read the very last chapter, you will note that it speaks of the leaves of the Tree of Life as being for the healing of the nations.  If this is after the Millenium, why is there yet need for the nations to be healed?  In cap 22 why does it speak of kings bringing "thier glory" into the city and of nothing unclean or any who practice abominations entering into it?  Indeed, it says that OUTSIDE are the dogs, sorcerers, fornicators, murderers and idolators.  They New Jerusalem, the Millenium and the Church are one.

George Somsel said:

Some have been rather creative in finding ways to insert it into the book, but it is about like putting a VW Beetle front on a Rolls Royce -- it just doesn't fit. 

Ted Hans said:

George Somsel said:

Then there is the correct view which is the Amillenial position which I hold.  (Sorry, couldn't resist).

Hello George,

                        I am not surprise you hold to the Amil view but i have never been happy with their handling of Rev 20:1-8. Satan is now bound for a 1000 years Hmmm, in the bottomless pit, and shut up, and a seal is set upon him, that he should not deceive the nations no more. Seems to me that many nations are still deceived & being deceived by him today. G.k. Beale monumental commentary fails to convince on this. I look forward to your exegetical defense/views on Rev 20 when your commentary is published.

Take care & Regards,

Sir T.

P.S. If the Amil view is the correct position, then the Historic Premillennial view is the correct biblical view to hold.

 

How can you say that if the Amil vie is correct then the historic Premil view is the biblical view?  That doesn't fit.

Ted Hans said:

George Somsel said:

How can you say that if the Amil vie is correct then the historic Premil view is the biblical view?  That doesn't fit.

I was trying to be polite. if the Amil view is the correct position according to George then the historic Premil view is the biblical view. How about that, you forced my hand

Agree, it is the nations that are deceived and not the true church but Rev 20 refers to the "nations" not being deceived & not the church(no mention of the church there). As for the "Church" i see many deception, defection from sound biblical teaching. Look at the Church of England - the Bishops are not sure about so much!

Sir T.

I don't think you can establish that the Premil view is the biblical view.  I think that palm goes to the Amil position. 

Don't get perkonal with a chicken !  I'm in the Anglican Communion.  You could as well have said that the Baptists aren't sure about so much.  It comes down to what is the Church and what is not.  This raises the classic Reformed position that the marks of the True Church are the proper preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments.  Some would add to this discipline.

<quote>

The Biblical camp is the Historic Premillennial, post tribulation rapture with a Covenant theology Hermeneutic.

Ted </quote>

Thanks Ted. Now I just need to "bone up" on Covenant Theology.  Any suggestions for authors?

And I appreciate your imput also, George. I am really enjoying the exchange between you two, and wouldn't mind joining. However, I sure that this is may really go to far OT.

Daniel R. Smith said:

Thanks Ted. Now I just need to "bone up" on Covenant Theology.  Any suggestions for authors?

You might consider the new Community Pricing offering by Hugh Martin The Atonement:  Its Relationship to the Covenant, the Priesthood,, the Intercession of our Lord.  Of course, there are also some of the classic systematics texts such as Hodge and Shedd (both in Logos).

Thank you very much, Ted and George, for your time with the book lists!

Also, to stay on topic, I have long enjoyed Ray Stedman. In particular, his sermons on the book of Acts. So, I too would love to see his works in Logos. It is by God's grace that I am learning to listen to various teachers with whom I don't agree with on one topic or another, and yet still be blessed  by their expositions.

Ted Hans said:

Of course i am distancing myself from the Dispensationalism Premil position. Historic Premil & Amil are very close in what they affirm but if (which is a big if) the Historic Premil position is wrong, which i don't think it is. Then i will have to go for the traditional Reform view - Amil. My first choice is H/Premil and then Amil.

[:D]  I love it, Sir T!  Theology cafeteria style. 

It seems I get criticized frequently for my continuing quest for deeper understanding. I make navigational corrections along the way as I learn my understanding has been flawed somewhere. I remember George's admonition to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer." George has also recommended reading those with whom you do NOT agree. So if Ray Stedman is off base it would e a good reminder as to why. Still there is a lot of practical applications we can glean from him. I think he was a gifted pastor whatever your eschatology.

Chris said:

What's wrong with Shedd's "Dogmatic Theology"?  Do we need anything else?

Did someone say there was something wrong with it?  I did list it as one that might be consulted regarding the covenant.  It is a bit dated.  It is not as though God changes, but we certainly do and need something which speaks more to our current manner of thought.  I would also recommend Barth, Tillich and Berkouwer.  Also, Berhoff is on prepub.  Every theology is written from one person's viewpoint.  It is good to look at things from other viewpoints as well.  Some of them will most certainly be wrong, but that doesn't mean that you won't gain some understanding simply by having read them.

WoW! Brother,

I had no idea some claiming Christ's name are now preaching those types of heresy. I certaily wouldn't want those teachings found amongst my library when I pass. My children are taught deference and acceptance of fellow Christians who differ, but out-&-out heresy is not the same thing.

Ray Stedman didn't have perfect understanding of everything (He does now! [A] ) But he certainly loved the Lord and fed the flock as best as he knew how.

And I probably agree with George a lot more than he would want to admit. I can here him saying he doesn't care what I believe.... [H]

God Bless You today George,  & you too Sir T!

I would also like to see Ray Stedman's work on Logos....   Chuck Smith too.

< Deleted >

It appears you are Calvinist in belief by your remarks. As well this would explain your end times understanding. Ever study Thessalonians ? It has much to say concerning evens within a rapture I believe. I believe scripture plainly lays out thing in a dispensational way and this is truly the truest biblical understanding , or way to understand the Lord word to us. Arminius was calvinist at one point and disagreed with what Calvinism taught about the will of man.calvinism says God has to regenerate a man before he can be redeemed and as well some were elected and others were created dammed by God. Really, I don’t think this is a very sound doctrinal teaching based on the BiBLE. But only God can cause one to see truth which is within scriptures pages. Both calvinism and Arminianism have error in them which is very unbiblical. Truly no man is perfect, but dispensationalism lines  best in my understanding of Gods word. A premillennialism view if you will

I agree that Ray Stedman's works would be an asset.  I would like to see his works added to Logos.

I am not a dispensationalist at all, but there is much good exposition in Stedman's work.  I am not afraid to hold on to what is good, while rejecting what I do not agree with in anyone's work.  

I am not a Calvinist either, but I have benefited from Calvin's Commentaries, and I am a real fan of Martyn Lloyd-Jones' work.

My library and my mind would both be smaller if I only read what I agree with.