Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. Verse Tool: show

Strategies for Unity?

Information regarding The Narrow Path Ministries.

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby Paidion » Thu Sep 11, 2014 10:02 am

I have never heard that story from Lucado's book. But it reminded me of one that I had heard, except that the one I had heard is a bit more revolting:

Once I saw this guy falling from a bridge. I was right beside him and I caught his hand just in time and said 'hold on to me, help will come soon'. I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What denomination?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"

He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"

Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I let go of his hand.

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years old. I am now 80.
User avatar
Posts: 4709
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby steve » Thu Sep 11, 2014 2:53 pm

More of the same dialogue (earlier posts on page one of this thread):

Mike Rodrigues
The devil is causing the disunity. I don't buy it Steve. Just another form of self-absolution. Almost a parody really. "The devil made me do it." We're responsible for the disunity because we won't acknowledge presumptuous sins.

Steve Gregg ...
Hi Mike,
If I didn't think we were responsible for the problem, I wouldn't be suggesting "strategies" for overcoming it. These strategies are our responsibility to implement. However, I do believe there is a devil, and that he has great interest in keeping Christians fighting each other, rather than fighting him.

It should be clear that our sins are our responsibilty, but if the devil has any role at all on this planet, it is to tempt, deceive and distract from our duties. If we blame it on the devil, we shirk our responsibilities. If we don't recognize the devil's devices, we just get confused and can't figure out why "I am for peace, but when I speak, they are for war" (Psalm 120:7).

John McCormick
This is a fairly long discussion, and I'm coming into it late, but I have a few comments...

I couldn't agree more with the OP that unity within the Church is very important. However, some valid points were raised as well--though poorly presented in a hostile manner in some of the posts.

The Church consists of believers, not unbelievers, so unity within the church does not include unbelievers, who are not part of the Church. That seems self-evident.

But the question of who is actually a believer and what criteria we ought to use to determine that is essential to the issue of unity.

Are Baptists Christians? Are Methodists Christians? Are Roman Catholics Christians? Are Mormons Christians? Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians?

Most Christian denominations would accept Baptists and Methodists as Christian. Some would reject Roman Catholics, while almost all would reject Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses--but not all would.

Heck, where I came from in the Midwest, the Baptists might even reject the Methodists, and vice versa!

What are the Scriptural criteria for being a Christian/believer?

John McCormick
Steve, concerning Yeshua Follower's anonymity, with due respect I believe you made more of it than was necessary.

People seek anonymity online for many reasons. We shouldn't judge too quickly if they feel that their beliefs might cost them their livelihood, their family, their reputation, their lives, or something else that is dear to them.

This was only in regards to the issue of anonymity, not support for or against Yeshua Follower's posts or your own. I can see good points in what both of you have said.

John McCormick
I have to agree with Mike Rodrigues, Steve. The disunity in the church can be traced directly to human choices. Where is the devil's role in any of this? It's easy to accuse the devil of doing all these things to keep us from fighting him, but honestly, I don't see how he takes any of the blame for the division which humans have created within the Church by their own free will.

In my own experience, I've seen division and disunity for many reasons in many different churches of many different denominations, including those that style themselves "non-denominational". In almost every case division was caused by one person who had a doctrinal difference with another. From that single decision to argue over what were almost always insignificant issues of doctrine, huge battles ensued and churches split, people were excommunicated, and new denominations/divisions came into being.

Humans can mess things up all on their own. We can be so self-centered and rotten at the core that there's no need for a devil to prompt us to fight, hate, and divide. Our selfish wills are more than sufficient on their own.

Steve Gregg ...
Hi John,
I will try to give brief answers to your three main concerns, stated above:

You wrote:
“Are Baptists Christians? Are Methodists Christians? Are Roman Catholics Christians? Are Mormons Christians? Are Jehovah's Witnesses Christians?”

I don’t think any of these groups can be called “Christians” en masse. Individual people are Christians, or not. The group you find them in might bear the label “Christian”, because their main doctrinal commitments fall, more or less, within the range of what might be regarded as biblical beliefs. But groups are not Christian—unless they are a group comprised entirely of Christian people. I know of no labeled group of which this would be likely. There are non-Christians in every group.

I don’t think God judges people as groups, but as individuals. Of course, the “Church” is a “group,” but it is a spiritually (not institutionally)-defined group, whose membership is not coextensive with that of any labeled institution.

You wrote:
“What are the Scriptural criteria for being a Christian/believer?”

These criteria may be found in various parts of the New Testament, but the book of 1 John gathers four criteria together in one document, and says that we can know that we are Christians if:

1) We believe in Jesus (the theological test) 2:22; 4:15

2) We keep His commandments (the ethical test) 2:17; 5:2-3

3) We love each other (the relational test) 3:16-19; 4:7-8

4) We possess His Spirit (the spiritual test) 3:24; 4:13

Presumably, if people meet these criteria, God accepts them, and so should we.

Many professing Christians seem to meet two of the criteria. However, two out of four is not a passing grade.

You wrote:
“People seek anonymity online for many reasons. We shouldn't judge too quickly if they feel that their beliefs might cost them their livelihood, their family, their reputation, their lives, or something else that is dear to them.”

My mistake, then. I can’t relate. Having the courage of my convictions would mean I let people know who I am and what I stand for, and letting the chips fall where they may. I would never let such a thing as my livelihood or family stifle me from standing for what I believe is important.

This would be even more important to me if I am taking it upon myself to lambaste a fellow Christian. I would definitely never be such a coward as to do so anonymously. In fact, until the past day or so, I can't recall ever running into any Christian so dishonorable as to do so. Different types, I guess.

You wrote:
“The disunity in the church can be traced directly to human choices. Where is the devil's role in any of this? “

Paul said that it was necessary to forgive a church member “lest Satan should get the advantage of us” (2 Cor.2:10-11). He apparently felt that Satan has a vested interest in Christian relationships, and gains advantage when they are askew. In fact, I can’t think of any matter more weighty for the devil to be concerned about. Can you?

Unless we think Jesus and the apostles were superstitious, we should recognize that there is a devil, and that he does something. If his activities do not involve undermining Christian purity and unity, what is it that he finds to do that would be more important than to attack these targets? If he doesn't, he is wasting his energy on small concerns.

You wrote:
“It's easy to accuse the devil of doing all these things to keep us from fighting him, but honestly, I don't see how he takes any of the blame for the division which humans have created within the Church by their own free will.”

Where I come from, it became trendy in the seventies and eighties to joke about people blaming the devil for things, and to encourage people, rather, to man-up and take responsibility for their own wrong actions. I have never understood why some people find it so difficult to hold two complementary biblical ideas at the same time. How about if we blame the devil for what he does, and blame ourselves for what we do? Seems that's what God did in the Garden of Eden (Gen.3:14-19)?
User avatar
Posts: 3298
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby Singalphile » Fri Sep 12, 2014 7:38 am

Good points and well said, in your last post, Steve. Is your recent lecture on the topic of "essentials" available online. These two issues, unity and essentials, are of course related.

Thank you!
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby steve » Fri Sep 12, 2014 11:18 am

I don't know if the lecture on essentials has been posted or not. I need to contact my webmaster and see about some of these lectures. He is a busy guy, and last time I checked, he hadn't even posted the lectures on Luke that I taught in July. I'm not blaming him. He is a new father with full-time work, and does our webpage management in his "spare time." Like everyone associated with this ministry, he is an unpaid volunteer. It is hard for me to lean very hard on people who are volunteering their time. Sometimes, he just needs to be reminded. I spend almost no time at our website, so I am not always aware of what has been posted and what has not.
User avatar
Posts: 3298
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby Bookends » Sat Sep 13, 2014 10:07 am

My two cents, if even worth that;

1) I don't adhere to people's NDEs as revelations from God, but I do find their stories rather interesting at times. However, one guy, who was an atheist, was near death and had a vision of going to hell. The atheist cried out to God and Jesus brought the man out of that path and set him before His presence in which the man could ask many questions. One of his questions was what church (denomination) is the true church and who should I join and supposedly Jesus (or Angel of the Lord?) answered, "there are good Christians in bad churches, and there are bad Christians in good churches." I'm assuming these bad Christians were just people who called themselves Christians. In spite on what I believe regarding NDEs, this phrase stuck with me. Apparently the Angel, or Jesus, I can't recall who he thought he was actually talking with, left the decision of who to join up with, up to him. (I listened to this man's testimony on So, I generally believe "there are good (true) Christians in bad churches, and there are bad (false) Christians in good churches."

2) God created an incredibly diverse world/universe, but yet everything works together in harmony. Paul makes use of the human body being like the church, many parts and functions that do different things. Maybe it's not until one reaches spiritual maturity till one realizes that perhaps denominations are necessary for the un-mature?

2) How many errors must one have before the Lord considers you an apostate which prevents one from entering in His kingdom? To this question I don't know.

3) How many errors must a denomination have before a true Christian must disassociate themselves from them? Certainly there must be a balance or an line to cross, if not then wouldn't the integrity of the church as Christ's body be compromised and loose it's moral standards in which the Lord has called us to? Excepting same sex marriage as morally OK into the churches comes to my mind as an example. The NT does have many warnings not to follow and avoid the "wolves"/false teachers and doctrine who come in to lead the elect astray!
"Was the prodigal son, after his penitential return and forgiveness, less obliged to conform to the laws of his Father’s house than before he left it? No indeed, but more so." A.W. Pink
User avatar
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:38 am
Location: Urbana, Ohio

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby jriccitelli » Thu Sep 18, 2014 8:41 am

I have been going to a small group at a church near my house that is called ‘Think, The Critical thinking and discussion forum’. It has been very successful and since the topics generally revolve around philosophical topics as well as religious, it attracts a lot of Atheists and agnostics and spiritualists, and still they come back. And although the debate does get very heated, yet it remains very friendly.

I have befriended the guy running it and we want to do another group that focuses on Bible doctrine. I am also hoping to have a regular format for critical discussion or debate at the Church I attend. I have read a number of publications that speak of the lost patience of debate, lack of genuine communication, the inability of expressing and formulating opinions, and the disappearance of critical thought and thinking (and that’s just in the Church).

There is a wave of pop-thinking that says we should not be negative, or question authority, or create division, or judge anyone, or rock the boat, or make waves, never talk of politics or religion. And while there is great wisdom in being tactful, timely, productive, diplomatic, considerate, courteous, loving, and pleasant, and peacemakers, I can’t eat only vegetables.

Another thing that emulates from what we have here and in other online forums, is the community, even though we disagree, we still come back here. There are a number of reasons people are here I suppose, but I believe the conversation helps people get to know people as persons, and that makes a big difference in solving some issues and hearing other views.

I have brought up this forum in conversation a number of times, and I have spoken of how great it is, as a bible study, educational outlet, and most interestingly: I tell people how I have learned how you can agree with someone on most everything and still find out you disagree on something else, yet the discussion is generally very educational and edifying.
User avatar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby TheEditor » Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:11 am

There is a wave of pop-thinking that says we should not be negative, or question authority, or create division, or judge anyone, or rock the boat, or make waves, never talk of politics or religion. And while there is great wisdom in being tactful, timely, productive, diplomatic, considerate, courteous, loving, and pleasant, and peacemakers, I can’t eat only vegetables.

Hi JR,

Whereas I agree with your post, I can't help but think that this spirit is changing, or perhaps we have two conflicting spirits colliding in the same age. A simple look at the internet and forums, commentors, bloggers, youtubers, etc. alarms me that there is precious little thought and and large helping of venom regularly spewed by people under the cloak of annonymity.

Regards, Brenden.
"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."
User avatar
Posts: 811
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby jriccitelli » Fri Sep 19, 2014 1:01 pm

I noticed that too, the intolerance of intolerance community and ideology creates something worse than what they pretend to avoid. I came across this interesting note when researching online debate forums:
If you're a non-Christian, it's probably best to get your initial practice in the forums that are obviously run by non-Christians, where you will be freer to speak your mind than in forums run by Christians. When debating in Christian-run forums, you will, in most cases, be constrained by the need to be ultra-polite in order to avoid being kicked out.

:) Although most Christian sites should be courteous and tactful, the doctrinal differences and content is often objectionable on some sites also. While I find secular sites often foul and full of insult rather than content, I also find really good intellectual arguments being made also. My feeling is that a lot of intellectual people gave up on Christianity for lack of good reasoning, lousy answers, and often lack of knowledge on the part of the Christian. Many Christians avoid the objections because they don’t have any answers, which is why I like to encourage more apologetics and Theology classes :ugeek:
User avatar
Posts: 1316
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby Choosethisday » Mon Oct 06, 2014 9:34 pm

Hopefully we are beginning to see a movement to head off the schism within evangelism. Along with Steve I have heard a few other leaders beginning to express concern. Here is an article by Roger Olson I thought I would Share. This one is short enough that I thought I would simply paste it here instead of supplying a link. Following that is a joint statement by a number of evangelical leaders written in 2001 to the same effect.

“Big Tent” Versus “Small Tent” Evangelicalism

October 6, 2014 by Roger E. Olson 0 Comments

Something that grieves me very much is the gradual disintegration of the evangelical movement in America. And I know where I assign the blame–on what I call “small tent evangelicals” who practice tribalism and totalizing with regard to who is and who is not recognized as “authentically evangelical.”

I don’t remember very many things from elementary/primary school which was a very long time ago. But one thing that stuck with me over the years is a little poem. I don’t remember the author and it doesn’t matter right now. Anyone can look it up. Here’s the poem: “He drew a circle that shut me out: heretic, rebel, a thing to flout. But love and I had the wit to win; we drew a circle that took him in.” We were made to memorize it as a means of combatting cliques and tribes in school (and the bullying that often followed from that).

I will never forget the shock I felt when I read Harold Lindsell’s bombshell book The Battle for the Bible (1976). I was in seminary and was being taught that “biblical inerrancy” was not what Carl Henry called “the superbadge of evangelical identity.” (Henry responded to Lindsell’s book by denying that inerrancy is that even though he strongly believed in inerrancy.) Lindsell and his friends drew a circle that shut me and many other evangelicals out. I grew up in a very evangelical church and denomination–charter members of the National Association of Evangelicals–that did not use the language of “biblical inerrancy.” Lindsell argued that belief in inerrancy is essential to evangelical identity.

Imagine my surprise when I read the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1979) that included qualifications of “inerrancy” (when applied to the Bible) that Lindsell had rejected in The Battle for the Bible! And Linsell signed that statement.

Over the ensuing years I formed the opinion, which I still hold, that much of the disintegration of evangelicalism has not been over real doctrinal issues but over tribalism. Cohorts form and become “us versus them” groups that shut people out just because they pronounce words and concepts differently. The “enemy” (false evangelicals) are those who don’t pronounce “Shibboleth” correctly.

A few years ago I engaged in a sustained e-mail dialogue with a strong advocate of biblical inerrancy who was also an officer of the Evangelical Theological Society. Once we agreed that we probably believed the same about biblical accuracy (given all the qualifications he added to “biblical inerrancy”) I asked him if I could join the ETS even though I do not think “inerrancy” is an intellectually honest word for what we both believe. He said no. That just confirmed to me that “inerrancy” has become little more than a tribal Shibboleth to keep people out who are deemed unfit to belong.

Recently here I celebrated what I believe evangelical Calvinists and Arminians agree about–that God gets all the credit and glory for anything good that we achieve or do because we cannot do it without God’s transforming work within us. How many Calvinists agreed? Only a very few. Instead I hear that Calvinist leaders are still misrepresenting Arminianism and describing it as Pelagian or semi-Pelagian. What is that but tribalism? Small tent evangelicalism. Drawing circles unnecessarily to shut out people deemed somehow unfit to be part of the club of authentic evangelicals.

I consider this mindset and the excluding rhetoric and practices it leads to “neo-fundamentalism.” Unfortunately, it is catching on to the point that the totalizers and exclusivists are capturing the label “evangelical” for themselves.

These people have put tremendous pressure on “big tent” evangelical publishers and educators to cater to them–to not publish articles and books by those who do not pronounce Shibboleth correctly. Fortunately, most of the said publishers and educators have not caved in to them–yet.

Some years ago, when I was on the faculty of a well-known evangelical institution of higher education, former Youth for Christ leader Jay Kessler, then president of Taylor University, spoke to the faculty about this very trend and problem. He addressed it directly and advised moderate to progressive evangelicals to “hunker down” until the storm passes by. Unfortunately, it didn’t pass by.

My evangelicalism is that of the founders of the post-WW2 evangelical movement. It tried to include fundamentalists but they labeled it “neo-evangelicalism” and rejected it. The NAE and similar organizations that brought together non-fundamentalist, postfundamentalist evangelicals in a “big tent” coalition centered around the gospel was the evangelicalism of my youth and I miss it. From within its own ranks, unfortunately, arose new fundamentalists who were dissatisfied with the movement’s breadth and inclusiveness (e.g., of Arminians) and began to nit pick, draw exclusive circles, totalize their own brand of evangelicalism, and misrepresent those evangelicals they perceived as unworthy of the label.

The “Word Made Fresh” statement (2001) that I posted here recently was our (moderate evangelicals’) attempt to call all evangelicals back to “big tent” evangelicalism. It’s as much needed now as it was when it was written and signed by over 100 evangelical leaders and scholars.

The Word Made Fresh: An Evangelical Statement from 2001

October 3, 2014 by Roger E. Olson 9 Comments

This November two events will honor the life and theology of Stanley J. Grenz who died unexpectedly at age 55 in 2005. Stan was like a brother to me and I still miss him. The two events will be symposia at the Evangelical Theological Society and at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Religion. I will be presenting a paper at the latter event which will be in San Diego. (Like all events at AAR annual meetings it is open only to persons registered for the annual meeting.) Stan and I, together with two other evangelical theologians, wrote the following statement, circulated it to over one hundred other evangelical theologians, and published it on line. This was presented in the context of the controversy over open theism, but it was not limited to that issue and signers did not necessarily agree about open theism (as to whether it is an evangelical option or not). What the over one hundred signers agreed about is stated in the statement itself. I think the statement is still relevant and I present it here in honor and memory of Stan who was, in many ways, our leader among postconservative, progressive, evangelicals.

The Word Made Fresh: A Call for a Renewal of the Evangelical Spirit

To be evangelical is to be committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ–the Word incarnate–in all areas of life and to the supreme authority of the canonical Scriptures–the written Word–in all matters of faith and practice. To be evangelical also entails being characterized by an irenic, Christlike spirit of love toward those with whom we disagree and a cautious openness to the reform of tradition as the Spirit leads us to fresh understandings of the Word that are even more faithful to the entirety of God’s revelation. We oppose unfettered theological experimentation and accommodation to culture that threatens the gospel of Jesus Christ. But we also deplore a present tendency among some evangelicals to define the boundaries of evangelical faith and life too narrowly. For this reason, we call evangelical leaders and thinkers to make room for reverent exploration of new ideas and reconsideration of old ones without assuming too quickly that we know what Scripture clearly does and does not teach.

Throughout history, evangelicals have courageously stood against attempts to compromise biblical faith. Unfortunately, passionate resistance to error has repeatedly also led to militant, separatistic habits of mind and heart from which evangelicals in the mid-twentieth century struggled to free the movement. We are concerned that some claimants to the evangelical heritage appear to be falling back into some of the more onerous attitudes of fundamentalism. Out of this concern, we call all evangelicals to acknowledge the value of the kind of genuine diversity and fresh reflection, grounded in the written Word and centered on the incarnate Word, that has always been the hallmark of the true evangelical spirit.

To this end, we call all evangelical leaders and thinkers not to reject out of hand constructive theological proposals that are reverently rooted in biblical reflection, even when they challenge aspects of what some consider to be the “received evangelical tradition.” Rather than a sign of decline, constructive theological endeavor and rigorous debate about theological issues are marks of evangelical theological vitality. Premature closure of dialogue and debate by means of condemnations and threats of exclusion, in contrast, disrupts community and often quenches the Spirit who brings new life and leads us toward ever more faithful readings of God’s Word. Therefore, we admonish all evangelicals to resist attempts to propagate rigid definitions of evangelicalism that result in unnecessary alienation and exclusion. And we call all evangelicals to affirm the genuine diversity and fresh reflection, rooted in the authority of the written Word and centered on the Word incarnate, that has always been the hallmark of the true evangelical spirit.

Let peace prevail among evangelicals. We pray not for peace at any price, but for peace and harmony among equally God-fearing, Bible-believing, Jesus-loving evangelical Christians who may find that they disagree about many secondary matters. We call all evangelicals to rediscover and honor the motto: “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” May the irenic spirit of generous orthodoxy that has energized and unified the evangelical movement prevail in our evangelical theological discourse. And may all evangelicals seek to renew the broad, historic evangelicalism that honors the oneness of faith that unites all who trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and submit to the authority of the Word.

William J. Abraham.
Albert Cook Outler Professor of Wesley Studies
Perkins School of Theology
Southern Methodist University

Dan Allender
Dean, Mars Hill Graduate School

Mark D. Baker
Assistant Professor of Mission and Theology
Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary

Craig Blomberg
Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary

Barry Callen
University Professor of Christian Studies
Anderson University

M. Daniel Carroll R.
Professor of Old Testament
Denver Seminary

Craig Carter
Vice President, Academic Dean and Professor of Religious Studies
Tyndale College

Rodney Clapp
Editorial Director
Brazos Press

David Clark
Professor of Theology and Ethics
Bethel Theological Seminary

Charles J. Conniry
Assistant Professor of Pastoral Theology
Director of the Doctor of Ministry Program
George Fox Evangelical Seminary
George Fox University

Stephen T. Davis
Professor of Philosophy and Religious Studies
Claremont McKenna College

William A. Dyrness
Professor of Theology and Culture
Fuller Theological Seminary

C. Stephen Evans
University Professor of Philosophy and Humanities
Baylor University

Gordon D. Fee
Professor of New Testament Studies
Regent College

Doug Frank
Adjunct Professor of History
The Oregon Extension of Houghton College

John R. Franke
Associate Professor of Theology
Biblical Theological Seminary

Al Glenn
Professor of Theology and Apologetics
Fuller Theological Seminary

Joel B. Green
Dean of the School of Theology
Professor of New Testament Interpretation
Asbury Theological Seminary

Stanley J. Grenz
Pioneer McDonald Professor of Baptist Heritage, Theology and Ethics
Carey Theological College
Professor of Theology and Ethics
Regent College

Vernon Grounds
Denver Seminary

Douglas Harink
Professor of Theology
King’s University College

Christopher Hall
Professor of Theology
Eastern College

Fisher Humphreys
Professor of Divinity
Beeson Divinity School
Samford University

Douglas Jacobsen
Distinguished Professor of Church History and Theology
Messiah College

Alan F. Johnson
Professor of Theology
Wheaton College and Graduate School

Robert K. Johnston
Professor of Theology and Culture
Fuller Theological Seminary

Henry H. Knight
Associate Professor of Evangelism
Saint Paul School of Theology

D. Brent Laytham
Assistant Professor of Theology
North Park Theological Seminary

Randy L. Maddox
Paul T. Walls Professor of Wesleyan Theology
Seattle Pacific University

Gerald R. McDermott
Associate Professor of Religion and Philosophy
Roanoke College

Scot McKnight
Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies
North Park University

Nancey Murphy
Professor of Christian Philosophy
Fuller Theological Seminary

James Nelson
Professor of Theology
North Park University

Eric H. Ohlmann
Eastern Baptist Theological Seminary

Dennis Okholm
Professor of Theology
Wheaton College

Roger E. Olson
Professor of Theology
George W. Truett Theological Seminary
Baylor University

Alan G. Padgett
Professor of Systematic Theology
Luther Seminary

Tim S. Perry
Associate Professor of Theology
Providence College

Ronald W. Pierce
Professor of Biblical Studies and Theology
Talbot School of Theology
Biola University

Christine D. Pohl
Professor of Social Ethics
Asbury Theological Seminary

Daniel G. Reid
Senior Editor, Academic and Reference Books
InterVarsity Press

Kurt Anders Richardson
Boston University

Douglas R. Sharp
Professor of Christian Theology
Northern Baptist Theological Seminary

Lewis Smedes
Professor Emeritus
Fuller Theological Seminary

Klyne Snodgrass
Paul W. Brandel Professor of New Testament Studies
North Park Theological Seminary

Russell Spittler
Professor of New Testament
Fuller Theological Seminary

John Stackhouse
Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and Culture
Regent College

Glen Stassen
Professor of Ethics
Fuller Theological Seminary

Bryan Stone
E. Stanley Jones Professor of Evangelism
Boston University School of Theology

Don Thorsen
Professor of Theology
C. P. Haggard School of Theology
Azusa Pacific University

Terrance Tiessen
Professor of Theology and Ethics
Providence Theological Seminary

Leanne Van Dyke
Professor of Reformed Theology
Western Theological Seminary

Miroslav Volf
Henry B. Wright Professor of Systematic Theology
Yale Divinity School
Yale University

Jerry Walls
Professor of Philosophy and Religion
Asbury Theological Seminary

Robert Webber
William R. and Geraldyne B. Myers Chair of Ministry
Northern Baptist Theological Seminary

Timothy Weber
Dean and Professor of Church History
Northern Baptist Theological Seminary

Jonathan Wilson
Professor of Religious Studies
Westmont College

Ben Witherington
Professor of New Testament
Asbury Theological Seminary

Read more: ... z3FQG00Ap8
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2012 11:30 pm

Re: Strategies for Unity?

Postby Singalphile » Wed Feb 18, 2015 11:48 pm

Really good answer from Steve on the 1hour TNP 2/27/2015 (mp3) on a question related to this thread.

Question at 22:45. Answer at 24:14.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23
Posts: 865
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm


Return to Announcements

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests