I've heard a lot of opinions about Francis Chan from different sources and people. I've heard he's a Calvinist; and that he's not really a Calvinist. My pastor was told by someone Chan was a Keswickian, which seems to be some sort of holiness group or movement. I do know he graduated from John MacArthur's seminary, but that does not necessarily mean he holds to all of the teachings. Does anyone have any reliable sources about Chan?
Thanks,
Greg
I am the Lone Locust of the Apocalypse! Think of me when you look to the night sky!
Ask him. He is accessible.
Here is what he says about his (Conrerstone Church) statement of belief:
The Bible is the inspired, inerrant and authoritative Word of God for the Christian faith
and living. (The Bible)
That there is one God, eternally existent in three persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
(God the Father)
In the deity of our Lord Jesus Christ, His virgin birth, His sinless life, His miracles, His vicarious and atoning death, His bodily resurrection, His ascension to the right hand of the Father and His personal return in power and glory. (God the Son)
In the present ministry of the Holy Spirit by whose indwelling every Christian is able to live a godly life. (God the Holy Spirit)
That all people are lost sinners and must turn to Christ in saving faith and repentance for
regeneration by the Holy Spirit. (Salvation)
In the resurrection of both those who believe in Jesus and those who do not believe: those believing to eternal life with Christ and those unbelieving to eternal punishment in hell.
Books Recomended by Chan:
Desiring God by John Piper
Knowledge of the Holy by A W Tozer
Radical by David Platt
He's definitely coming from a Calvinist perspective, he does so with much more love and grace than Driscoll or Piper or the other New Calvinists, but he's often put himself in their camp theologically. I think he's got a much softer persona than the others, but my impression is that he also ascribes to the public aim of the New Calvinists to convert the youth of America to the Reformed tradition.
He's a tough dude to read. I sympathize with his words from time to time, but there's enough there behind them to really give me pause. I'm leery (maybe its because of his resemblance to old time movie villains, with the bald head and goatee?)
I do appreciate his lifestyle and example, though. He definitely lives out a gospel life.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 4 Thanks, 0 Laughing
For me its the hands that seem to large for the rest of him
I tend to like Simon Chan better. But he is coming from a Pentecostal perspective. We can't all be perfect can we?
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 2 Laughing
There is no doubt that his holiness emphasis and beliefs put him at odds with the other guys. I appreciate that about him. He has a far stronger doctrine and emphasis on the Holy Spirit.Originally Posted by Ryan Scott
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 3 Thanks, 0 Laughing
All of his books that I've read resolve with a sort of predestination / everything is Love/Glory if God says it is approach which I find rather dangerous in the long run. Which probably drives his overall personal fanaticism and his willingness to keep doing right field things whenever it looks like popularity is chasing him too much.
I would like to know, I suppose, what the folks in the churches he has started actually look like...are they more like him, or more like Piper/Driscoll/Chandler?
I wonder if Predestination has taken on a corrupted meaning. I have seen how inerrancy has taken on such a corruption out on the edges of the issue. Is the concept of Predestination suffering from the same ailment?
When Predestination says that there is no choice, only what God says is...how is that a corruption?
That was an actual question. I don't know. I will freely admit that I will many times ask a question to which I already have an acceptable answer. This is not one of those times.
I'm suggesting that pre-destination might not mean "no choice"
It certainly does in Calvinism, though.
"Predestination" is not a stand-alone term. All of Christianity (aside from open theists and process theologians) believe in predestination. Some believe that God elects Christ, and predestines to save all who will be found in Christ (Catholic, Orthodox, Arminians), while others believe that God decides to save some, and not save others, effectually, irresistibly causing some to believe, while allowing the others to die in their willful sin (Calvinists).
I'm not sure what you mean by "corruption."
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingTodd Erickson - "thanks" for this post
Thanks for the answer. That clarifies a lot for me.
What I mean by corruption is like in the case of "inerrancy" taking on an extreme form of "mechanical dictation" and not being used in its full sense (or in the case of my opinion, not being used in a sentence properly). I have noticed that between the core group of CNs and here, that the most extreme definition of inerrant has been defined here, then assigned and attributed to all CNs.
In the same way, I wonder if the "true" Calvinist doctrine of pre-destination is being mis-represented.
Another example: I know that "Mariology" in Catholocisim is not an overarching Catholic teaching but a sect, albeit a rather large sect that tends to define Catholocism for the rest of us. I happen to know that it is not official doctrine, at least not to the level that it is practiced by the masses.
True Calvinism holds that God fully intended that those who will be saved were saved from the beginning of time, and those who will be damned were damned since the beginning of time. There is no choice on our part, and it is God's choice that these things be so, and He is glorified by the unfolding of time to show what He intended.
Anybody who supports a different view isn't supporting true Calvinism.
Other versions of predestination deal more with God knowing before creation who would choose Him, but opinions vary on whether His foreknowledge is causitory or merely observational.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You're welcome.
I don't know what you mean. Either the Bible is completely inerrant, or it isn't.What I mean by corruption is like in the case of "inerrancy" taking on an extreme form of "mechanical dictation" and not being used in its full sense (or in the case of my opinion, not being used in a sentence properly). I have noticed that between the core group of CNs and here, that the most extreme definition of inerrant has been defined here, then assigned and attributed to all CNs.
(in case you were curious, the correct answer is: "it isn't.")
http://www.monergism.com/directory/l...redestination/In the same way, I wonder if the "true" Calvinist doctrine of pre-destination is being mis-represented.
It is being represented just fine, if you ask me.
Depends on what you mean by "mariology." If you mean co-redemptrix, and actual worship of Mary, I would contend that your "rather large sect" may not be true.Another example: I know that "Mariology" in Catholocisim is not an overarching Catholic teaching but a sect, albeit a rather large sect that tends to define Catholocism for the rest of us. I happen to know that it is not official doctrine, at least not to the level that it is practiced by the masses.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Since I don't know, this is still in the form of a true question. Did John Calvin state this? Was this an interpretation of Calvin by another?
So this belief, even if in error ... what changes? What makes it dangerous? That is, those who are saved will produce one type of fruit while those who are damned will produce another type or none at all. Whereas in our faith, those who accept salvation will produce one type of fruit while those who do not accept salvation will produce another type or none at all.
This was actually discussed at length on another thread that you had posted in. Additionally, it was stated that this directly matches Calvin's own writings.
What makes this dangerous is that it tends to result in certain groups identifying themselves as wholey right in an unmerciful, ungraceful kind of way. After all, they're right and they're going to heaven, and the other people are wrong and going to hell, and God is glorified by it. It's mathematical and essentially rational, but it's certainly not love.
But it's very popular, because you can know that you know that you know.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
[QUOTE=Benjamin Burch;134794I don't know what you mean. Either the Bible is completely inerrant, or it isn't.
(in case you were curious, the correct answer is: "it isn't.")
[/QUOTE]
That was an unintended trap, but a trap nonetheless. You sprung it so my response is that the problem does not lie with the inerrancy of the scripture (it is by the way), but rather your inerrancy as to the definition of the term inerrant.
Nah, it wasnt' a trap. Sorry, you don't know me well enough by now. Allow me to explain.
In my opinion, as well as the opinion of any and every reputable scholar....
The Hebrew and the Christian Scriptures (known as the OT and NT) have numerous errors and contradictions in matters of history, science, theology, and about any other thing you can imagine. Any attempt.... any attempt.. to say this isn't so, no matter how qualified, I reject automatically, because it fails to deal with the reality of the text we have received from the Church and from God.
Carry on with the original conversation. Trust me. This isn't an issue of discussion. What I said above is fact as far as I'm concerned, and if you're interested in "discussing" or "debating" the issue with someone, I'm not your guy. I suggest you find someone else and stick to the Calvinism issue with me. I'll gladly discuss that. I refuse to discuss inerrancy. What I have stated is pure, unadultered fact and there is no possibility of discussing it further. Sorry. I'm honest enough to say this is how it is.
Others who have been on NN long enough already know this. You do not. Here is your introduction. Hopefully we don't waste any more of your time on a useless convo with me on this issue.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
BTW, Dan....
I sent this post in the friendliest manner possible. It is to save you time and frustration. I do not mean it in any derisive or derogatory way, nor in a combative way.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
In this case, I am not frustrated. I already know that we disagree on this and I did not intend to restate what I have already covered. Your response was very appropriate, in my opinion, the right way to disagree. Thank you for that.
With one exception" "every reputable scholar": That statement, by including, "every reputible" as a modifier, for "scholar" automatically dismisses anyone with which you happen to disagree.
You are welcome. I figure we both have better things to do than to discuss dead ends that will anger and frustrate both of us. WE might even have good conversation in that time, if we're smart enough to avoid the bad conversation.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
No, I'm just speaking for the field as a whole. Those who disagree don't count as far as I'm concerned. Again, I'm sorry that I'm not sorry.
One of the prerequisites of being "reputable" is not dealing in fantasy.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
That statement presuposes that GK Chesterson is not reputable. I'm on a Chesterson kick recently, I recently read Heretics and Orthodoxy. Just last week, I read The Man Who was Thursday: A Nightmare, just because of the title
Ben is also not a member of the Church of the Nazarene any longer, however. Partially because of his near worship for alcohol. :PNo, I'm just speaking for the field as a whole. Those who disagree don't count as far as I'm concerned. Again, I'm sorry that I'm not sorry.
One of the prerequisites of being "reputable" is not dealing in fantasy.
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 4 Laughing
“Fairy tales do not tell children the dragons exist. Children already know that dragons exist. Fairy tales tell children the dragons can be killed.” Chesterson
“When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty, I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.” CS Lewis
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Reputable Biblical Scholar. Other people may be great sources for a lot of other things, even theological. One can be a valuable theological source while not being a valuable biblical scholar.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
You got that right!
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Chesteron, much like Lewis, is more of a theologian or an apologist. But he's not a scholar.
Sort of like, Tom Wright and Dallas Willard are scholars. Max Lucado and Brennan Manning write great, and often true things about God and our relationship to God. But they are not scholars.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
GK Chesterson's Everlasting Man was a major influence on the thinking of CS Lewis, Mere Christianity and The Abolition of Man. Without those 3 books, a poor laymen like me could not possibly understand what you theologians are trying to say. These folk were top notch apologists and impeccable academecians. They are every bit as reputable as Bible scholars as anyone you could cite. Even John Calvin is a reputable Biblical scholar, yet most of us here disagree with major tenants of Calvinism (to move us back to the Chan topic. Chan is a reputable Biblical Scholar and I say he is a proponent of "Chanism"
Oops, that might apply to Chesterson, but Lewis was not only a scholar, he was a "scholar's scholar". His credentials earned him the right, literally, to publish on any topic on which he chose to do original research. Which he did, regarding Christianity. This scholarly pursuit led to his conversion.
I have to really strongly disagree with you on several points here.
Calvin, yes, actually understood the language and what he was doing. He is a scholar.
Chesterton was an apologist for a particular branch of theology coming out of his denomination. This does not make him a scholar.
Francis Chan, in his most recent book, actually had to bring another person in to be the scholar for him. This person just recently graduated with his PHD and is 25 years old, and is strongly southern baptist, and his citations were often wrong based on widely available historical fact. Chan is not a scholar by his own admission, nor are the people he listens to.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Lewis and Chesterton existed in an age when one could still be a generalist. This is no longer remotely possible. By today's standards, they are not scholars. They are, however, scholars by the standards of over 100 years ago.
Ben is refering to modern day standards of scholarship. This does not prevent lewis and Chesterton from being worthwhile writers. It just means that when you call them scholars, you don't mean the same thing that Ben means.
Everybody in my church could say that I'm a saint. It doesn't mean that catholics would recognize me as a Saint.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Todd has more than adequately answered.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
The highest level of PhD, they are rank ordered is the PhD that does not contain didactics. I challenge anyone to demonstrate that a 1st professional degree from any US University is even remotely comparable to any Oxford PhD from anytime in the 1900s.
A little bit on degrees that your theologians don't want you to know; a D.Min is a professional degree while a PhD is a research degree. If the two are receiving honors such as seating or processional, the PhD will receive the higher honor.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the generalist degrees have the higher honors. The MBA trumps the MA and MS in honors, the PhD trumps the D.Anything. Honors do not convey intelligence. Its just how academia works. The scholarship standards have not changed, if anything they have diminished in the US.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
You seem to, again, have made a categorization mistake, in my opinion.
MBA = Professional
MA = Research
D.Min = Professional
PhD = Research
Yet you crossed the two in your "higher honors"....
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Yes, you caught that. I don't know why the MBA gets the higher honors (it is a professional degree), maybe because its an american invention.
In which case, I'm not sure it proves the point you're trying to make:
Ladies and Gentlemen, the generalist degrees have the higher honors.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
It may not prove my point which was that the academic prowess of CS Lewis should be unquestioned among academics, modern or otherwise.
FWIW - Doctor of Divinity is the highest ranking Oxford degree, Doctor of Letters is pretty high. A US D.D. is generally honorary and though, I'm sure deserved, does not carry the clout of any earned doctorate and has no relationship to a D.D. from Oxford.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
