John Stott interview
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 дек 2013
- John Stott, was once called "The closest thing to an evangelical Pope. He was listed in Time Magazine's "100 Most Influential People" (April, 2005) and was named in the Queen's New Years Honours list as Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) on December 31, 2005.
John Stott was born in London in 1921 to Sir Arnold and Lady Stott. He was educated at Rugby School, where he became head boy, and Trinity College Cambridge. At Trinity he earned a double first in French and theology, and was elected a senior scholar.
John Stott trained for the pastorate at Ridley Hall, Cambridge. He was awarded a Lambeth doctorate in divinity (DD) in 1983 and has honorary doctorates from universities in America, Britain, and Canada.
"I had the great honor to travel with him throughout the United States as a videographer." Will Howard
August, 2023 I’m glad to learn a few things about John Stott’s life story. What a wonderful, Christian man.
His teaching on II Timothy at Urbana 1967 changed my life's direction. So excited to find this amazing interview that reveals God's work in him and in me! Thank you
Urbana where, italy?
I had the fortune to hear John Stott preach at All Souls Church in London back in 1984. The people there were very welcoming
to this visiting American. I cherish hearing one of the great expositors of scripture.
908shayes 了
I read his book "The cross". It's amazing and articulate.
While I acknowledge that he was becoming more and more ecumenical during last years... I thank God for John Stott's life, teaching, and influence. Of all the books, his commentary 'The Bible Speaks Today' on 2 Timothy is superb! 😍
What fellowship hath light with darkness
Very inspirational. I took in each word! (Met him once in Toronto around 1979).
Thanks brother,very much!
Amazing story of a man of God!
Thanks for sharing with us, this great man.
What a lovely man.
Do give us the long version of your insightful and scintillating stories Mr. Stott and never apologize for giving long answers!
41:37
43:43
I thought the video had repeated itself but it was John Stott repeating the same points!
Me too. That's amazing of him without any note, which shows his conviction and practice.
The great Christian preacher of our century...
" ... to sum it up in a single sentence: He who claims to be both Son of God and savior and judge of humankind now stands before offering, if only we come to him, fulfillment, freedom and rest. Such an invitation from such a person cannot lightly dismissed. He waits patiently for our response. RSVP! "
Why I am a Christian , John Stott
God bless John Stott.
Studying The book of Revelation study guide Stott wrote. Recently studying the beatitudes he also wrote. The Sermon on the Mount is what i listen to each night.
i wish have this interview in Spanish!!!
Will, in what year was this interview given?
I would guess mid 2000s
What date did this interview occur?
I would guess mid 2000s
"The Queen's New York[sic] honours list"??!!
Deo- dorant
Lovely interview, but it always rather astonishes me that people who have the privilege of going to Oxford or Cambridge, or indeed any university, don't attend the lectures. You wonder how they pass the examinations, it seems like children who play near permanent truant from school and get no education. Yet obviously in the case of John Stott and many other students, they manage to do very well, or at least well enough, without turning up in the lecture theatre.
He does explain that most of his lecturers at Cambridge were not that good and as he knew the sources they used for their lectures he left out the middleman and read the books himself.
@@harlech52 yes, interesting. You would think that Cambridge lecturers would be among the very best. The fact is though, so far as I can gather, that university lecturers - and perhaps any teachers in the sphere of higher education, although thinking about it all the polytechs have now been made universities, getting myself in a tangle here - anyway all university lecturers have actually no training as teachers, unlike school teachers who have to do their PGCE. So the university lecturer, although he or she might know a lot about the subject in question, might or might not be a good teacher, or able to present a decent lecturer. Apparently J R R Tolkien was a pretty awful lecturer, although he clearly had much knowledge to impart. His colleague C S Lewis was a superb lecturer. It's all a bit hit and miss. Perhaps university lecturers should be required to undergo some teacher-training, as school teachers do?
@@martm216 teaching is a skill in itself. Take the realm of sport. Often the best coaches have never themselves been that good as players (there are of course some who have been eg Pep Guardiola)
@@harlech52 yes, good point. Thinking of football managers, a good example of one who was both a good player and a good manager - indeed a manager of genius - one could cite Brian Clough. Conversely, in line with your point, there was Lawrie McMenemy. Lawrie was never a player of any note, yet he made a very fine, perhaps brilliant, manager.
@@martm216 Arsene Wenger, Jose Mourinho Alex Ferguson were never really that good as players.
Johann Cruyff and Guardiola were both excellent
Although a godly man, unfortunately John Stott was not a direct supporter of Israel.
When Pilot Ask? YESHUA Jesus christ? What is truth? If God sees you and me as a Child. What do you think what YESHUA Jesus christ will do with the question of Pilot beloved? Obviously to FULFILL AND TILL TODAY INDEED. GOD IS THE GOD OF THE LIVING INDEED. GOD IS NOT IN THE PAST( indeed we can learn from the past). BUT TODAY INDEED. TRUTH AND PEACE REUNITE AND GOD'S WILL BE DONE. NOT MY OWN BUT YESHUA JESUS CHRIST. BECOMING A CHILD IN FRONT OF GOD. THESE LITTLE ONES. 1st. Love God 2nd. Love thy neighbors as thyself truly without ceasing but delight. These 2. Will always REMAIN. It's a privilege. To strengthen is by prayers. Noone can delight praying without becoming a child in front of God. Father God ALMIGHTY your will be done. Remember the utterance is not for the RIGHTEOUS BUT WITH SINCERE TEARS FATHER GOD. THE CHILD IS HERE FOR ALL DO NOT KNOW WHO THEY ARE TRULY? I DON'T LIKE THE WORD SINNERS. TO REPRESENT ALL WHO HAVE BREATHE NOR LIFE FATHER GOD UPON ALL THE TRIBES OF JUDAH. BUT TO REMOVE THE WORD SINNERS TO SAVE. ALL WHO HAVE YOU BEEN GIVEN UNTO YESHUA JESUS CHRIST. NONE WILL BE LOST BUT LIFE GIVEN AND LIFE KEPT INDEED. THANK YOU FATHER GOD. Through YESHUA Jesus christ and the HOLY spirit given. Is not what we possess but is what we can do without beloved! It's a privilege indeed. All Feet is YESHUA Jesus's Christ feets upon all dry GROUNDS nor the World. God's Footstool indeed. Who ever uphold 1st. Love God all our minds, hearts, souls, and STRENGHT. So we may know why is very, very, very VITAL TO LOVE 2ND. LOVE THY NEIGHBORS AS THYSELF TRULY WITHOUT CEASING BUT WITH BOLDNESS BELOVED. WILL BE RECOGNIZED INDEED. NOR HAVE A TEA UNDER A SHADE OF A TRUE WELL ROOTED TREE THAT CAN'T BE UPROOTED NOR SHAKEN BUT HERE TO STAY FOR GOOD. I'M SURE OUR CONVERSATIONS WILL HAVE NO END. GOD'S WILL BE DONE
Sadly he believes in annilation and not in hell.that is false teaching.
Oh-h......I did not know this....um-m, that is serious.,..
@@theelizabethan1 yes very
Perhaps he's right re annihilation lest of course Hades, Tartarus, Great Lake of Fire are all literal and concrete to one believing otherwise. But to highlight that and to miss other great points would be nothing but fault-finding.
@@hesedjackd.alvarez2452 no he's wrong and false teaching too
That's the case if you're a literalist and like Clark Pinnok had not explored other theological configurations and ideas. No wonder many are leaving Fundamentalism.
Very few people talk the way mr Stott did in the UK and if they did they would be considered a snob. I am 66 years old and was born and raised in London. It is no wonder he was the vicar of a very institutional church here in London right next to the BBC. i dont think that a person who is looking after the souls of others should be celibate and unmarried. How can they identify themselves with those who are having marriage difficulties. Also i think a question mark remains over men who remain bachelors all their lives. To decide at an early life that the possibility of love and a family is out of the question is very suspect. to say as mr Stott does that God will equip those who make that choice is just patent nonsense allthough i am sure that the roman catholics could agree with that. God told us that He is not a respecter of persons so ie no one is particularly blessed by God . So mr Stott insinuating that he has been particularly "annointed" by God to be a bachelor is a false teaching.
Iina, I say this lovingly, but I think you are mistaken. A person’s manner of speech says nothing definitively about their heart. & concerning celibacy, Stott said openly that, like most people, he expected to marry. I believe for some time in his thirties there was a woman in his life. By his account, she was the closest he ever came to marrying, but God and his ministry led him elsewhere. The gift of singleness, or at least the self-control to abstain from marriage, is not only confirmed by the Word of God, but encouraged by the Word of God. Paul was not married, nor was Christ himself, and both of them took utmost care of souls, Christ perfect care. Does a celibate man lack certain insights to marriage? Yes. But the necessity for a shepherd is primarily to speak to the Word of God into people’s lives, not necessarily to have experienced the specific circumstances of their lives, though it helps. Here is Paul - a celibate man and perhaps the greatest man of the Church besides Christ himself - telling married people
1 Corinthians 7:6-9 (ESV): 6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”
sorry accidentally pressed enter lol but I think that should help
@@HarryNebs Hello Harry. There is almost zero aristocracy here in the UK any more what we do have is a very large middle class divided into various strata. Even the Royal family are sort of part of the middle class, well they try and put that impression over although they are really are in a strata of their own. John Stott would be middle to lower upper middle class. I have been to All souls langham place and have a number of friends who were under mr Stott for decades. The congregation there were for the most part middle class.
If you were to take a recording of mr stotts voice and play it to the town centre of every town in England ( forget n ireland scotland and wales ) and ask a random selection of people in each of those towns 99% of them would say that the voice would belong to a "posh" person. A posh person in not a compliment it is derogatory term. That said , Mr Stotts voice fitted in well with the congregation of the All souls.
Mr Stotts theology and thought processes will have been influenced in a large way by his upbringing and his congregation. He developed a theology that fitted in with his congregation and to have done otherwise would have been professional suicide.
That he identified himself with other "evangelicals" such as billy graham speaks volumes sadly.
Mr Stott despite all his eloquence and studies never got to rightly divide the word of God and realise that in the words of Scofield ( who himself also failed to rightly divide the word ) when he made notes on Ephesians 3 v 6 he said " in Pauls writings alone we find the doctrine position walk and destiny of the church ". Mr Stoott did not preach this he preached by and large a kingdom works based gospel. He failed to see that we gentiles are under a completely separate dispensation of grace than that to Israel. We are only saved through that revelation of the mystery given to Paul when he was saved by Christ.
As for the passage you quoted, 1 Corinthians 7 , the opening words show us that Paul is writing a reply to someone who has obviously asked him a question and we do not know what that question was. Jesus is God so that leaves just Paul as the subject of your reply. What do we know about the books of Corinthians? We know they were written for reproof of the church in Corinth. We know that the letter that Paul is replying to in chapter 7 is probably about lust and sexual immorality because he starts his reply by stating in verse 1 " it is good for a man not to touch a woman". Paul was obviously reproving the act of sexual immorality not promoting a celibate life particularly. The remoter context would be Genesis where God said to Adam it is not good for man to be alone.
lina I’m not doubting anything you said about his voice or your insight into class in the UK, but his class and vocal register should not disqualify a man from ministry or even discredit him. God chooses who He chooses.
And I do not think the text gives us that at all.
1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (ESV): Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” [this quoted statement, not an unknown question, is the thing to which Paul is responding in the following verses.]
2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. [That is, Paul is saying “but” because while he concedes - see later in the passage - that abstinence is well and good, he makes certain to clarify that some, if not most people, simply do not have the self-control required to remain unmarried and celibate. Singleness and celibacy is fine and can be highly beneficial for the sake of the gospel - again, see the life of Paul - but it is not a command by any means (as it wrongly is for Catholic priests) and could be dangerous in regards to holiness and sin. Righteousness is more important than some exultation of singleness, hence Paul’s statement, “It is better to marry than to burn with passion.”]
3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. [again, notice the rationale for marriage and each spouse giving each other their conjugal rights: protection against temptations to sexual immorality in light of a lack of self-control. It is good, maybe even better, not to marry, if you do not have the self-control for singleness, it is better to marry than to burn with passion in singleness.]
6 Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. 7 I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. [Paul is conceding that singleness is very desirable and that he even wishes that they were like him (in his singleness) because of its benefit to a singleminded devotion to Christ in the world that simply is at least harder to achieve with a wife and a family to focus on and support. But each person has a particular gift, a particular empowerment. One of Paul’s was expressly self-control for a single, celibate life. Other people will not have this and need to marry. ]
8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion. [here it is, as clear as day, his conclusion: it is better to remain single, as I am, particularly if you have been married before and have lost your former spouse. But if you have no self-control, then marry, or else you may be tempted and sin. That is, holiness always takes priority over any exultation or practical consideration of singleness.]
@@HarryNebsHarry. Firstly the scripture does not say what the ESV interprets.. Paul in verse one says "now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman". We simply dont know what the person was inquiring of Paul but we can deduce that it was about sexual immorality. It was not specific as the ESV states it . I believe that God is able to give us what he wants us to know in one English bible translation, the AKJ. To have a multitude of versions all saying something different is to invite confusion and we know who the author of confusion is. Im a bible believer not a bible interpreter .
I will have to get back to you later on your other points.
I am not saying that his voice precludes him from being a preacher. I am saying that his choice of denomination and his congregation and via that his theology were shaped by his upbringing.
Not sure of your point in copying out great swathes of the chapter as I can read my own bible.
I note you have not commented on the real crux of his missing the right division of Pauls message and its importance. He was not the first nor will he be the last well thought of and learned people who have gone to their graves after a lifetime of preaching a law based kingdom Gospel rather than the Gospel of Grace the only Gospel that saves men today.