Still Relevant today?

[Reformed1689]

In another thread a member suggested that "Owen is not relevant today insofar as theology goes..."

Personally, I find this comment to be ignorant. Is the following relevant today?


Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, might it have its own course, it would go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could; every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head. Men may come to that, that sin may not be heard speaking a scandalous word in their hearts,—that is, provoking to any great sin with scandal in its mouth; but yet every rise of lust, might it have its course, would come to the height of villany: it is like the grave, that is never satisfied. And herein lies no small share of the deceitfulness of sin, by which it prevails to the hardening of men, and so to their ruin, Heb. 3:13,—it is modest, as it were, in its first motions and proposals, but having once got footing in the heart by them, it constantly makes good its ground, and presseth on to some farther degrees in the same kind. This new acting and pressing forward makes the soul take little notice of what an entrance to a falling off from God is already made; it thinks all is indifferent well if there be no farther progress; and so far as the soul is made insensible of any sin,—that is, as to such a sense as the gospel requireth,—so far it is hardened: but sin is still pressing forward, and that because it hath no bounds but utter relinquishment of God and opposition to him; that it proceeds towards its height by degrees, making good the ground it hath got by hardness, is not from its nature, but its deceitfulness. Now nothing can prevent this but mortification; that withers the root and strikes at the head of sin every hour, so that whatever it aims at it is crossed in. There is not the best saint in the world but, if he should give over this duty, would fall into as many cursed sins as ever any did of his kind.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 12.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

In another thread a member suggested that "Owen is not relevant today insofar as theology goes..."

Personally, I find this comment to be ignorant. Is the following relevant today?


Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, might it have its own course, it would go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could; every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head. Men may come to that, that sin may not be heard speaking a scandalous word in their hearts,—that is, provoking to any great sin with scandal in its mouth; but yet every rise of lust, might it have its course, would come to the height of villany: it is like the grave, that is never satisfied. And herein lies no small share of the deceitfulness of sin, by which it prevails to the hardening of men, and so to their ruin, Heb. 3:13,—it is modest, as it were, in its first motions and proposals, but having once got footing in the heart by them, it constantly makes good its ground, and presseth on to some farther degrees in the same kind. This new acting and pressing forward makes the soul take little notice of what an entrance to a falling off from God is already made; it thinks all is indifferent well if there be no farther progress; and so far as the soul is made insensible of any sin,—that is, as to such a sense as the gospel requireth,—so far it is hardened: but sin is still pressing forward, and that because it hath no bounds but utter relinquishment of God and opposition to him; that it proceeds towards its height by degrees, making good the ground it hath got by hardness, is not from its nature, but its deceitfulness. Now nothing can prevent this but mortification; that withers the root and strikes at the head of sin every hour, so that whatever it aims at it is crossed in. There is not the best saint in the world but, if he should give over this duty, would fall into as many cursed sins as ever any did of his kind.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 12.

Yeah, well that sounds kind of like what happened with Harvard and the congregational churches started by the American puritans. Within less than a decade, much of what they had built had been eaten away by liberalism due to their children seeing their parent's theology as "not relevant."

Are the "complete works of John Owen" put out by banner of truth worth my wife locking me out of the house for a few weeks?

 

[Reformed1689]

Yeah, well that sounds kind of like what happened with Harvard and the congregational churches started by the American puritans. Within less than a decade, much of what they had built had been eaten away by liberalism due to their children seeing their parent's theology as "not relevant."

Are the "complete works of John Owen" put out by banner of truth worth my wife locking me out of the house for a few weeks?

Depends why she is locking you out

 

[DaveXR650]

In another thread a member suggested that "Owen is not relevant today insofar as theology goes..."

Personally, I find this comment to be ignorant. Is the following relevant today?

It's especially ignorant if the poster was someone who appeals to "older" theologians as opposed to the late coming reformers when trying to prove a different point like on the nature of the atonement for example.

By the way Gillinist, get yourself one of those electronic readers and you can get all the works of Owen for 5 dollars!

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Depends why she is locking you out

For going a "little" over budget.

 

[Reformed1689]

For going a "little" over budget.

Then yes, worth it LOL

 

[JesusFan]

In another thread a member suggested that "Owen is not relevant today insofar as theology goes..."

Personally, I find this comment to be ignorant. Is the following relevant today?


Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, might it have its own course, it would go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could; every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head. Men may come to that, that sin may not be heard speaking a scandalous word in their hearts,—that is, provoking to any great sin with scandal in its mouth; but yet every rise of lust, might it have its course, would come to the height of villany: it is like the grave, that is never satisfied. And herein lies no small share of the deceitfulness of sin, by which it prevails to the hardening of men, and so to their ruin, Heb. 3:13,—it is modest, as it were, in its first motions and proposals, but having once got footing in the heart by them, it constantly makes good its ground, and presseth on to some farther degrees in the same kind. This new acting and pressing forward makes the soul take little notice of what an entrance to a falling off from God is already made; it thinks all is indifferent well if there be no farther progress; and so far as the soul is made insensible of any sin,—that is, as to such a sense as the gospel requireth,—so far it is hardened: but sin is still pressing forward, and that because it hath no bounds but utter relinquishment of God and opposition to him; that it proceeds towards its height by degrees, making good the ground it hath got by hardness, is not from its nature, but its deceitfulness. Now nothing can prevent this but mortification; that withers the root and strikes at the head of sin every hour, so that whatever it aims at it is crossed in. There is not the best saint in the world but, if he should give over this duty, would fall into as many cursed sins as ever any did of his kind.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 12.

maybe due to the truths that he and others were espousing in their works offending some holding to more modern theology now?

 

[JesusFan]

Yeah, well that sounds kind of like what happened with Harvard and the congregational churches started by the American puritans. Within less than a decade, much of what they had built had been eaten away by liberalism due to their children seeing their parent's theology as "not relevant."

Are the "complete works of John Owen" put out by banner of truth worth my wife locking me out of the house for a few weeks?

Guess we can now start throwing out the older and badder stuff, so out goes Calvin, Gill, Spurgeon, Berkhof, and in with NT Wright and the like!

 

[tyndale1946]

Then yes, worth it LOL

Is old counsel any different than new counsel?... I take the meat and throw out the bones... No matter who I read or who I hear preach... That is not to say I do not learn new things on the way... Not to destroy but to enlighten and edify... I have a belief and not all those, who believe, believe like I do... The basic belief of all is Jesus Christ died for my sins... As the saying goes all roads lead to Rome, but accordingly, we all do not take the same road to get there... That is why there are Isms-and-schisms and splits and divisions... What is relevant to me may not be relevant to someone else and vise versa... Some brethren like to throw others under the bus because they don't believe like they do?... This old timer has been here along time and has seen it all... I leave the eternal saving to the Lord... And Gillinist, I'm going to save you 5 bucks and more... Here is the complete works of John Owens... Brethren you just got to know where to look!... Brother Glen

John Owen | Monergism

 

[Iconoclast]

For going a "little" over budget.

Start here;

 

[Iconoclast]

In another thread a member suggested that "Owen is not relevant today insofar as theology goes..."

Personally, I find this comment to be ignorant. Is the following relevant today?


Sin aims always at the utmost; every time it rises up to tempt or entice, might it have its own course, it would go out to the utmost sin in that kind. Every unclean thought or glance would be adultery if it could; every covetous desire would be oppression, every thought of unbelief would be atheism, might it grow to its head. Men may come to that, that sin may not be heard speaking a scandalous word in their hearts,—that is, provoking to any great sin with scandal in its mouth; but yet every rise of lust, might it have its course, would come to the height of villany: it is like the grave, that is never satisfied. And herein lies no small share of the deceitfulness of sin, by which it prevails to the hardening of men, and so to their ruin, Heb. 3:13,—it is modest, as it were, in its first motions and proposals, but having once got footing in the heart by them, it constantly makes good its ground, and presseth on to some farther degrees in the same kind. This new acting and pressing forward makes the soul take little notice of what an entrance to a falling off from God is already made; it thinks all is indifferent well if there be no farther progress; and so far as the soul is made insensible of any sin,—that is, as to such a sense as the gospel requireth,—so far it is hardened: but sin is still pressing forward, and that because it hath no bounds but utter relinquishment of God and opposition to him; that it proceeds towards its height by degrees, making good the ground it hath got by hardness, is not from its nature, but its deceitfulness. Now nothing can prevent this but mortification; that withers the root and strikes at the head of sin every hour, so that whatever it aims at it is crossed in. There is not the best saint in the world but, if he should give over this duty, would fall into as many cursed sins as ever any did of his kind.

John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 6 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 12.

This kind of statement is wrong on so many levels and tells us something about the mindset of such a poster doesn't it?
When any historical teacher whose work has stood the test of time was allowed to welcome a truth from scripture...it stands as scripture does expire.A truth then is a truth now.
I doubt anyone who claims to know and read any of these teachers who makes an outlandish comment that they are not relevant today.

 

[AustinC]

Reading the OPs quote of Owens, we must admit that Owens is a product of his time in that he takes the long way around to get to the point. His point is generally solid gold, but his path is a drive through a winding mountain path rather than a smooth Kansas straight line.

 

[Reformed1689]

Reading the OPs quote of Owens, we must admit that Owens is a product of his time in that he takes the long way around to get to the point. His point is generally solid gold, but his path is a drive through a winding mountain path rather than a smooth Kansas straight line.

True, but that is not the argument that was made. The argument was the he is not RELEVANT. I assume you disagree that he is not relevant?

 

[AustinC]

True, but that is not the argument that was made. The argument was the he is not RELEVANT. I assume you disagree that he is not relevant?

Strictly speaking, his ideas are relevant. His writing is not easily readable to the common reader, therefore, he is not often read by many people. So, it depends on how you define relevant. From a cost benefit analysis, is the time it would take to read and reread Owens, just to understand what he is trying to say worth that extra time when I could go to Piper and read something similar which I will understand in a first reading? Which of the two is more relevant? Piper is more relevant because of the cost benefit analysis on my time.

 

[JesusFan]

This kind of statement is wrong on so many levels and tells us something about the mindset of such a poster doesn't it?
When any historical teacher whose work has stood the test of time was allowed to welcome a truth from scripture...it stands as scripture does expire.A truth then is a truth now.
I doubt anyone who claims to know and read any of these teachers who makes an outlandish comment that they are not relevant today.

Guess God set a defined time limit on how long the wisdom that He gifted certain men with can be applied then?

 

[JesusFan]

True, but that is not the argument that was made. The argument was the he is not RELEVANT. I assume you disagree that he is not relevant?

Do not agree with all he wrote, but can one be a serious student of theology and not have read Calvin at all, for example?

 

[JesusFan]

Strictly speaking, his ideas are relevant. His writing is not easily readable to the common reader, therefore, he is not often read by many people. So, it depends on how you define relevant. From a cost benefit analysis, is the time it would take to read and reread Owens, just to understand what he is trying to say worth that extra time when I could go to Piper and read something similar which I will understand in a first reading? Which of the two is more relevant? Piper is more relevant because of the cost benefit analysis on my time.

Its not just fellow calvinists, as have read the like of a Tozier and CS lewis, and still learned something from them also, but guess they are not useful any more either?

 

[Reformed1689]

Do not agree with all he wrote, but can one be a serious student of theology and not have read Calvin at all, for example?

I would say no. There are some works that are must reads to be well-rounded and know the arguments of various sides of various coins.

 

[Reformed1689]

Strictly speaking, his ideas are relevant. His writing is not easily readable to the common reader, therefore, he is not often read by many people. So, it depends on how you define relevant. From a cost benefit analysis, is the time it would take to read and reread Owens, just to understand what he is trying to say worth that extra time when I could go to Piper and read something similar which I will understand in a first reading? Which of the two is more relevant? Piper is more relevant because of the cost benefit analysis on my time.

That I would agree with, but I don't think that was the argument the post was making. He specifically said the theology was not relevant today.

 

[AustinC]

That I would agree with, but I don't think that was the argument the post was making. He specifically said the theology was not relevant today.

The theology is, of course, relevant for today. How could it possibly not be relevant? That would infer that Owens was teaching heresy, which he was not doing.