Featured The Value of Books

It doesn't work for me. Can you not perhaps tell me which thread it's on? Then I can look it up for myself.

 

So, you're upset over Iconoclast's use of hyperbole?
I will agree he overstated in his assertion, but his point is that both Owens and Ferguson should be read and considered in matters of scripture and theology. Both are certainly better than whatever modernist thinkers you are being swayed by.

Certainly one is not less redeemed if they don't read the writings of Owens or Ferguson. But, they certainly could be helped in reading these two persons writings. They are certainly better than the non-substitutionary atonement writers you have latched onto. (No, I don’t believe for one second you came across your nonsense theology in scripture alone.) You simply ignore the entire Old Testament in your view.

 

Here once again you confuse edification with Accusation.I only discuss things with those who want to learn.

 

Notice Austin I address that padeo baptist's have come to the wrong conclusion on infant baptism.Then I point out that no one is infallible.Then I make the comment that was wrenched out of it's context that baptist's who will not read such padeo baptist's...I offered two names, could have posted dozens more, show defective thinking.
It was pulled out and portrayed as if it was a stand alone litmus test.
I stand by my post.

 

Yes indeed...look how he shifted post 86, towards the end of this thread.

 

JonC,
When you speculate as to if I am lying, write paragraphs trying to attack me and offer insults...do you really think we have anything to discuss?
I will only help you by pointing out your unethical posting.
If you stop doing what you do, you will have nothing to worry about.
I am not interested in what you think.
If I want to know what you think, I will post and say.....JonC, what do you think about this?
If you do not see me say that...I am not interested in your unscriptural thoughts.

 

I mean my comment for what I said, not what you added.
In regard to the clear teaching in Exodus and Leviticus where the Old Covenant (Testament) is outlined and the foreshadowing of Jesus as our substitute is given, you simply ignore it. So, I stand by my comment that your view ignores the Old Testament.

 

@JonC

Everyone you interact with in the open forums testify to your dishonesty. I'm sure you kiss up to the admins in the private moderators' forums, but out here you're seen for what you are.

 

I quite like banner of truth - I've enjoyed the pocket puritans series, and have decided to but some of the puritan paperback series.

 

Again, I’ll try to be clear, though I thought I stated it plainly before.

The “defective” thinking is believing you don’t need to know how others addressed the issues in the past. I am certain, though I don’t speak for iconoclast, that is the point he was making.

Using Owens as the example; He is extremely thorough and biblically sound. The others you mentioned just as well.

The way to avoid error is to have a strong biblical understanding of the issues, that way you recognize error when you see/hear it. We can debate the nuance of certain beliefs, but the foundational doctrines are not in question.

For example, and I have mentioned this several times because I think it’s crucially important. There is a member here that has repeatedly stated “many people are saved never having heard the gospel”. Quite frankly, that borders on heresy.

This same member has also repeatedly stated that all they need is to read the Bible. IMO, his thinking is deficient, his understanding of scripture is deficient, his willingness to look how other Godly men and women have addressed this issue throughout history is deficient.

peace to you

 

Jon, you have shown, repeatedly, your ignorance of Leviticus and the substitutionary atonement requirements. You deny Jesus fulfillment of these requirements in his death on the cross. That is a fundamental ignorance of scripture on your behalf.

 

Luther agreed with Calvin though that it was Psa!

 

All Christians, if at all possible, should have some grounding in historical theology

 

I am still not sure his stance on Pauline Justification?

 

Do know that he would not have found any of his views regarding the Atonement from a Calvin, Luther, Berkhof, Bavinck, Hodge, Spurgeon, Gill, Owen, etc!