Is it necessary to know how others addressed theological issues?

[JonC]

On another thread (The Value of Books) @canadyjd (with the support of @SovereignGrace and @AustinC ) emphasized @Iconoclast 's insistence that if a Baptist has not read books by John Owen's and Sinclair Ferguson they are deficient in thought. They relate this to holding a biblical position (to testing what we hold).

Here is @canadyjd 's post (I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I do want to explore the topic.

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

Do we need to know how others of the past addressed issues in order to avoid deficiencies in our thinking?

In a way, I am inclined to agree. But I have to pull back because the test has to be less subjective.

Using Owen as an example, I do not need to know why John Owen thought infant baptism was biblical for me to believe it is not.

John Owen defended infant Baptism on the grounds the children of the elect are also elect based on the covenant relationship between the child's parents and God. This is consistent with the Calvinistic application of the OT.

Every Reformer taught infant baptism (Ulrich Zwingli was almost an exception). Those not seeking to reform the RCC, the "step-children", or "second wave" sought to reform the Reformation but would later lament how short a distance the Reformers were willing to move from RCC traditions.

But I don't see this as biblically sound at all.

 

[AustinC]

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[JonC]

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.

I like a Winston Churchill reference just as much as the next guy....but that is secular reasoning. History has proven otherwise (knowing history the world continues repeating it). God has shown otherwise (He, not man, holds the future).

You seem not to know Church history (insofar as doctrines held prior to and apart from the Reformation). How are you going to repeat it?

Do you believe the Reformers biblical in regard to infant baptism? If not, why choose to follow them as your teachers? If they are unable to grasp believers baptism then why look to them to understand the rest of Scripture?

 

[Reformed1689]

This is consistent with the Calvinistic application of the OT.

With some Calvinists. Not this one. In fact, that doctrine is implied, if not emphatic, in the Westminster Confession but not in the London Confession.

 

[Reformed1689]

If they are unable to grasp believers baptism then why look to them to understand the rest of Scripture?

This is a fallacy, not to mention a false premise that all of the Reformers believed in Infant Baptism.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

No, it is not necessary to know how others addressed theological issues. What is necessary is immersion in the Bible itself. It may be helpful to know what certain people have said, depending on what the issue that you are studying is, but claiming that it is necessary is unbiblical.

 

[agedman]

I used to sit in the "student center" and eavesdrop on students. There was a parallel that I observed concerning those who could quote any number of authors, and pride. Not all, but the greater amount seemed puffed up in such ability.

My own interaction with them in the classroom was not far removed from the observations.

I am not stating this as some degradation or dismissal of the need for students of theology to be familiar with the historical when approaching a topic that is divisive.

However, what I suggest is that the primary reflection should always center upon the ability to validate with specific verses and not by inference any thinking that approaches the level of a doctrine.

NO doctrine is substantiated upon "inference." Even the trinity is foundational by verse and by example.

Education is great - not to be diminished.
Reading of the "great" is very good - not to be diminished.
Holding firm to Scripture principle is a must.

 

[AustinC]

No, it is not necessary to know how others addressed theological issues. What is necessary is immersion in the Bible itself. It may be helpful to know what certain people have said, depending on what the issue that you are studying is, but claiming that it is necessary is unbiblical.

What then do you say to many atheists who know the Bible better than the majority of Christians? Or to cult leaders who immerse themselves in the Bible like Charles Taze Russell did, even translating the greek to present his own English Bible? Do you imagine he wasn't immersed in the Bible?
There are people who post in the BB who don't understand grace and quote verses.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

I like a Winston Churchill reference just as much as the next guy....but that is secular reasoning. History has proven otherwise (knowing history the world continues repeating it). God has shown otherwise (He, not man, holds the future).

You seem not to know Church history (insofar as doctrines held prior to and apart from the Reformation). How are you going to repeat it?

Do you believe the Reformers biblical in regard to infant baptism? If not, why choose to follow them as your teachers? If they are unable to grasp believers baptism then why look to them to understand the rest of Scripture?

History repeating itself is a pretty clear concept in the bible - how many times did Israel apostatize? How Often since Christ have people suffered for His name the very things He said they would suffer?

Hosea 4:6, Ecclesiastes 1:9, etc. biblical knowledge leads to wisdom, and "less" repetition of past sins.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

What then do you say to many atheists who know the Bible better than the majority of Christians? Or to cult leaders who immerse themselves in the Bible like Charles Taze Russell did, even translating the greek to present his own English Bible? Do you imagine he wasn't immersed in the Bible?
There are people who post in the BB who don't understand grace and quote verses.

God says that atheists are fools (Ps. 14:1). There are no atheists who know the Bible better than the majority of true Christians because atheists are incapable of knowing the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Some atheists may have a vast amount of acquaintance with biblical statements and certain Christian beliefs . . .

As for Russell, having the ability to translate from one language to another does not mean anything about that person's actual and true knowledge of the Bible.

 

[Reformed1689]

God says that atheists are fools (Ps. 14:1). There are no atheists who know the Bible better than the majority of true Christians because atheists are incapable of knowing the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Some atheists may have a vast amount of acquaintance with biblical statements and certain Christian beliefs . . .

As for Russell, having the ability to translate from one language to another does not mean anything about that person's actual and true knowledge of the Bible.

And being a Christian doesn't automatically make you know the Bible either. So yes, I firmly believe there are athiests that understand the Bible a LOT better than many Christians without a doubt.

1 Corinthians 2:14 does not mean that the unsaved cannot know what Scripture means and to suggest that is a gross mishandling of that passage.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

And being a Christian doesn't automatically make you know the Bible either. So yes, I firmly believe there are athiests that understand the Bible a LOT better than many Christians without a doubt.

1 Corinthians 2:14 does not mean that the unsaved cannot know what Scripture means and to suggest that is a gross mishandling of that passage.

I did not say that being a Christian automatically makes you know the Bible. You are attacking a straw man with that remark.

It is remarkable that you claim that atheists understand the Bible "a LOT better than many Christians without a doubt." To say that means that you believe that a lot of people whom God says are fools somehow yet understand His Word a lot better than the majority of His own people do.

What this reflects is your esteeming atheists with an unbiblical regard and your having a very low opinion of the majority of God's own true people. Such contempt for God's own people reveals something about your estimation of yourself as well.

 

[Reformed1689]

I did not say that being a Christian automatically makes you know the Bible. You are attacking a straw man with that remark.

It is remarkable that you claim that atheists understand the Bible "a LOT better than many Christians without a doubt." To say that means that you believe that a lot of people whom God says are fools somehow yet understand His Word a lot better than the majority of His own people do.

What this reflects is your esteeming atheists with an unbiblical regard and your having a very low opinion of the majority of God's own true people. Such contempt for God's own people reveals something about your estimation of yourself as well.

I think you need to read my post again. MANY Christians, perhaps "Christians" are biblically illiterate. Do you disagree?

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

I think you need to read my post again. MANY Christians, perhaps "Christians" are biblically illiterate. Do you disagree?

This is a pointless exchange. You are merely stating your opinions. What matters is what God says. God says that atheists are fools. Anyone who holds that lots of fools know the Bible better than many or the majority of true Christians do goes against what God says in His Word.

 

[JonC]

History repeating itself is a pretty clear concept in the bible - how many times did Israel apostatize? How Often since Christ have people suffered for His name the very things He said they would suffer?

Hosea 4:6, Ecclesiastes 1:9, etc. biblical knowledge leads to wisdom, and "less" repetition of past sins.

I agree. This is my point as well.

We do not study history so that history will not repeat itself.

The wisdom of Ecclesiastes is the fear of God. The secular world will never heal itself through the study of it's own history.

But this is all off topic (@AustinC was just tossing that out there).

The topic is whether we need to study Presbyterian writers like John Knox, Presbyterian-Congregationalist writers like John Owen, Methodist writers like John Wesley, Anabaptists like Michael Sattler, Anglicans like Westcott, Reformed like Barth....etc....in order to avoid deficiency.

My answer is that we can gain from studying these men, but we will not be deficient of thought if we do not.

What we gain from studying those books is not godly wisdom. Godly wisdom comes from studying Scripture, praying, and becoming more like Christ.

 

[Reformed1689]

This is a pointless exchange. You are merely stating your opinions. What matters is what God says. God says that atheists are fools. Anyone who holds that lots of fools know the Bible better than many or the majority of true Christians do goes against what God says in His Word.

Again, you misapply the passage. It does not say that they cannot know anything about the Bible. I'm not going against God, I'm just not misquoting Him either.

 

[Scripture More Accurately]

Again, you misapply the passage. It does not say that they cannot know anything about the Bible. I'm not going against God, I'm just not misquoting Him either.

Another straw man. I never said that "they cannot know anything about the Bible."

This is what I said: "There are no atheists who know the Bible better than the majority of true Christians because atheists are incapable of knowing the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Some atheists may have a vast amount of acquaintance with biblical statements and certain Christian beliefs . . ."

"Incapable of knowing the things of the Spirit of God" is not the same thing as "they cannot know anything about the Bible." In fact, I explicitly said that they may have a vast amount of acquaintance . . .

Stop misrepresenting what I have said.

 

[atpollard]

What then do you say to many atheists who know the Bible better than the majority of Christians?

“You are not going to like the eternal retirement plan you have chosen.”

 

[Reformed1689]

Another straw man. I never said that "they cannot know anything about the Bible."

This is what I said: "There are no atheists who know the Bible better than the majority of true Christians because atheists are incapable of knowing the things of the Spirit of God (1 Cor. 2:14). Some atheists may have a vast amount of acquaintance with biblical statements and certain Christian beliefs . . ."

"Incapable of knowing the things of the Spirit of God" is not the same thing as "they cannot know anything about the Bible." In fact, I explicitly said that they may have a vast amount of acquaintance . . .

Stop misrepresenting what I have said.

My point is you misrepresented what I said...

 

[JonC]

What then do you say to many atheists who know the Bible better than the majority of Christians? Or to cult leaders who immerse themselves in the Bible like Charles Taze Russell did, even translating the greek to present his own English Bible? Do you imagine he wasn't immersed in the Bible?
There are people who post in the BB who don't understand grace and quote verses.

If those people reject Scripture, why would they accept Owen's books as truth?

This sounds more like an indictment of Owen's works than a support for your position. None of Owen's books are greater than God's Word. They are not more powerful.

What is needed for the atheist to believe is not to give him a John Owen book. It is not to tell him what John Owen believed.

What is needed is the gospel message revealed to the atheist by the Spirit and God has placed His ambassadors for His work.