Is it necessary to know how others addressed theological issues?

[Reformed1689]

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.

strawman city

 

[37818]

The phenomenon of professing Christians becoming atheists is do to not actually knowing God. [John 17:3, 1 John 4:7.]

 

[Dave G]

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

No.
We have the Bible, just as they did.

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.

Agreed.

There are many things that the "Reformers" taught that I do not agree with...
But there are many that I do.

 

[canadyjd]

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.



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.

Your approach is respectful and sound. Thank you. I will respond.

Again, I’m not saying “deficient thinking” lies in not studying the writings of any particular saint. The deficiency lies in believing you don’t have to know how saints throughout history have addressed the issues that repeatedly arise.

I’m not saying you can’t learn on your own by studying the Bible all by yourself. It is helpful to know and compare how others have regarded scripture. You can save yourself a lot of stumbling.

We build on what others have discovered. Imagine if every generation had to learn for themselves how to make a rope. build a fire, build a house, learn to fish or hunt, do mathematics?

Imagine if every generation had to learn for themselves the cycles of the moon, and sun and seasons? Discover time keeping? Navigation across terrain or open water? Making tools from iron ore?

Why is learning the truths of scripture any different?

There have been times when I believed (early in my Christian life) that I was the first to see a particular jewel of truth in scripture, only to find it’s been talked about for thousands of years.

And there have been times when, upon reading what others had written, I discovered I was completely off the rails with my interpretation. Thank God for His mercy!

peace to you

 

[Reynolds]

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.



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.

I think Calvinists should read I Cor 13:13 and apply it more. There is very little love shown in what they so mistakingly call "grace".

 

[JonC]

Your approach is respectful and sound. Thank you. I will respond.

Again, I’m not saying “deficient thinking” lies in not studying the writings of any particular saint. The deficiency lies in believing you don’t have to know how saints throughout history have addressed the issues that repeatedly arise.

I’m not saying you can’t learn on your own by studying the Bible all by yourself. It is helpful to know and compare how others have regarded scripture. You can save yourself a lot of stumbling.

We build on what others have discovered. Imagine if every generation had to learn for themselves how to make a rope. build a fire, build a house, learn to fish or hunt, do mathematics?

Imagine if every generation had to learn for themselves the cycles of the moon, and sun and seasons? Discover time keeping? Navigation across terrain or open water? Making tools from iron ore?

Why is learning the truths of scripture any different?

There have been times when I believed (early in my Christian life) that I was the first to see a particular jewel of truth in scripture, only to find it’s been talked about for thousands of years.

And there have been times when, upon reading what others had written, I discovered I was completely off the rails with my interpretation. Thank God for His mercy!

peace to you

I agree with a lot that you say. If we discover a new unique way of understanding Scripture then we can be pretty sure we are wrong.

The caution is not to read other's understanding in order to adopt it (my view of the Atonement is the most common Christian view, but that does not make it correct....I could very well just have a lot of company in my error).

But if we continually go back to God's Word I think the differences between beliefs would be minor regarding major topics.

The danger is building on the understanding of others (or even our own understanding) if it exceeds Scripture. A little error may not be a big deal at first, but just an inch off makes a huge difference a mile later.

 

[JonC]

I think Calvinists should read I Cor 13:13 and apply it more. There is very little love shown in what they so mistakingly call "grace".

I agree.

There are many Calvinists who are Christ-like in how they treat people who hold differing opinions. Unfortunately Calvinists get a bad reputation from those who cannot interact in a Christian manner as they are often the most vocal (definitely the loudest on this board).

 

[canadyjd]

I agree with a lot that you say. If we discover a new unique way of understanding Scripture then we can be pretty sure we are wrong.

The caution is not to read other's understanding in order to adopt it (my view of the Atonement is the most common Christian view, but that does not make it correct....I could very well just have a lot of company in my error).

But if we continually go back to God's Word I think the differences between beliefs would be minor regarding major topics.

The danger is building on the understanding of others (or even our own understanding) if it exceeds Scripture. A little error may not be a big deal at first, but just an inch off makes a huge difference a mile later.

There is absolutely no difference in what you believe and what I believe about the need to study scripture.

The error you make, if I can be bold, is that you assume those of reformed beliefs base our beliefs on what others have written about what the Bible teaches and not on what we ourselves understand to be the truth of what the Bible teaches.

From what I’ve read, even on this board, is that those that follow the doctrines of grace continuously and methodically support their beliefs with scripture.

All that effort is routinely disregarded/dismissed without ever engaging those text of scripture to show how the interpretation is wrong.

I’d be happy to take a single issue, passage of scripture and take the deep dive into understanding what it means in context

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

There is absolutely no difference in what you believe and what I believe about the need to study scripture.

The error you make, if I can be bold, is that you assume those of reformed beliefs base our beliefs on what others have written about what the Bible teaches and not on what we ourselves understand to be the truth of what the Bible teaches.

From what I’ve read, even on this board, is that those that follow the doctrines of grace continuously and methodically support their beliefs with scripture.

All that effort is routinely disregarded/dismissed without ever engaging those text of scripture to show how the interpretation is wrong.

I’d be happy to take a single issue, passage of scripture and take the deep dive into understanding what it means in context

Peace to you

I apologize, brother. I did not mean to lump all Calvinists into one bunch. There is a small group of Calvinists on this board who cannot deal with Scripture. They will offer a passage but then tell you it means something completely unrelated, or go on to simply post Reformed writers and insult any who date disagree.

I know overall they are a minority, and I should have been more specific.

My bad.

I was a Calvinist for a long time. I also did not arrive at Calvinism through the works of others. But now I am no longer a Calvinist. And I know we affirm the same passages.

I think that we have more in common than not. The reason I am not a Calvinist has nothing to do with the 5 points. It has less to do with what is written in Scripture than it does with what is not written, so there really are few passages to ask of you. If, however, you have questions of my view then by all means feel free to ask.

 

[canadyjd]

I apologize, brother. I did not mean to lump all Calvinists into one bunch. There is a small group of Calvinists on this board who cannot deal with Scripture. They will offer a passage but then tell you it means something completely unrelated, or go on to simply post Reformed writers and insult any who date disagree.

I know overall they are a minority, and I should have been more specific.

My bad.

I was a Calvinist for a long time. I also did not arrive at Calvinism through the works of others. But now I am no longer a Calvinist. And I know we affirm the same passages.

I think that we have more in common than not. The reason I am not a Calvinist has nothing to do with the 5 points. It has less to do with what is written in Scripture than it does with what is not written, so there really are few passages to ask of you. If, however, you have questions of my view then by all means feel free to ask.

Once again, just to be candid, I do not share your assessment of how the other “reform minded” members post.

I agree there is too much name calling and snarky comments to go around from all sides. That is why I rarely post on these issues.

However, I normally see an attempt to engage with scripture before the rudeness begins: back and forth. It’s embarrassing to read at times. Certainly not conduct that Paul would describe as worthy of a profession of faith.

I don’t exclude myself from this observation, just do you know.

Hopefully, we can all do better going forward and make our Lord Jesus smile at our efforts to understand His words instead of grieving Holy Spirit with intemperate language.

peace to you

 

[JonC]

Once again, just to be candid, I do not share your assessment of how the other “reform minded” members post.

I agree there is too much name calling and snarky comments to go around from all sides. That is why I rarely post on these issues.

However, I normally see an attempt to engage with scripture before the rudeness begins: back and forth. It’s embarrassing to read at times. Certainly not conduct that Paul would describe as worthy of a profession of faith.

I don’t exclude myself from this observation, just do you know.

Hopefully, we can all do better going forward and make our Lord Jesus smile at our efforts to understand His words instead of grieving Holy Spirit with intemperate language.

peace to you

Recently one Reformed member took several sentences from several posts-threads, added to it and presented it as a quote from me in order to "expose" me.

That is the behavior I, and many here, have come to expect from Calvinists on this forum.

But it is only a few bad apples. We should not allow them to color how we interact with other Calvinists, but it is difficult partially because Calvinists here often gather in support of one another (not just doctrine) even against other brothers.

As far as becoming insulting, I agree we shouldn't. It is probably frustration as we see the other not understanding our views. We all do it. We all need to refrain.

Are there any aspects of my posts you think would benefit from discussing a passage? I am open to a conversation

 

[37818]

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

Two things. It is not necessary a necessity.

It can also be a good thing if good resources can be found and used.

Most of what we know and think we know comes from others.

 

[canadyjd]

…

Are there any aspects of my posts you think would benefit from discussing a passage? I am open to a conversation

JonC, I am absolutely willing to have a civil conversation with you and anyone else.

Let’s just talk scripture.

In John 1:12-13 “But as many as received Him, gave He power to become sons of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God”.

John writes in repeating themes (light/darkness;flesh/spirit; etc). Here he introduces the theme of those that are the “sons of God” being “born” of God.

He says they are not born of blood(s) (I think the plural is used here), this most likely means not of blood lineage nor of blood sacrifices (OT). John had just stated that He came onto His own (Jewish people; or perhaps His own things or creation just mentioned) but His own knew Him not. (Another theme of knowing/not knowing that will be repeated)

He then says not of the will of man. The sons of God are not born according to their own will.

“But of God” Clearly, in context, he is saying the sons of God are born according to God’s will, not man’s will.

What can we glean from this passage?

peace to you

 

[JonC]

JonC, I am absolutely willing to have a civil conversation with you and anyone else.

Let’s just talk scripture.

In John 1:12-13 “But as many as received Him, gave He power to become sons of God, who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God”.

John writes in repeating themes (light/darkness;flesh/spirit; etc). Here he introduces the theme of those that are the “sons of God” being “born” of God.

He says they are not born of blood(s) (I think the plural is used here), this most likely means not of blood lineage nor of blood sacrifices (OT). John had just stated that He came onto His own (Jewish people; or perhaps His own things or creation just mentioned) but His own knew Him not. (Another theme of knowing/not knowing that will be repeated)

He then says not of the will of man. The sons of God are not born according to their own will.

“But of God” Clearly, in context, he is saying the sons of God are born according to God’s will, not man’s will.

What can we glean from this passage?

peace to you

I believe the reference to being born not of blood, not of the will of man, but of God refers to rebirth (spiritual rebirth).

John 6:44 says that no man man can come to Christ, except the Father which hath sent Him draw him: and Christ will raise him up at the last day.

We are born of the Spirit, by the will of God and not our own. We did not choose God. He chose us.

That is how I read the passage, anyway.

 

[canadyjd]

I believe the reference to being born not of blood, not of the will of man, but of God refers to rebirth (spiritual rebirth).

John 6:44 says that no man man can come to Christ, except the Father which hath sent Him draw him: and Christ will raise him up at the last day.

We are born of the Spirit, by the will of God and not our own. We did not choose God. He chose us.

That is how I read the passage, anyway.

We agree. John is laying the foundation for this repeating theme of being “born of God”, which he will further explain in John 3 with the conversation with Nick at night.

More later

peace to you

 

[JesusFan]

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?

You do realize that there was a Baptist Confession of faith for those who see Reformed in the framework as baptists though, correct?

 

[JesusFan]

I agree with a lot that you say. If we discover a new unique way of understanding Scripture then we can be pretty sure we are wrong.

The caution is not to read other's understanding in order to adopt it (my view of the Atonement is the most common Christian view, but that does not make it correct....I could very well just have a lot of company in my error).

But if we continually go back to God's Word I think the differences between beliefs would be minor regarding major topics.

The danger is building on the understanding of others (or even our own understanding) if it exceeds Scripture. A little error may not be a big deal at first, but just an inch off makes a huge difference a mile later.

Your view of the atonement would be held by those whose Gospel is the free will one, or else the one of sacramentalism saving us!

 

[kyredneck]

12 But as many as received him, to them gave he the right to become children of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. Jn 1

21 But he that doeth the truth cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, that they have been wrought in God. Jn 3 YLT

He then says not of the will of man. The sons of God are not born according to their own will.

“But of God” Clearly, in context, he is saying the sons of God are born according to God’s will, not man’s will.

In the same vein as:

48 And as the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of God: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. Acts 13

 

[JonC]

Your view of the atonement would be held by those whose Gospel is the free will one, or else the one of sacramentalism saving us!

???

It is apparent that you do not understand what I believe. Rather than just deciding what I believe for me, and then fighting that strawman, why not take @canadyjd 's approach and we can discuss Scripture? That way our disagreements and agreements will become apparent.

 

[JesusFan]

???

It is apparent that you do not understand what I believe. Rather than just deciding what I believe for me, and then fighting that strawman, why not take @canadyjd 's approach and we can discuss Scripture? That way our disagreements and agreements will become apparent.

Do you hold that there is a wrath of the father that must be appeased and propitiated with by someone, and do you hold that one can saved apart from someone taking our deserved wrath and judgement?

And non psa are mainly those 2 groups I mentioned!