Books, Context, and Value

[JonC]

On another thread @Iconoclast suggest I offer a poll to determine if my position is understandable.

Here is my position:

Christians can gain from reading the works of men like A.W. Tozer, John Owen, John Knox, John Wesley, etc. I particularly enjoy Spurgeon and Puritian poetry (and I have gained in the reading).

BUT those men are not relevant to Practical Theology, which seeks to address contemporary issues and answer contemporary questions relating to modern circumstances.

The reason I believe those writings not relevant today (in that context) is they are static. The writers are dead, and having applied Scripture to their circumstances they are not present to address, or apply their statements, to issues that are distinctly modern.

Now, I am not asking if my understanding is correct.

I am asking if you can understand that a book can be relevant in one context but not in another.

 

[Iconoclast]

On another thread @Iconoclast suggest I offer a poll to determine if my position is understandable.

Here is my position:

Christians can gain from reading the works of men like A.W. Tozer, John Owen, John Knox, John Wesley, etc. I particularly enjoy Spurgeon and Puritian poetry (and I have gained in the reading).

BUT those men are not relevant to Practical Theology, which seeks to address contemporary issues and answer contemporary questions relating to modern circumstances.

The reason I believe those writings not relevant today (in that context) is they are static. The writers are dead, and having applied Scripture to their circumstances they are not present to address, or apply their statements, to issues that are distinctly modern.

Now, I am not asking if my understanding is correct.

I am asking if you can understand that a book can be relevant in one context but not in another.

I was not asking about this question being asked in this way. The poll I was suggesting was do the readers think you went back and forth on this issue for the last couple of weeks, was you position clear, od was your position seemingly on both sides of the fence?

If an old writer wrote on regeneration, or prayer, A commentary on Hebrews, would it not be just as relevant and useful today as it was then? that was more the issue.

 

[JonC]

I was not asking about this question being asked in this way. The poll I was suggesting was do the readers think you went back and forth on this issue for the last couple of weeks, was you position clear, od was your position seemingly on both sides of the fence?

If an old writer wrote on regeneration, or prayer, A commentary on Hebrews, would it not be just as relevant and useful today as it was then? that was more the issue.

To rephrase:

I posted that Owen was not relevant today. I clarified this was in terms of applied or Practical Theology (defining this as addressing modern issues).

Then I posted that we can gain from reading Owen, Wesley, Moody, Spurgeon, Puritian poetry, etc.

Is this going back and forth, changing positions?

 

[JesusFan]

I was not asking about this question being asked in this way. The poll I was suggesting was do the readers think you went back and forth on this issue for the last couple of weeks, was you position clear, od was your position seemingly on both sides of the fence?

If an old writer wrote on regeneration, or prayer, A commentary on Hebrews, would it not be just as relevant and useful today as it was then? that was more the issue.

Would not theology, doctrines, and practices and principles gleaned form the Bible by gifted teachers be applicable, regardless of the date?

 

[JonC]

Would not theology, doctrines, and practices and principles gleaned form the Bible by gifted teachers be applicable, regardless of the date?

It depends on the context.

And even when applicable the godly teacher will point to Scripture and step.aside. John Owen was correct.

What the OP is about is context.

I appreciate and have gained a lot from Reformed writers. Part of the reason I highly regard many Reformed writers is I am familiar with their works as I was once a Calvinist. Ask such I identified with much of their writings.

But as much as I have gained from reading John Owen's, D. L. Moody, C.S. Lewis, Jonathan Edward's, John Knox, and Spurgeon in the end their relevance is limited. When we apply their teachings to a context foreign to their writings we are not really applying their teachings at all but using them to build teachings of our own.

We use arguments and ideas of godly men. There is a place for that. But studying their application and interpretations is not really studying Scripture. Doctrine should be based on Scripture, not on other men's theology.

That is why I can use Owen to make a point. He put it well. That said, reason I hold the position is not because of Owen's statement but because of passages like 2 Timothy 3. Studying through another man's eyes can be a benefit, but it is not studying Scripture.

 

[Reformed1689]

I am asking if you can understand that a book can be relevant in one context but not in another.

Yes, but the context in which you are using the argument for certain theologians doesn't apply to your theory/understanding/concept. (see what I did there?)

 

[JesusFan]

It depends on the context.

And even when applicable the godly teacher will point to Scripture and step.aside. John Owen was correct.

What the OP is about is context.

I appreciate and have gained a lot from Reformed writers. Part of the reason I highly regard many Reformed writers is I am familiar with their works as I was once a Calvinist. Ask such I identified with much of their writings.

But as much as I have gained from reading John Owen's, D. L. Moody, C.S. Lewis, Jonathan Edward's, John Knox, and Spurgeon in the end their relevance is limited. When we apply their teachings to a context foreign to their writings we are not really applying their teachings at all but using them to build teachings of our own.

We use arguments and ideas of godly men. There is a place for that. But studying their application and interpretations is not really studying Scripture. Doctrine should be based on Scripture, not on other men's theology.

That is why I can use Owen to make a point. He put it well. That said, reason I hold the position is not because of Owen's statement but because of passages like 2 Timothy 3. Studying through another man's eyes can be a benefit, but it is not studying Scripture.

Their application and principles from the scriptures are timeless though, as would be any insight into the meaning of the texts!

 

[JonC]

Their application and principles from the scriptures are timeless though, as would be any insight into the meaning of the texts!

No. Application by definition is not timeless. It is how Scripture is applied.

We do not have to read John Owen's condemnation of Calvinistic persecutions to understand persecution is wrong. We can know it is wrong via Scripture. Also, the Calvinists today are not actively persecuting others (with the possible exception of this board ).

That said, God's Word is timeless. So many of their ideas are also, insofar as they convey biblical truths.

 

[JesusFan]

No. Application by definition is not timeless. It is how Scripture is applied.

We do not have to read John Owen's condemnation of Calvinistic persecutions to understand persecution is wrong. We can know it is wrong via Scripture. Also, the Calvinists today are not actively persecuting others (with the possible exception of this board ).

That said, God's Word is timeless. So many of their ideas are also, insofar as they convey biblical truths.

What would be applications and principles frpm sctiptures that would not be for all time then?

 

[JonC]

What would be applications and principles frpm sctiptures that would not be for all time then?

Principles would be the same. Application would not.

For example, John Owen condemned the Calvinists of his day for persecuting the Puritians. The principle of loving one,'s brother is the same today. But we do not need to apply this to the Presbyterian church for persecuting Puritians (Owen's actual arguments don't quite fit universally even though the principle does). The application may not quite fit to address Puritian persecution of the Quakers, but the biblical principles does.

So we can learn from the past (obviously). But we need to apply Scripture - not John Owen - to the present.

 

[JesusFan]

Principles would be the same. Application would not.

For example, John Owen condemned the Calvinists of his day for persecuting the Puritians. The principle of loving one,'s brother is the same today. But we do not need to apply this to the Presbyterian church for persecuting Puritians (Owen's actual arguments don't quite fit universally even though the principle does). The application may not quite fit to address Puritian persecution of the Quakers, but the biblical principles does.

So we can learn from the past (obviously). But we need to apply Scripture - not John Owen - to the present.

Thanks for the clarification

 

[Iconoclast]

To rephrase:

I posted that Owen was not relevant today. I clarified this was in terms of applied or Practical Theology (defining this as addressing modern issues).

Then I posted that we can gain from reading Owen, Wesley, Moody, Spurgeon, Puritian poetry, etc.

Is this going back and forth, changing positions?

yes it is...i went back and looked
You denied things said in 4 earlier posts, you have been revising your statements
Extreme Posts Against Those who teach the Grace of God

Extreme Posts Against Those who teach the Grace of God.pt2

↑
JonC,



Here are the ones listed here, tell me if you own them as your quotes, or if you think I manufactured them?

1]JonC had objected
For example, many reject John Owen's "biblical" reason for baptizing people infants.
We would do better to turn to God rather than Owen.

2]JONC asked the question...why would we listen to a person who believes in infant baptism?

3]The writings of teachers from the past, like John Owen are not relevant today'

4]John Owen can be read as a literary device

5]reading teachers from the past ,does not give us godly wisdom
What we gain from studying those books is not godly wisdom. Godly wisdom comes from studying Scripture, praying, and becoming more like Christ.

6]A Christian who chooses to disciple himself on books as his teachers is a lost sheep, forsaking the flock and his role in the flock.

When we rely on books as our teacher we are essentially teaching ourselves.

7]Take John Owen, for example. A Baptist will not accept all that Owen wrote, but if that Baptist considers his books as his teacher then he is choosing what of Owen to believe and what of Owen to dismiss.[/QUOT

8]My statement is true - we should not extract teachings from those authors.

9]Is Owen relevant today in terms of theology? Of course not.

10]No rational theologian would think otherwise. But from a historic sense, and studying Christian history, his works are relevant.

11]Some (many) of Owen's topics are relevant today insofar as they are Scripture. But his opinions are not.

12]Theology is always current because it is the study of God by the generation in question.

13]Why should a Christian be shackled to Owen when we have God's Word (which never expires)?

Were these your quotes? Or did I make these up?

When you posted this, where was your original post on this literary device as t pertains to History?
I did not post any of that. Had you quoted me there would be a link by my name (after the colon).

I am sure you used some of my words in this post, but I am not going to sort through them to see what is mine verses what is yours, and I am certainly not going to search every sentence out to see the context.

The entire post above is your words. Some may be stolen from me, but they are yours.

#96JonC, Apr 6, 2022

 

[Iconoclast]

JonCModerator
Moderator

↑
Icon said;
That being said, are you suggesting a teacher today, or even you could not extract teaching out of books by Sinclair Ferguson, John Owen, Bavinck, Vos, Sibbes etc.
↑
JonC poted
My point is Christians should not be trying to extract teachings from the works of Owen, John Wesley, etc. We should be looking to Scripture.

One can extract teachings from the Book of Mormon. And, depending on your ministry, it could be a benefit to know what the Book of Mormon says. There are some things in the Book of Mormon that are true. But God did not give the Book of Mormon as our teacher.

Owen and Wesley were Christians (I was using Mormons as an illustration). And we can gain some insight of how they believed, the circumstances in which they wrote, their worldviews, etc.

But God gives teachers (real ones) to the congregations that make up a body (churches). There is a pastor (or overseer), there are teachers, and there are evangelists.

When you reply on the works of men like Owen and Wesley you are becoming your own teacher, your own mentor, your own standard.

A Christian is not a lone wolf but a member of a pack (a family, a functioning part of a body).

#17JonC, Apr 2, 2022


It is back and forth both sides of the fence.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonCModerator

↑SG asked;
Show me where Iconoclast has placed Reformed writings above and beyond scripture.

Show me where I said Iconoclast places Reformed writings above and beyond Scripture.

What I said was that Iconoclast has argued that my position that we are to test doctrine against what is written (the text) of Scripture rather than Reformed books is in opposition to God because God gave us Reformed books and they show us what Scripture "teaches" when "properly understood".

He holds a very dangerous and biblical position. I suspect you agree with him.
Again, what I said was that Iconoclast has argued that my position that we are to test doctrine against what is written (the text) of Scripture rather than Reformed books is in opposition to God because God gave us Reformed books and they show us what Scripture "teaches" when "properly understood".

He holds a very dangerous and biblical position. I suspect you agree with him.

But yes, Iconoclast has rejected Scripture in the way I define Scripture (the text of God's Word, "what is written"). He believes he affirms Scripture because he affirms what he thinks Scripture "teaches" when "properly understood" - God having given us Reformed books to tell us what the Bible really means.

#40JonC, Apr 2, 2022

Iconoclast DID make the claim that they were given by God to teach us Scripture properly understood.

Twisted

No. If you learned from the books then you taught yourself.

If books or authors teach them we definitely need no other teacher than God and His Word.

But God gifts teachers and He works in both the teacher and the pupil.

Too many Christians forsake the assembly....not that they are not present but that they are not functioning within that body. Christianity is not a solo event.

#65JonC, Apr 3, 2022

3 John

 

[JonC]

yes it is...i went back and looked
You denied things said in 4 earlier posts, you have been revising your statements
Extreme Posts Against Those who teach the Grace of God

Extreme Posts Against Those who teach the Grace of God.pt2

↑
JonC,



Here are the ones listed here, tell me if you own them as your quotes, or if you think I manufactured them?

1]JonC had objected
For example, many reject John Owen's "biblical" reason for baptizing people infants.
We would do better to turn to God rather than Owen.

2]JONC asked the question...why would we listen to a person who believes in infant baptism?

3]The writings of teachers from the past, like John Owen are not relevant today'

4]John Owen can be read as a literary device

5]reading teachers from the past ,does not give us godly wisdom
What we gain from studying those books is not godly wisdom. Godly wisdom comes from studying Scripture, praying, and becoming more like Christ.

6]A Christian who chooses to disciple himself on books as his teachers is a lost sheep, forsaking the flock and his role in the flock.

When we rely on books as our teacher we are essentially teaching ourselves.

7]Take John Owen, for example. A Baptist will not accept all that Owen wrote, but if that Baptist considers his books as his teacher then he is choosing what of Owen to believe and what of Owen to dismiss.[/QUOT

8]My statement is true - we should not extract teachings from those authors.

9]Is Owen relevant today in terms of theology? Of course not.

10]No rational theologian would think otherwise. But from a historic sense, and studying Christian history, his works are relevant.

11]Some (many) of Owen's topics are relevant today insofar as they are Scripture. But his opinions are not.

12]Theology is always current because it is the study of God by the generation in question.

13]Why should a Christian be shackled to Owen when we have God's Word (which never expires)?

Were these your quotes? Or did I make these up?

When you posted this, where was your original post on this literary device as t pertains to History?
I did not post any of that. Had you quoted me there would be a link by my name (after the colon).

I am sure you used some of my words in this post, but I am not going to sort through them to see what is mine verses what is yours, and I am certainly not going to search every sentence out to see the context.

The entire post above is your words. Some may be stolen from me, but they are yours.

#96JonC, Apr 6, 2022

You are wrong. I clarified my words. That is not going back and changing the meaning. I am telling you the meaning.

YOU did the same. Your words were that if a Baptist has not read John Owen he is deficient in thought. Later you clarified the context. This is not going back and changing the meaning but explaining the context of your words.

I know you don't see this, but the reason is you do not read posts here to engage your brothers in Christ. instead you read posts to trap and expose the brethern.

That is why you miss the mark do many times. It is why most often you are like Don Quixote fighting windmills rather than a brother discussing different views and interpretations among the brethern.

I can clarify my words and tell you what I mean. You can argue all day long that I mean something different, but that is a foolish thing to do.

 

[JonC]

JonCModerator

Show me where I said Iconoclast places Reformed writings above and beyond Scripture.

What I said was that Iconoclast has argued that my position that we are to test doctrine against what is written (the text) of Scripture rather than Reformed books is in opposition to God because God gave us Reformed books and they show us what Scripture "teaches" when "properly understood".

He holds a very dangerous and biblical position. I suspect you agree with him.
Again, what I said was that Iconoclast has argued that my position that we are to test doctrine against what is written (the text) of Scripture rather than Reformed books is in opposition to God because God gave us Reformed books and they show us what Scripture "teaches" when "properly understood".

He holds a very dangerous and biblical position. I suspect you agree with him.

But yes, Iconoclast has rejected Scripture in the way I define Scripture (the text of God's Word, "what is written"). He believes he affirms Scripture because he affirms what he thinks Scripture "teaches" when "properly understood" - God having given us Reformed books to tell us what the Bible really means.

#40JonC, Apr 2, 2022

Iconoclast DID make the claim that they were given by God to teach us Scripture properly understood.

Twisted

No. If you learned from the books then you taught yourself.

If books or authors teach them we definitely need no other teacher than God and His Word.

But God gifts teachers and He works in both the teacher and the pupil.

Too many Christians forsake the assembly....not that they are not present but that they are not functioning within that body. Christianity is not a solo event.

#65JonC, Apr 3, 2022

3 John

Brother,

I stand by these posts. I do not know what you think these posts prove, or how you believe them to "expose" me.

When we read books of men no longer here (like Owen's books) then we are teaching ourselves. A teacher is one who teaches. Teaching is not writing books, but teaching another person (mentoring, explaining, etc).

I admire your zeal here, brother, however misplaced. I only wish you would put the effort you apply to "exposing" the brethern with whom you disagree into sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.



So rather than trying to "expose" the brethern who disagree with you, why not just ask for clarification about what they posted?

Why not ask them what they mean?

Why set yourself against the brethern?

Brother, Christians disagree. So what? This does not mean the brethern are enemies to be defeated.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are wrong. I clarified my words. That is not going back and changing the meaning. I am telling you the meaning.

YOU did the same. Your words were that if a Baptist has not read John Owen he is deficient in thought. Later you clarified the context. This is not going back and changing the meaning but explaining the context of your words.

I know you don't see this, but the reason is you do not read posts here to engage your brothers in Christ. instead you read posts to trap and expose the brethern.

That is why you miss the mark do many times. It is why most often you are like Don Quixote fighting windmills rather than a brother discussing different views and interpretations among the brethern.

I can clarify my words and tell you what I mean. You can argue all day long that I mean something different, but that is a foolish thing to do.

JonC,

I do like when a person takes time to clarify what they mean, as I have no desire to set a trap for a "gotcha " kind of post.

Now that being said I am trying to get you to see what we see in how you interact with us,

Many times you take what we notice about you, then try and cover it by saying it is us doing the activity,
One of the latest things is...I said you were not clarifying but doing damage control by covering up what you said....
YOU HAVE NOW TRIED TO SAY THAT IT IS i WHO DID IT,LOL
WHEN I DID GO BACK A READ THROUGH ABOUT A DOZEN POSTS i SAW EXACTLY WHAT YOU DID.

POST 86 OF THE ONE THREAD SHOWS THAT i MENTIONED INFANT BAPTISM IS NOT A REASON NOT OT READ OWEN OR FERGUSON.
The context was clear. MM asked you to [post it,the link} you did not do it at first, but you finally did.
meanwhile you started 4-5 threads trying to suggest I said or implied that reading them is a litmus test. I never did that. I said a baptist who is not willing to read, BECAUSE THEY BELIEVED INFANT BAPTISM them is defective in thought.

At one point you said...why would a baptist read owen if he has that issue wrong, then you said something about ME, MM, and canady not being baptists???

Whatever views you hold, or I hold...this made no sense to me, and both the other men asked you not to do that.

Also these new threads present a whole different idea than the original posts telling me or suggesting I was not mature enough to read these things.
My initial reactions to your posts were based on what you posted. i did not fabricate what you posted.
If you had initially said, HOLD ON....LET ME CLARIFY, that might have helped.

Moving forward i am asking that you do that rather than take this course of action.

 

[JonC]

JonC,

I do like when a person takes time to clarify what they mean, as I have no desire to set a trap for a "gotcha " kind of post.

Thank you for your clarification, Brother.

It just doesn't seem that way. We often post and then have to explain what we mean. That's the nature of written communication.

That said, it does seem like you read posts in such a way as to "expose" or "defeat" the brethern. You latch onto something and refuse to acknowledge when a brother clarified his own words or explains the context of his statements. You accuse the brethern of denying their previous words rather than accepting their explanation of what they mean.

You do not like it when it is done to you, but you seem to be at ease doing it to other people.

Rather than trying to "expose" or "defeat" the brethern why not just interact with us? Why treat us as enemies?

Christians disagree. This is not hostility but disagreement.


Going with the OP (getting back to the topic) I can tell you that you misstated my position. It may be due to your misunderstanding or it may be due to my lack of articulation.

The reason does not matter.

What matters is I have explained exactly what I have meant, so no member has a right to argue otherwise.

If you still have any questions about my words, then please feel free to ask. That is how we learn.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

Brother,

I stand by these posts. I do not know what you think these posts prove, or how you believe them to "expose" me.

JonC..we should not post unless we stand by what we post.

When we read books of men no longer here (like Owen's books) then we are teaching ourselves

.

There are times we are in a corporate setting under a local church teaching.
There are more times when we read our bible, or a study book, commentary, or whatever when we are doing personal study.
Both are valid

A teacher is one who teaches. Teaching is not writing books, but teaching another person (mentoring, explaining, etc).

You might see it that way. Yes a teacher teaches. Now if I go sit under a teacher in person that is great. However if I listen to Steve Lawson do a thursday bible study, or a steadfast hope devotional doe sthat invalidate the teaching?
Geoff Thomas preached and taught for 50 years in His local church. They have made transcripts of his sermons and teaching, some have even been made into books.
I see no difference in the teaching, if I was there in person, or read the transcript.
I was not there for 50 years, but the teaching was still valid.

Geoff Thomas Sermon Archive
http://geoffthomas.org/index.php/sermons/

I admire your zeal here, brother, however misplaced. I only wish you would put the effort you apply to "exposing" the brethern with whom you disagree into sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ.

If anyone comes at me personally, I will respond directly to that issue. We all have good points and flaws.

So rather than trying to "expose" the brethern who disagree with you, why not just ask for clarification about what they posted?

I like to ask for clarification when I get that opportunity. When someone comes charging at me personally, I will defend. No direct charge, no need for me to go after the person.

Why not ask them what they mean?

I do

Why set yourself against the brethern?

I do not mind those who disagree, just will defend when wrongly accused. If there is no wrong accusation, no need for my response.

Brother, Christians disagree. So what?

That is okay, and to be expected

This does not mean the brethern are enemies to be defeated.[/QUOTE]

When a direct personal attack is launched instead of a doctrinal issue,the person shows them self to be an adversary, rather than a brother...they will be answered and brought down. No personal attack, no direct sharp response needed.

 

[JonC]

yes it is...i went back and looked
You denied things said in 4 earlier posts, you have been revising your statements . . .

3]The writings of teachers from the past, like John Owen are not relevant today'

4]John Owen can be read as a literary device

Brother,

I am going to use these two as an example of what I mean.

The writings of teachers from the past, like John Owen are not relevant today.

I did state this. And I stand by the statement. BUT you are ignoring the context I provided (a particular aspect of theology....the one those books engaged to their initial audience).

We have often discussed Owen and Spurgeon. We have talked about ways in which their works are relevant to our lives. I said Mortification of the Flesh was relevant. I said Spurgeon's Choice Portions was relevant.

But you continue by taking my ours out of context to use against me, to try to "expose" me, to try to "trap" me. This is wrong.

I stand by my statement that Owen is not theologically (applied theology) relevant today. Yet he is still relevant in that we can learn from his works.

If that does not make sense to you that's fine. You do not have to understand what I am saying. But your insistence that I have changed those positions is foolish.

John Owen can be read as a literary device.

This does not make sense to me. I told you if I wrote it or was in error (I misspoke). I still believe you inadvertently invented the statement, but it is possible I misspoke.

I asked for the actual quote so I could clarify in a follow up post but you refused to provide it.

It doesn't matter, though, because I told you it does not make sense (whether I wrote it in error or you inadvertently invented it).

You just keep setting yourself against the brethern, trying to "expose" or "trap" us.

Why not join us? Let's discuss God's Word and our disagreements?