3 John

[SovereignGrace]

That was an illustration. To rephrase according to your wording - a Christian is not lone sheep, but a member of a flock. The sheep may get lost (may be carried away by vain philosophies) but the Shepherd will find it and bring it back to the other sheep.

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.

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.

The Holy Spirit is our Teacher, but we have been gifted books to glean from. No one is eschewing the Bible for books. But we use books as aides to help us better understand His word.

 

[JonC]

The Holy Spirit is our Teacher, but we have been gifted books to glean from.

Scripture tells us that God gifts people to be teachers within churches. Do you believe this is true?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Scripture tells us that God gifts people to be teachers within churches. Do you believe this is true?

To quote Steve Urkel, “Absotoodleootly!” That’s why church attended is of utmost importance. But that doesn’t mean we should not glean from good Christian books, either.

 

[JonC]

To quote Steve Urkel, “Absotoodleootly!” That’s why church attended is of utmost importance. But that doesn’t mean we should not glean from good Christian books, either.

We should be able to glean from Christians...and their writings. I can read Owen, Calvin, Wesley, Tozer, and Moody and glean quite a lot.

But I have seen many on the Baptist Board who choose to disciple themselves on only the writings of certain opinions, continuing to indoctrinate (i.e., brainwash) themselves on the philosophies that influenced the writers.

More than not Christians faithful to Scripture glean from reading the works of other Christians who hold different theological views.

But that is not what we see with several on the BB. They seem out writings which "tickle their ears", looking for "experts" to validate their understandings. And they use these writings as some sort of authority in debating Scripture. They end up being carried away by the vain philosophies they seek out.

 

[Iconoclast]

"JonC,

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.

Some Christians actually do both...who said we should not read and study scripture? Why do you post this nonsense

 

[Iconoclast]

We should be able to glean from Christians...and their writings. I can read Owen, Calvin, Wesley, Tozer, and Moody and glean quite a lot.

But I have seen many on the Baptist Board who choose to disciple themselves on only the writings of certain opinions, continuing to indoctrinate (i.e., brainwash) themselves on the philosophies that influenced the writers.

More than not Christians faithful to Scripture glean from reading the works of other Christians who hold different theological views.

But that is not what we see with several on the BB. They seem out writings which "tickle their ears", looking for "experts" to validate their understandings. And they use these writings as some sort of authority in debating Scripture. They end up being carried away by the vain philosophies they seek out.

Another false caricature.

9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.
10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does,

unjustly accusing us with wicked words;

and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either,

and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

These missionaries and church planters were trying to help and offer teaching, he oppoased them then. That same spirit is at work here trying to turn people fron Godly links and teachers, saying they do not offer godly wisdom

 

[Iconoclast]

There is a difference between applying Scripture and twisting it to try to make an argument look biblical.

We have to look at what was happening in the passage concerning Diotrephes.

Diotrephes had some influence within the church and was hindering those teaching out with the gospel. The evangelists should have been able to count on the support of the church and the church should have joyfully provided for them.

We know Diotrephes was set in his ways, considered himself superior, and hindered the evangelists to the point he wanted to expel them. We do not know the exact reason.


Can this be applied to mean Christians who do not believe we should hold books as types of authorities for doctrine or supplements to God's Word are like Diotrephes?

No, it cannot because the idea that we have one source to text doctrine (the text of Scripture) is not remotely the same situation.

However, you exegete the passage and show us exactly how it applies to Christians that believe extra-biblical books can be helpful but should never be our authority of doctrine.

I look forward to your explanation.

WE KNOW THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF DIOTREPHIES.
That was not being addressed
Vs. 10 was being referenced to show you have channeled that same foul spirit he had in your posts toward others here, mostly the Cals.

9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.
10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does,

unjustly accusing us with wicked words;

and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either,

and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

These missionaries and church planters were trying to help and offer teaching, he oppossed them then. That same spirit is at work here trying to turn people fron Godly links and teachers, saying they do not offer godly wisdom, they are not relevant today.

 

[JonC]

Another false caricature.

9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.
10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does,

unjustly accusing us with wicked words;

and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either,

and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

These missionaries and church planters were trying to help and offer teaching, he oppoased them then. That same spirit is at work here trying to turn people fron Godly links and teachers, saying they do not offer godly wisdom

No, brother. This is not a caricature at all but an observation.

I have seen people on the Baptist Board go to their favorite writers, to books written long ago, in order to argue their position. I could offer examples, but I really do not believe it necessary. Most members of this forum have seen the same thing.

Christians of all ages have the same Spirit. John Wesley, Martin Luther, John Owen and Charles Finney were all God given teachers. And yes, we can read their books and see what they believed (and, perhaps more importantly, why they believed as they did). And yes, we can learn from these writings.

But no, John Wesley and John Owen are not teachers that God has given to us today. We have a very rich history of Christian writers and thinkers. But we also have teachers that God gave to His churches.

John Wesley does, as you indicate, offer "godly wisdom". But he also offers John Wesley. John Owen does offer "godly wisdom". But he also offers John Owen.

The standard of our faith is God's Word. It has to be. Otherwise we make ourselves the standard, we replace God by choosing which books - and which parts of those books - to accept as doctrine.

 

[JonC]

WE KNOW THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF DIOTREPHIES.
That was not being addressed
Vs. 10 was being referenced to show you have channeled that same foul spirit he had in your posts toward others here, mostly the Cals.

9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.
10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does,

unjustly accusing us with wicked words;

and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either,

and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

These missionaries and church planters were trying to help and offer teaching, he oppossed them then. That same spirit is at work here trying to turn people fron Godly links and teachers, saying they do not offer godly wisdom, they are not relevant today.

What Diotrephes did was oppose the evangelists that were seeking the support of the churches. He puffed himself up and hindered them.

Obviously that is not what I am doing by saying that we should not hold books written by Christians as "teachers" or as a type of authority.

Your application of the passage is questionable. A closer application would be that I am arguing against a Roman Catholic mindset of placing the writings of men on par with Scripture. Or perhaps that I am arguing against the practice of Jews looking to the rabbinic writings as a type of standard.

Regardless, you will never change my mind that God's Word is perfect and complete, sufficient for our doctrine.

 

[John of Japan]

We know what 3jn said was taking place at that time.
That was not the original discussion JOJ.
I had looked at the description in vs 10, and applied it to the activity and posting style of JonC.
The discussion about 3 John did not include discussing books.
No one suggested a book as the teacher.
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.
That was the real discussion.
No one set out to execute,3 John.
That was a twist from your pal JonC.

I certainly think things can be gleaned from the Puritans (Owen was one, wasn't he?), but to say that one cannot be erudite without knowing Owen is flat out ridiculous. I certainly hope that is not what you said. Please share with me exactly what you do believe about this. I was going by JonC's actual quotes from you. Did he take you out of context?

 

[JonC]

"JonC,



Some Christians actually do both...who said we should not read and study scripture? Why do you post this nonsense

Do you believe Christians should also read the writings of Pentecostal authors, like Gordon Fee (another of my favorites)?

What about John Wesley, or John Yoder?

I ask because you seem to have a great appreciation for Reformed writers, even though you see much of their theology flawed. But I have never seen you recommend a member read Thomas Finger, Harold Bender, William Estep. I've never seen you recommend Karl Barth (although his Romans was very influential within....and without... Reformed circles). I've never seen you recommend John Wesley.

 

[Iconoclast]

I certainly think things can be gleaned from the Puritans (Owen was one, wasn't he?), but to say that one cannot be erudite without knowing Owen is flat out ridiculous. I certainly hope that is not what you said. Please share with me exactly what you do believe about this. I was going by JonC's actual quotes from you. Did he take you out of context?

Yes... On a now closed thread post number 86
The first thread called extreme posts against those who teach grace

I was talking about trusted guides and i said for a Baptist not to read a padeo Baptist because hes wrong on baptism is to SHOW DEFECTIVE THINKING,TO cut himself short.
it's to be ignorant of a lot of truth that could be had because some of these men appeared in the past.
current men like Sinclair Ferguson for example hes a very good writer a communicates truth at a very reachable level And for a Baptist to ignore or despise him is in my opinion very Very unfortunate .
I started part 2 of a thread on on errors posted against the doctris of grace and I think I put the exact post in there or I will when I stopped driving but it was I think it was referenced earlier in this thread where it was post 86 and I had already said no I don't have to go with infant baptism but that doesn't mean I shouldn't read these men on all the other areas of doctrine.
I never said it is mandatory. Owen is a hard read, but worth the effort.

When I have had opportunity to teach in 4 churches, I.prepare a lesson from scripture, using a word study book...Vines.
When I put down my verses and ideas of what scripture declares, I look through Spurgeons sermon index...read the opening of any sermons on those verses.
Will check Matthew Henry, William Hendrickson, Jameson fauscett brown, Dagg, Boyce.and any other source if it is topical.
I have many times consulted and shared precept Austin and glanced at others who do not share my point of view.
So the repeated charge of me getting my ears tickled is just a personal attack as part of damage control by JonC.
We do not quite mesh, as you may have noticed.
I am quite willing to stand against others coming at me, but not when they repost and change the wording or in this case the context.
I do not post unless I can back it up.

 

[JD731]

I should start a thread with this subject, but the charge has been leveled here that scripture is not the authority for those promoting the books by Reformed authors and I am in agreement with JonC about that and much of what he says. I see the Reformed constantly failing to rightly divide the scriptures and it leads them into confused teachings from which they are not likely to ever recover.

Here is a bomb-shell truth. The redeemed in the church of Jesus Christ are not "sheep." The metaphor sheep is always and every time it is used in the NT is applied to the Hebrews. That is a fact one can check for himself.

Following is the last time the word sheep is used in the gospels of Christ and the only time it is used by the apostle Paul in the context of a fulfilled prophecy to Israel.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.
Ro 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

The apostle Paul writes the doctrines of the NT church and explains it. He used sheep one time and it takes two or more references to establish a doctrine.

Paul completely by-passes the title of Shepherd for the Lord Jesus in relation to the formation of the church.

The last time the word shepherd shows up in the gospels.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

The next time it shows up is in the epistle to the Hebrews:
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

The metaphor for the collective church of Jesus Christ is bride, one new man, a new creature. Christ is shown as being the husband of this person, (not the shepherd of a couple of flocks) that has been taken from his body and formed into his bride. See Eph 5.

Refraining from mixing metaphors is important to me but I notice it is not so much for the Reformed. Here is another bomb-shell. He does not say the gentiles are lost. He uses that word only once, in 2 Cor 4:3, and he was referencing the people he was speaking of in 2 Cor 3. Gentiles are unsaved if they have not believed the gospel of Christ. Words are important.

 

[SovereignGrace]

“but the charge has been leveled here that scripture is not the authority for those promoting the books by Reformed authors”

another unfounded, baseless, and without merit claim. The falsehoods abounding on here are appalling.

 

[JonC]

“but the charge has been leveled here that scripture is not the authority for those promoting the books by Reformed authors”

another unfounded, baseless, and without merit claim. The falsehoods abounding on here are appalling.

Wrong - that is exactly what has been argued.

When I argued against using Reformed writings as an authority Iconoclast said that God gave us these teachers and I was opposing God.

Any member who has read these threads know this is true. No amount of lipstick on that pig will make it biblically appealing.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Wrong - that is exactly what has been argued.

When I argued against using Reformed writings as an authority Iconoclast said that God gave us these teachers and I was opposing God.

Any member who has read these threads know this is true. No amount of lipstick on that pig will make it biblically appealing.

Show me where Iconoclast has placed Reformed writings above and beyond scripture.

 

[JonC]

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.

 

[agedman]

....the same Irenaeus that says Jesus taught for 15 years and was fifty years old when he died?.

Irenaeus dated the birth of Christ to about 14AD, and from this chronology some applied that Christ was older. He also considered that Christ was then able to empathize with old people like you and me. We now know he was wrong, though there were prof's back in the day that considered different years from 10 to 2 AD.

Trough various methods we now that it was 3 to 6 AD, and some hold to their thinking for various reasons.

Hope that helps.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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

When I quoted this snippet from JD…

“but the charge has been leveled here that scripture is not the authority for those promoting the books by Reformed authors”


You agreed that is what is being argued. You said that was exactly what has been argued. Iconoclast has never said reformed writings are the authority we are governed by. We are governed by the word of God. But things like confessions of faith, Christian books are helpful guides.

 

[JonC]

When I quoted this snippet from JD…

“but the charge has been leveled here that scripture is not the authority for those promoting the books by Reformed authors”


You agreed that is what is being argued. You said that was exactly what has been argued. Iconoclast has never said reformed writings are the authority we are governed by. We are governed by the word of God. But things like confessions of faith, Christian books are helpful guides.

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.