3 John

[agedman]

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

I would certainly not make such a claim.

When one reads the greats, just by the esteem one holds, some error or overreach may be overlooked. I do not know of any writing other then Scriptures in which I found total agreement.

One of the habits that I had was, that when I would read a writing, I would make margin notes concerning the content not only to help track with the writer but to stop and consider Scripture evidence of support or not. It was a helpful practice to me.

 

[SovereignGrace]

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.

Well, the way I see this is this. Take for instance eschatology. This thing has given me fits since I was saved 15 years ago. I was once staunchly amill. I then leaned towards Historic Premillennialism. But Matthew 25 and Revelation 20 are two places that teach all will stand before Him in a general resurrection and judgment. I’ve now began studying Postmillennialism and I find much in agreement with it, but not fully there yet. So I’ve gotten books to supplement my study, not usurp the word of God’s authority. I look for men who are well versed in Postmillennialism and pick their brains as I study. And I figure this is @Iconoclast ‘s approach as well.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I would certainly not make such a claim.

And neither has @Iconoclast . They’re just purposely twisting his words.

When one reads the greats, just by the esteem one holds, some error or overreach may be overlooked. I do not know of any writing other then Scriptures in which I found total agreement.

Yes, we need to keep in mind that these men of God we cherish are still fallible. We all have our blind spots.

One of the habits that I had was, that when I would read a writing, I would make margin notes concerning the content not only to help track with the writer but to stop and consider Scripture evidence of support or not. It was a helpful practice to me.

Good to hear.

 

[JonC]

Well, the way I see this is this. Take for instance eschatology. This thing has given me fits since I was saved 15 years ago. I was once staunchly amill. I then leaned towards Historic Premillennialism. But Matthew 25 and Revelation 20 are two places that teach all will stand before Him in a general resurrection and judgment. I’ve now began studying Postmillennialism and I find much in agreement with it, but not fully there yet. So I’ve gotten books to supplement my study, not usurp the word of God’s authority. I look for men who are well versed in Postmillennialism and pick their brains as I study. And I figure this is @Iconoclast ‘s approach as well.

I think you may be right about this being his approach. And with some topics (like eschatology) this is needed to hold a firm position. There simply is not enough with Scripture alone to hold the detailed views we often desire.

But when it comes to foundational doctrines (doctrines central to our faith, upon which we build, and which influence so much of Scripture) I believe we have to stay with "what is written".

 

[JonC]

And neither has @Iconoclast . They’re just purposely twisting his words.



Yes, we need to keep in mind that these men of God we cherish are still fallible. We all have our blind spots.



Good to hear.

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

 

[SovereignGrace]

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

Well, if we learned from them then they have taught us.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

Maybe you could produce that post for us could you quote it so we could all see that post

 

[Iconoclast]

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

Very slick. S g catches you're twisting my words and now you go into damage control and you put closer to what I actually said still with a little twist but that's what you do all the time that's why you're a little bit slimy

 

[SovereignGrace]

I think you may be right about this being his approach. And with some topics (like eschatology) this is needed to hold a firm position. There simply is not enough with Scripture alone to hold the detailed views we often desire.

But when it comes to foundational doctrines (doctrines central to our faith, upon which we build, and which influence so much of Scripture) I believe we have to stay with "what is written".

I look at this…my last two pastors are dispensationalists. I wholeheartedly disagree with that view, but that doesn’t mean I eschew everything they teach. I love reading reformed Presbyterian writers, even if I am not a believer in paedobaptism. But after my study of Postmillennialism, I do want to study that.

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

I told you I didn't want you to post what you think I do.
you post what I said.
not twisted like you doing again
I've never denied scripture,and I never will
I always stand by the confessional statement of scripture in the 1689 the first part of the confession is that scripture is the Only Rule of faith and practice

 

[JonC]

I look at this…my last two pastors are dispensationalists. I wholeheartedly disagree with that view, but that doesn’t mean I eschew everything they teach. I love reading reformed Presbyterian writers, even if I am not a believer in paedobaptism. But after my study of Postmillennialism, I do want to study that.

I love reading the works of Christians - John Owen, John Wesley, John Yoder. All good.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I love reading the works of Christians - John Owen, John Wesley, John Yoder. All good.

I’ve never read Wesley or Yoder. I did read Prophecy Made Plain by Scofield.

 

[agedman]

Well, if we learned from them then they have taught us.

The problem is reading for agreement rather then reading for information. (I got it backwards in the original post)..

A number of students would run to this or that view because it was new or unusual to them, and they thought it would hold all answers.

You mentioned eschatology and the historical pre - mill has no problem with multiple resurrections. They understand that Lazarrus was raised, that the saints were caught up to heaven after being released from paradise, that there will be a reaping (catching up - rapture) in the future, and even a final resurrection of all dead at the final judgement. All these are found in Scriptures and are truth.

So, when reading from others who do not have such a foundational view, I always cautioned students to not be "carried away" but to mark where that writer relies upon "other then Scriptures" or makes attempts to mark as allegorical what can be taken as actual.

Prior to 1940's no one dreamed of whole groups having their bodies melt away before they hit the ground dead. Now we see it evidenced, and Scripture affirmed.

Prior to the 1970's, one would not perceive the ability to instantly video converse around the world. Now we see how global communication and world antichrist unification of religion, economy and government can become factual.

As one should and does read to increase the understanding of views even to cite them (as did Paul in his letter writing by quoting philosophy, science,..., I always desire that one not depart from the Scripture as the total foundational final authority.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The problem is reading for information rather then reading for agreement.

A number of students would run to this or that view because it was new or unusual to them, and they thought it would hold all answers.

You mentioned eschatology and the historical pre - mill has no problem with multiple resurrections. They understand that Lazarrus was raised, that the saints were caught up to heaven after being released from paradise, that there will be a reaping (catching up - rapture) in the future, and even a final resurrection of all dead at the final judgement. All these are found in Scriptures and are truth.

So, when reading from others who do not have such a foundational view, I always cautioned students to not be "carried away" but to mark where that writer relies upon "other then Scriptures" or makes attempts to mark as allegorical what can be taken as actual.

Prior to 1940's no one dreamed of whole groups having their bodies melt away before they hit the ground dead. Now we see it evidenced, and Scripture affirmed.

Prior to the 1970's, one would not perceive the ability to instantly video converse around the world. Now we see how global communication and world antichrist unification of religion, economy and government can become factual.

As one should and does read to increase the understanding of views even to cite them (as did Paul in his letter writing by quoting philosophy, science,..., I always desire that one not depart from the Scripture as the total foundational final authority.

I’m currently study postmillennialism and I want ppl who are well versed in it.

I want to study paedobaptism next so I want ppl who are well versed in it. I’m not looking for affirmation but to gain info. Even if I end up rejecting both, I’ve gained knowledge of their beliefs and why they believe what they do.

 

[JonC]

I’ve never read Wesley or Yoder. I did read Prophecy Made Plain by Scofield.

Both Wesley and Yoder are very good. I have not read (to my knowledge) Scofield.

If you have read much DL Moody he is worth some time as well. One of my first encounters was reading his testimony of the Chicago fire (which showed him an urgency his ministry was missing).

 

[SovereignGrace]

Both Wesley and Yoder are very good. I have not read (to my knowledge) Scofield.

If you have read much DL Moody he is worth some time as well. One of my first encounters was reading his testimony of the Chicago fire (which showed him an urgency his ministry was missing).

Now I’m going to have to add Wesley, Yoder, and Moody to my list. But I’m so covered up with books that need read, it will be later on…much later.

 

[JonC]

Very slick. S g catches you're twisting my words and now you go into damage control and you put closer to what I actually said still with a little twist but that's what you do all the time that's why you're a little bit slimy

Not at all, brother

I have not changed my opinion.

I believe when it comes to foundational doctrines we have to stay with what is written in the text of Scripture. The reason is these are doctrines that affect how we see other truths, and upon which we build other doctrines.

So I disagree with you insofar as Scripture teaching something in addition to or other than what is in it's text.

 

[JonC]

Now I’m going to have to add Wesley, Yoder, and Moody to my list. But I’m so covered up with books that need read, it will be later on…much later.

Oh.....he's not dead but David Wells God in the Wasteland. I've read that sucker 5 or 6 times.

 

[agedman]

I told you I didn't want you to post what you think I do.
you post what I said not twisted like you doing again I've never denied scripture I always stand by the confessional statement of scripture in the 1689 the first part of the confession is that scripture is the Only Rule of faith and practice

I agree, that Scripture must be the final authority concerning faith and practice.

Have we not all met daily those who would agree, yet give lip service to the application to their own life.

Perhaps the difficulty is that there is fear and perhaps a love of this life that prevents one from application.

Paul knew and had studied vast amounts of both sacred and secular work. He stated in Philippians a single desire:

I want to know Christ and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to Him in His death,​

There are many that want the resurrection, but cry out in dismay at suffering and shake when faced with death.

Oh, believers are to suffer, just as our Lord suffered. We (unless He catches us away first) will drink of that cup of suffering and death, for that was what He said would take place.

How then will we, who have such little opposition that few if any marks of the Savior are born on our body, be in awe of those who daily die for Him and stand with us at the place of reward.

 

[Iconoclast]

More damage control.
JonC says...as he defines it.
The bible defines that as talebearing