Desiring God book by John Piper

[evangelist6589]

Would say that all are really good, its just that Stanley and jeremiah write to a more "popular" general levels, while packer as a theologian writting!

I agree. RC Sproul is another rich one. I dont own any of his books but hear his podcast often.

 

[JesusFan]

I deny Limited Atonement for it clearly a false doctrine. Calvinist & Reformed always take us out of context and label us universalists. But I am opposed to that heresy.

Think part of the problem is that the doctrine has beeneither misunderstood, or mislabeled!


cals believe that the worth of the atonement of Jesus on Cross is infinite value, that indeed "All" would have been able to be provided for by that Act, that it has sufficient Grace to save All, but that it is effectual only towards the 'some" that receive Him and are saved!

 

[jaigner]

I agree. RC Sproul is another rich one. I dont own any of his books but hear his podcast often.

I enjoy very much listening to Sproul's radio program because he's a faithful Christian and a good scholar. I don't agree with him on many non-essentials, but I find his rigor contagious. He's a bit like MacArthur, but without the poor attitude.

Still, he's no J.I. Packer.

 

[Rippon]

Reading some older reformed books I'd say fall into a "hard to understand" category; (Owen, Edwards, Watson &c) probably making other reads not so difficult, and some other too simplistic.

I find Owen less difficult(not easier as such)than Edwards.

I can't fathom why you would say Watson is hard to understand. Are you speaking of Thomas Watson (1620-1686)? If one reads Godly Man's Picture and A Divine Cordial-- you'd find them written in a very understandable manner. His writings were not done in a verbose style.

 

[preacher4truth]

I find Owen less difficult(not easier as such)than Edwards.

I can't fathom why you would say Watson is hard to understand. Are you speaking of Thomas Watson (1620-1686)? If one reads Godly Man's Picture and A Divine Cordial-- you'd find them written in a very understandable manner. His writings were not done in a verbose style.

The point I am making is that the reading of these is much deeper and causes one to ponder the things said more so than Charles Stanley, among others. So comparatively my statement is correct. I assumed that point was clear.

I'd say that anyone picking up any of these authors after putting down Stanley would find the read more thought provoking, complex, more demanding and not as simplistic.

Forgive me for not grading each authors level of difficulty to meet your subjective approval. I should have offered an exhaustive analysis. My fault.

 

[Rippon]

The point I am making is that the reading of these is much deeper and causes one to ponder the things said more so than Charles Stanley, among others. So comparatively my statement is correct. I assumed that point was clear.

No,it wasn't. You said that Watson was in the hard to understand category. But thanks for your reinterpretation.

Forgive me for not grading each authors level of difficulty to meet your subjective approval. I should have offered an exhaustive analysis. My fault.

All is forgiven. Go and sin no more.:laugh:

 

[preacher4truth]

No,it wasn't. You said that Watson was in the hard to understand category. But thanks for your reinterpretation.




All is forgiven. Go and sin no more.:laugh:

Perhaps you should consider graduating from knowing what someone says to knowing what someone means?

Watson is in the hard to understand category comparatively as this thread lends itself to this context. But hey, I am glad you had opportunity to express your pugnacious and grandiloquent nature again. Congrats. :thumbsup:

 

[John of Japan]

I agree. RC Sproul is another rich one. I dont own any of his books but hear his podcast often.

A close friend gave me a Kindle Fire for my birthday. Sproul on Holiness is free for a Kindle, and I'm reading it now. Kind of a different approach, but good.

Like, you, I have poor eyes and don't read books on the PC, but my Kindle is backlit and the font size can be increased, so you might want to consider one. The wife likes it because I can read in bed with the lights out. :type:

 

[Rippon]

Perhaps you should consider graduating from knowing what someone says to knowing what someone means?

Perhaps. You need to be translated.:laugh:

I am glad you had opportunity to express your pugnacious and grandiloquent nature again. Congrats.

Whoa there. Hold those horses. You aren't sounding too Puritan in your castigations (to satisfy your grandiloquent charge).

When you lump Watson in with the writings of Edwards and Owen in a hard to understand category;you are making a categorical error. It tells me that you just arbitrarily tossed his name into the mix as a fellow Puritan (even though Edwards wasn't from that period). Charnock or Goodwin could be placed in the hard to understand column --but certainly not Watson.

Those who read Stanley would not find it difficult to understand Watson. The latter is much more edifying and biblical truth is found in just about every phrase -- but reading Watson would not be a chore compared with the likes of Edwards and Owen.