John Owen on Studying Scripture vs Studying Books

[JonC]

I absolutely agree with this. This is what I have been saying, repeatedly, over several threads:

"I have demonstrated before that all spiritual truth which God has revealed is contained in the Scriptures, and that our true wisdom is based upon spiritual understanding of these Biblical truths. It will, therefore, be granted on all hands that diligent reading of the Scriptures and holy meditation upon them, is of absolute necessity for all aspirants to theology. Sadly, although a good deal of lip-service is paid to this principle, daily experience will show how few there are who really apply themselves to it with due application and a correct frame of mind. For the rest, a neglect of this is not a drawback to their studies but rather a death-blow . . .

. . . Perhaps the excuse is that they have immersed themselves in the works of ancient and modern theologians, and so learn from these guides as they painstakingly explain the Scriptures? I do not despise such means. I applaud their diligence. But still this is not to study the Scriptures!
It is one matter to listen to these authorities and a very different matter to read the Bible itself after begging the illuminating aid of the Spirit, through faith in Christ, and to so meditate upon it as to be filled with that Spirit which indicted it and lives in it. What a difference this is to merely looking out through the eyes of other men, however learned and truthful they may be."

—John Owen, Biblical Theology, pp. 694-695.

 

[Van]

How do we determine if what other spirits are teaching is in accord with scripture, if we only have second hand knowledge? In order to be like a noble Berean, one must directly study scripture.

Act 17:10-11
The brothers immediately sent Paul and Silas away by night to Berea, and when they arrived, they went into the synagogue of the Jews. Now these people were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.

 

[DaveXR650]

I have read enough Owen to know that one thing he did not mean by the above quote is that everyone is encouraged to go directly to scripture and then come up with whatever novel theology they fancy. That tends to happen a lot. Owen dealt a lot with Catholic theologians who were quite formidable, not idiots, and in addition they had no problem putting church teaching and tradition right up there with scripture. He also dealt a lot with Arminians and you can read just how tolerant he was with their approach to scripture. If you are a person who likes to point out that guys like Owen lived in a different time and had different thought patterns you have to realize that this is true even when he says something you like. One of the absolute contributions the Puritans made to the world was encouraging common people to study scripture. But Owen would not have had the same open minded tolerance of different interpretations of scripture as we would expect nowadays.

 

[JonC]

I have read enough Owen to know that one thing he did not mean by the above quote is that everyone is encouraged to go directly to scripture and then come up with whatever novel theology they fancy. That tends to happen a lot. Owen dealt a lot with Catholic theologians who were quite formidable, not idiots, and in addition they had no problem putting church teaching and tradition right up there with scripture. He also dealt a lot with Arminians and you can read just how tolerant he was with their approach to scripture. If you are a person who likes to point out that guys like Owen lived in a different time and had different thought patterns you have to realize that this is true even when he says something you like. One of the absolute contributions the Puritans made to the world was encouraging common people to study scripture. But Owen would not have had the same open minded tolerance of different interpretations of scripture as we would expect nowadays.

He did have a different worldview. He was to the Church of England what Reformers were to the RCC.

And Owen was wrong about quite a bit. That does not mean he was less Christian, or not given by God to his church.

That said, his words are pretty clear. We cannot look at Scripture through the eyes of other men and claim to be studying Scripture.

 

[DaveXR650]

That said, his words are pretty clear. We cannot look at Scripture through the eyes of other men and claim to be studying Scripture.

That could be the reason most Puritan writing uses constant scripture quotations. There is value in that you have someone help you find relevant scriptures that you may not have known about. There is also value in the fact that because of the carefulness of guys like Owen you avoid a lot of the personal opinion type of writing you see a lot of now days. Puritan writing was almost like peer reviewed medical articles are nowadays so you have some discipline in the speed of new or novel ideas being introduced. That could be one of the reasons they wrote so exhaustively when they wrote. You send a paper out in 1650 and it goes all over and everyone reviews it and can refute it and you have no way of replying within the next year so you better say everything the first time and anticipate all possible arguments as much as possible. But to us it just looks cumbersome. When I first started reading Owen, or trying to, I did like most of us moderns do, I would look ahead and cut to the chase. After realizing that what he was saying didn't match what I thought he said earlier I would realize I had gone ahead and was reading his statement of what the opponent believed, not what he believed, but he wanted to be clear as to what he was arguing about. We don't do that nowadays. Anyway, to me Owen is the most difficult of the Puritans that I have come across, and that includes Edwards. I prefer Watson, Bunyan and Baxter for devotional reading. As you know there is another thread going on featuring one of Owens works and it has already pretty much devolved into name calling and insult. Someone had started a thread a while back about "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" and you could tell no one commenting had really read the work. I stumbled through it once and will not try again.

 

[JonC]

That could be the reason most Puritan writing uses constant scripture quotations. There is value in that you have someone help you find relevant scriptures that you may not have known about. There is also value in the fact that because of the carefulness of guys like Owen you avoid a lot of the personal opinion type of writing you see a lot of now days. Puritan writing was almost like peer reviewed medical articles are nowadays so you have some discipline in the speed of new or novel ideas being introduced. That could be one of the reasons they wrote so exhaustively when they wrote. You send a paper out in 1650 and it goes all over and everyone reviews it and can refute it and you have no way of replying within the next year so you better say everything the first time and anticipate all possible arguments as much as possible. But to us it just looks cumbersome. When I first started reading Owen, or trying to, I did like most of us moderns do, I would look ahead and cut to the chase. After realizing that what he was saying didn't match what I thought he said earlier I would realize I had gone ahead and was reading his statement of what the opponent believed, not what he believed, but he wanted to be clear as to what he was arguing about. We don't do that nowadays. Anyway, to me Owen is the most difficult of the Puritans that I have come across, and that includes Edwards. I prefer Watson, Bunyan and Baxter for devotional reading. As you know there is another thread going on featuring one of Owens works and it has already pretty much devolved into name calling and insult. Someone had started a thread a while back about "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ" and you could tell no one commenting had really read the work. I stumbled through it once and will not try again.

I love reading published debates from the 17th century. You are right. They try to be very clear and thorough. To us it seems repetitive but it was necessary

I also liked The Death of Death in the Death of Christ.

There are clearer presentations of Puritian theology (Joel Beeke comes to mind), but to b fair that is because of us and not Owen. We have to work through barriers that didn't exist for Owen's immediate audience (like writing styles, changes in word usage, etc.).

It is interesting to read Owen's arguments against Calvinists as we typically view his theology and Presbyterian theology much alike.

 

[kyredneck]

We cannot look at Scripture through the eyes of other men and claim to be studying Scripture.

Agree.

 

[Iconoclast]

DaveXR650,

I have read enough Owen to know that one thing he did not mean by the above quote is that everyone is encouraged to go directly to scripture and then come up with whatever novel theology they fancy. That tends to happen a lot.

Correct...that is not what he believed for sure. Some might try and give that impression in vain...

In the quote of Owen, we can see he put scripture and the study of it,first and foremost as did all confessional Christians

Notice how he put it;
. . . Perhaps the excuse is that they have immersed themselves in the works of ancient and modern theologians, and so learn from these guides as they painstakingly explain the Scriptures?

I do not despise such means. I applaud their diligence.
Notice he does not say not to do this...he says do not do it, without going to scripture first.
Some in our day do despise this, suggesting anything past 10 years old is not relevant.
Learned persons never say such a thing.

D650 said;

That could be the reason most Puritan writing uses constant scripture quotations. There is value in that you have someone help you find relevant scriptures that you may not have known about.

Of course most Christians understand this

There is also value in the fact that because of the carefulness of guys like Owen you avoid a lot of the personal opinion type of writing you see a lot of now days.

Indeed, they set a fence protecting much truth.Those who want to post novelties, must put down, Watson, and Owen, and Matthew Henry, Dagg, Boyce etc.

Puritan writing was almost like peer reviewed medical articles are nowadays so you have some discipline in the speed of new or novel ideas being introduced. That could be one of the reasons they wrote so exhaustively when they wrote. You send a paper out in 1650 and it goes all over and everyone reviews it and can refute it and you have no way of replying within the next year so you better say everything the first time and anticipate all possible arguments as much as possible.

Nice and accurate observation.

But to us it just looks cumbersome. When I first started reading Owen, or trying to, I did like most of us moderns do, I would look ahead and cut to the chase.

Yes those who lack the patience and wisdom do this, only to learn later they jumped the gun, and missed the real discussion.
Then when you realize this, you go back and right the ship.

After realizing that what he was saying didn't match what I thought he said earlier I would realize I had gone ahead and was reading his statement of what the opponent believed, not what he believed, but he wanted to be clear as to what he was arguing about. We don't do that nowadays.

Correct again

Anyway, to me Owen is the most difficult of the Puritans that I have come across, and that includes Edwards. I prefer Watson, Bunyan and Baxter for devotional reading. As you know there is another thread going on featuring one of Owens works and it has already pretty much devolved into name calling and insult. [/QUOTE]

yes they who cannot deal with the truths offered have to insult and put down others who have gone way ahead of them

 

[JonC]

DaveXR650,

Correct...that is not what he believed for sure. Some might try and give that impression in vain...

When people write something we have to accept what they have written as what they intended to write.

"I have demonstrated before that all spiritual truth which God has revealed is contained in the Scriptures, and that our true wisdom is based upon spiritual understanding of these Biblical truths. It will, therefore, be granted on all hands that diligent reading of the Scriptures and holy meditation upon them, is of absolute necessity for all aspirants to theology."

"…Perhaps the excuse is that they have immersed themselves in the works of ancient and modern theologians, and so learn from these guides as they painstakingly explain the Scriptures? I do not despise such means. I applaud their diligence. But still this is not to study the Scriptures!

It is one matter to listen to these authorities and a very different matter to read the Bible itself after begging the illuminating aid of the Spirit, through faith in Christ, and to so meditate upon it as to be filled with that Spirit which indicted it and lives in it. What a difference this is to merely looking out through the eyes of other men, however learned and truthful they may be."

 

[JonC]

Notice how he put it;
. . .
I do not despise such means. I applaud their diligence.

Correct.

This is what he says (the context):

"I have demonstrated before that all spiritual truth which God has revealed is contained in the Scriptures, and that our true wisdom is based upon spiritual understanding of these Biblical truths. It will, therefore, be granted on all hands that diligent reading of the Scriptures and holy meditation upon them, is of absolute necessity for all aspirants to theology."

"…Perhaps the excuse is that they have immersed themselves in the works of ancient and modern theologians, and so learn from these guides as they painstakingly explain the Scriptures? I do not despise such means. I applaud their diligence. But still this is not to study the Scriptures!

It is one matter to listen to these authorities and a very different matter to read the Bible itself after begging the illuminating aid of the Spirit, through faith in Christ, and to so meditate upon it as to be filled with that Spirit which indicted it and lives in it. What a difference this is to merely looking out through the eyes of other men, however learned and truthful they may be."

 

[SovereignGrace]

I know this is not John Owen, but I think it fits the discussion...

“Visit many good books, but live in the Bible.”

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

At the same time, he also said this...


"Give yourself unto reading. The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men’s brains, proves that he has no brains of his own. You need to read. . . . We are quite persuaded that the very best way for you to be spending your leisure time, is to be either reading or praying. You may get much instruction from books which afterwards you may use as a true weapon in your Lord and Master’s service. Paul cries, “Bring the books” — join in the cry."

So, I believe the best way to study is to use both the scriptures and solid reading material that pertains to what you are studying. I am studying postmillennialism and I am reading Days of Vengeance by David Chilton. So, good books supplement good studying, but they do not supplant the scriptures, which are what we are governed by.

 

[JonC]

I know this is not John Owen, but I think it fits the discussion...

“Visit many good books, but live in the Bible.”

Charles Haddon Spurgeon

At the same time, he also said this...


"Give yourself unto reading. The man who never reads will never be read; he who never quotes will never be quoted. He who will not use the thoughts of other men’s brains, proves that he has no brains of his own. You need to read. . . . We are quite persuaded that the very best way for you to be spending your leisure time, is to be either reading or praying. You may get much instruction from books which afterwards you may use as a true weapon in your Lord and Master’s service. Paul cries, “Bring the books” — join in the cry."

So, I believe the best way to study is to use both the scriptures and solid reading material that pertains to what you are studying. I am studying postmillennialism and I am reading Days of Vengeance by David Chilton. So, good books supplement good studying, but they do not supplant the scriptures, which are what we are governed by.

I agree.

The only issue (and what Owen was pointing out) is the distinction between studying through the eyes of men and actually studying Scripture.

The problem with studying Scripture and coming up with different interpretations is not solved by reading books. The problem. Is solved, as Owen suggests, by laying aside these books (while studying Scripture) to pray, meditate upon, and devote oneself to God's Word. The remaining wrench in the cog is ourselves (leaning on our understanding, our presuppositions, our ideas).

Another issue is many are not actually "well read". They read books that support the theologies they have chosen to follow without reading competing views. To be well read requires a greater focus on the opposing views than your own position. A Calvinist who reads Owen merely reinforces his position. But a Calvinist who reads Wesley learns not only about other views but also more about his own position.

The well read Christian can defend his own beliefs. He has worked through his faith and is entitled to call his views his own. The Christian who merely reads those who affirms his view is ignorant even about his own faith. He is indoctrinated, holding a belief that cannot truly be called his own.

 

[CalTech]

"We cannot look at Scripture through the eyes of other men and claim to be studying Scripture."

Agree.

Yes, all one has to learn, is what John wrote:
1Jn 2:26 These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

I have learned this the hard way, as a "babe" in Christ some 44 years ago about 2 months after my "rebirth" I got caught up into a "women pastor/teacher Home fellowship group and you could say a "community". Where several families lived in one old stone farm house.....there were many wonderful benefits in the "natural" sense, love, living close with other "believer's". However I did not realize at that time women were not to teach or have authority over the Body of Christ and particularly over men. Due to my ignorance I believed anyone mentioning their faith and belief in Christ was a true follower. Whoa, was I wrong!

I was given many books by Oswald Chambers, Watchmen Nee, Pamphlets by the "mystic Origen", "Manifested Sons of God", "God's Word to Women" by Katherine Bushnell", I also placed my trust and obedience, as the Lord's Word instructed me to do toward the "caretaker of my soul". I was there for a few years, but I started to question certain teachings and situation's that had occurred. Well I can tell you I paid a price, for my "Faith" was not being built upon the LORD, but upon the "pastor".

When the "Body of Christ" is NOT built upon the foundation of the Rock, the Lord Jesus Christ, it does not stand, it falls, and great is that fall. You can read what occurred with that "His Rest Christian Fellowship" in my blog.

I state all this to support what this thread is trying to state, when full trust in man and his understanding of God's Word according to their understanding is believed, there are terrible consequences that occur, and for a babe in Christ, it is a huge stumbling block!......
When the Lord finally got me hundreds of miles away from this group, which I now realize was a heretical cult, He started revealing His Word with Spiritual understanding and application all by and through the Unction of the Holy Spirit. I paid a price by following men/women to build my faith.
And now I am at a place, by the Grace of God, and His faithfulness.....to lean upon Him in all learning situations.

I do not read at this time any man's books, I stopped buying them back in the mid 90's. There are only two pastor/teacher's sermon's/devotionals who I do read, One is the writings of Spurgeon for the last 44 years, and the other I started reading nearly two years ago is the wonderful blessed man.....JC Philpot. and all of his sermons can be downloaded for free.....

When you have been Born-Again from above, HE keeps His sheep, and reveals the Narrow way in which to walk, and it is HE who shall get us there.

Php_1:6 Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:
AMEN!
Thank you for this discussion.....
The Lord bless you.....

 

[CalTech]

I would also like to quote what JC Philpot taught which is in line with this thread:

"1. Our first rule must be that the Scriptures shall be our only standard of
appeal, and these taken in their plain, literal meaning, without perverting or
mystifying their evident signification."

"2. All appeals to natural reasoning, as distinct from Scripture, and all carnal
conclusions opposed to the word of truth must be discarded, and we must be
content to receive the truth as little children in the simplicity of faith, without
attempting to comprehend what is necessarily to our finite understanding
incomprehensible."

"3. Knowing our ignorance, and that a man can receive nothing except it be
given him from heaven, we should seek the promised teaching of the Holy
Spirit, who alone can guide into all truth, but who takes of the things of
Christ and reveals them to the soul, and communicates that sacred unction
which "teacheth of all things, and is truth, and is no lie." (See the following
scriptures: Mt 11:27 Joh 6:45 Joh 14:21,26 Joh 16:14,15 Jas 1:5 1Jo 2:20 1Jo
2:27)"

"4. We must also have a deep conviction that nothing is more precious than
the truth as it is in Jesus, and be made willing to buy it at any price, and not
to sell it for any consideration. Whatever we let go, friends, wife, children,
house or lands, name, fame or character, we must never give up the truth of
God. To do so would be to prove that we never received it from God’s mouth
Pr 2:6, but were taught it by the precept of men Isa 29:13."

AMEN, and AMEN!
In His Love....

 

[Silverhair]

I have read enough Owen to know that one thing he did not mean by the above quote is that everyone is encouraged to go directly to scripture and then come up with whatever novel theology they fancy. That tends to happen a lot. Owen dealt a lot with Catholic theologians who were quite formidable, not idiots, and in addition they had no problem putting church teaching and tradition right up there with scripture. He also dealt a lot with Arminians and you can read just how tolerant he was with their approach to scripture. If you are a person who likes to point out that guys like Owen lived in a different time and had different thought patterns you have to realize that this is true even when he says something you like. One of the absolute contributions the Puritans made to the world was encouraging common people to study scripture. But Owen would not have had the same open minded tolerance of different interpretations of scripture as we would expect nowadays.

The use of commentaries and such is not the problem is it. It is when man relies on what other people tell him that the scriptures mean rather than taking the time and effort to dig for the gold for themselves. Study of scripture should be the first step not the second or third.

 

[Reformed1689]

I absolutely agree with this. This is what I have been saying, repeatedly, over several threads:

"I have demonstrated before that all spiritual truth which God has revealed is contained in the Scriptures, and that our true wisdom is based upon spiritual understanding of these Biblical truths. It will, therefore, be granted on all hands that diligent reading of the Scriptures and holy meditation upon them, is of absolute necessity for all aspirants to theology. Sadly, although a good deal of lip-service is paid to this principle, daily experience will show how few there are who really apply themselves to it with due application and a correct frame of mind. For the rest, a neglect of this is not a drawback to their studies but rather a death-blow . . .

. . . Perhaps the excuse is that they have immersed themselves in the works of ancient and modern theologians, and so learn from these guides as they painstakingly explain the Scriptures? I do not despise such means. I applaud their diligence. But still this is not to study the Scriptures!
It is one matter to listen to these authorities and a very different matter to read the Bible itself after begging the illuminating aid of the Spirit, through faith in Christ, and to so meditate upon it as to be filled with that Spirit which indicted it and lives in it. What a difference this is to merely looking out through the eyes of other men, however learned and truthful they may be."

—John Owen, Biblical Theology, pp. 694-695.

Now wait a minute @JonC I thought John Owen was "not relevant today".... Change of heart?

 

[Silverhair]

Now wait a minute @JonC I thought John Owen was "not relevant today".... Change of heart?

I am sure you agree with what Owen said and it just happens to be what JonC has been saying and has taken grief for it.

Do you not agree that "all spiritual truth which God has revealed is contained in the Scriptures,"

Or that for many men "they have immersed themselves in the works of ancient and modern theologians, and so learn from these guides as they painstakingly explain the Scriptures
It is one matter to listen to these authorities and a very different matter to read the Bible itself"

Would you not agree "what a difference this is to merely looking out through the eyes of other men, however learned and truthful they may be."

There is no shortcut to understanding the bible, you have to roll up your sleeves and dig for the gold yourself. That may and should include the use of external sources of information but these sources do not, must not, override scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Now wait a minute @JonC I thought John Owen was "not relevant today".... Change of heart?

Both sides of the fence, not relevant, but good to read, anything more than ten years old is no good, except for sometimes???

 

[JonC]

Both sides of the fence, not relevant, but good to read, anything more than ten years old is no good, except for sometimes???

@Iconoclast

I am not questioning your integrity as you may have simply replied in ignorance, or perhaps you were unable to grasp my multiple posts addressing the false accusation.

But I will explain yet once more, and I will call on other members to help what you may not understand.

Owen's books are not relevant today in terms of Practical Theology (I used the term "Applied Theology" also, explaining the meaning).

But we can gain from reading books from men like Owen, Wesley, Calvin, Moody, Spurgeon, etc. We can also study how these men applied theology in their day, what shaped their views, etc.

Now, I pray that once again having been corrected you will prove to be the honest man I suspect you to be.

If you still do not grasp the meaning of my words then just ask. Ignorance is not a cause of shame, but remaining ignorant once correct is. I would like better for you.

That said, even if you fail to grasp how a 17th century writer is not relevant in terms of Practical Theology today yet reading his books can be of value to us then just rest in the fact that this was my claim, therefore your reply is without merit (it is false) and preserve your character by refraining from even the appearance of evil (of dishonesty).

It is fair for you to insist Owen is relevant to Practical Theology today (and I would love to see that argument), but it is wrong of you to act as if I am claiming we gain nothing from reading 17th century works after I have corrected your mistake.

Christians need to treat other people's beliefs with a little more care than your posts demonstrate. That is a responsibility you let slip with your reply.

Again, if you find the concept of antiquated writings having value in one context but lacking in another then please feel free to ask for help. I suspect most members grasp the truth, so there are several that may guide you to a better understanding.

 

[Iconoclast]

@Iconoclast

I am not questioning your integrity as you may have simply replied in ignorance, or perhaps you were unable to grasp my multiple posts addressing the false accusation.

But I will explain yet once more, and I will call on other members to help what you may not understand.

Owen's books are not relevant today in terms of Practical Theology (I used the term "Applied Theology" also, explaining the meaning).

But we can gain from reading books from men like Owen, Wesley, Calvin, Moody, Spurgeon, etc. We can also study how these men applied theology in their day, what shaped their views, etc.

Now, I pray that once again having been corrected you will prove to be the honest man I suspect you to be.

If you still do not grasp the meaning of my words then just ask. Ignorance is not a cause of shame, but remaining ignorant once correct is. I would like better for you.

That said, even if you fail to grasp how a 17th century writer is not relevant in terms of Practical Theology today yet reading his books can be of value to us then just rest in the fact that this was my claim, therefore your reply is without merit (it is false) and preserve your character by refraining from even the appearance of evil (of dishonesty).

It is fair for you to insist Owen is relevant to Practical Theology today (and I would love to see that argument), but it is wrong of you to act as if I am claiming we gain nothing from reading 17th century works after I have corrected your mistake.

Christians need to treat other people's beliefs with a little more care than your posts demonstrate. That is a responsibility you let slip with your reply.

Again, if you find the concept of antiquated writings having value in one context but lacking in another then please feel free to ask for help. I suspect most members grasp the truth, so there are several that may guide you to a better understandi
ng.

JonC,
You are all over the place. When you spread your replies on 9 different threads, do not expect everyone to outline what you said where?
you also suggested Finney was a Reformed Calvinist, and the Y1 posted Finney in his own words denying that.

i mentioned Owen first, and you were all over it, as if i had two heads, denying i should read it at first, then when i called you on that you modified your position 9 times, to poetry, literary devices, good historyetc.
Then you came out as an Owen lover, then you said anything past 10 years is not relevant, you are all over the place JonC...go back and read your own posts for the last two weeks.
You think it makes sense, but if you took a poll on here regarding your posts, you might be surprised by the results.