The Value of Books

[JonC]

Most of his threads are.

Except my "story" has not changed. I have never said that books are bad or that we should not read books.

I am, however, saying that a Baptist can be faithful to God without having a deficiency in thought without having read books by John Owen.

By supporting @Iconoclast claim you are adding to Scripture. We do not need to read John Owen in order to think properly. That is just stupid.

We need to read the Bible. We need to obey Christ's commands.

While we can gain a lot from reading the ideas and teachings of men God gave to congregations of the past, their words and ideas are not required to resolve any deficiency of thought.

You two are simply wrong.

 

[JonC]

I made no error. I agreed with the part of the post that referenced the way you post on these threads. It was a “winner”!

Iconoclast has explained in detail his meaning and intention concerning his own posts, which is obviously not what you keep beating the dead horse about.

Why not just accept his explanation and move on to something substantive?

BYW, thanks for explaining how to view the ratings. Good info.

peace to you

You are welcome.

There is not many ways one can take his claim.

Read it -

If a Baptist does not read books by Owen or in our day Sinclair Ferguson, It shows defective thinking.

How can that be misunderstood?????

What do YOU think that means?

@Iconoclast is attempting damage control, nothing more.
Everybody here has seen what he has been posting!!
When members called attention to it, now his story changes.

 

[canadyjd]

Except my "story" has not changed. I have never said that books are bad or that we should not read books.

I am, however, saying that a Baptist can be faithful to God without having a deficiency in thought without having read books by John Owen.

By supporting @Iconoclast claim you are adding to Scripture. We do not need to read John Owen in order to think properly. That is just stupid.

We need to read the Bible. We need to obey Christ's commands.

While we can gain a lot from reading the ideas and teachings of men God gave to congregations of the past, their words and ideas are not required to resolve any deficiency of thought.

You two are simply wrong.

I’m going to go against my own better judgment and respond to you.

The way I understood iconoclast remarks were that people need to read what prior saints have written. As I have said, the errors repeat themselves throughout time. It is rare to find some issue today that hasn’t already been addressed at some time in the past.

Owen is so will reasoned and thoroughly biblical that any Christian would gain much from reading his works, even when find you disagree with him.

And “deficiency” is found in thinking you don’t need to understand how the issues have already been addressed by Godly men and women who devoted themselves to understanding scripture and spent their lives in deep thought and fellowship with God.

BTW, why do you see it as a bad thing that he is seeking to clarify his statement? What he meant, according to his explanation, is not what you claim he meant. Judging from both of your responses (going right past each other) you both believe it’s important to read what others have written.

What not just shake hands, acknowledge you agree on some things and move on.

peace to you

 

[Iconoclast]

You are welcome.

There is not many ways one can take his claim.

Read it -



How can that be misunderstood?????

What do YOU think that means?

@Iconoclast is attempting damage control, nothing more.
Everybody here has seen what he has been posting!!
When members called attention to it, now his story changes.

That is exactly what you are doing
Lol.i said you were doing damage control..4x and now you try and do what I did quoting your posts...nice try.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I was going off your agreement with @Iconoclast 's post (your rating).

I would prefer the rating system go away because it would force people to express their views more concisely. BUT it is here and you used it to express agreement with @Iconoclast . If you thought he was in error then perhaps you should not have agreed with him on the open forum.

Don't blame me for thinking your rating his post as correct means you agree with his post. You read :


You tossed in your agreement. That is on you.

The rating system goes both ways. You rate. Members see where you stand based on that rating. Period.

If you believed Iconoclast had drifted from the truth then, as a brother, you should have reached out to him rather than supporting his error.

Where exactly is this post with which I'm supposed to have agreed? @Iconoclast has written

I did not say it was required reading. I said baptists who would not read a paedo-baptist theologian is why they remain ignorant of much theology and therefore remain ignorant and deficient of much solid theology. Here you twist it just enough to make it sound different. You do this all the time, so I will continue to point it out.

With this I firmly agree,

 

[Iconoclast]

Except my "story" has not changed. I have never said that books are bad or that we should not read books.

I am, however, saying that a Baptist can be faithful to God without having a deficiency in thought without having read books by John Owen.

By supporting @Iconoclast claim you are adding to Scripture. We do not need to read John Owen in order to think properly. That is just stupid.

We need to read the Bible. We need to obey Christ's commands.

While we can gain a lot from reading the ideas and teachings of men God gave to congregations of the past, their words and ideas are not required to resolve any deficiency of thought.

You two are simply wrong.

Except my "story" has not changed. I have never said that books are bad or that we should not read books.

I am, however, saying that a Baptist can be faithful to God without having a deficiency in thought without having read books by John Owen.

By supporting @Iconoclast claim you are adding to Scripture. We do not need to read John Owen in order to think properly. That is just stupid.

We need to read the Bible. We need to obey Christ's commands.

While we can gain a lot from reading the ideas and teachings of men God gave to congregations of the past, their words and ideas are not required to resolve any deficiency of thought.

You two are simply wrong.

No you're just trying to reword things and change it around and twist it as usual. I did show earlier this morning in a detailed post exactly what you do and I'll do it again later I deleted it by accident trying to add in something that I said the other day that you said wasn't true but I'll do it again later I'll take the time because everyone is noticing exactly what you do now so it's hard for you to hide it when we when I say to you 4 times you're doing damage control and this thread is another attempt at damage control You turn it around to all know hes doing damage to construct a whole trying to cover up the fact that you've been caught and exposed. What you're saying now is not what you said before and if that's before and it's obvious to everyone they read the other post you forget that but I don't I remember you said those things could you said most of them to me or Martin Martin and some of the other Calvinist on this board

 

[Iconoclast]

Except my "story" has not changed. I have never said that books are bad or that we should not read books.

I am, however, saying that a Baptist can be faithful to God without having a deficiency in thought without having read books by John Owen.

By supporting @Iconoclast claim you are adding to Scripture. We do not need to read John Owen in order to think properly. That is just stupid.

We need to read the Bible. We need to obey Christ's commands.

While we can gain a lot from reading the ideas and teachings of men God gave to congregations of the past, their words and ideas are not required to resolve any deficiency of thought.

You two are simply wrong.

I answered your post this morning that would delete it by accident but I will redo it later on and show exactly what I was saying.

 

[Iconoclast]

You are welcome.

There is not many ways one can take his claim.

Read it -



How can that be misunderstood?????

What do YOU think that means?

@Iconoclast is attempting damage control, nothing more.
Everybody here has seen what he has been posting!!
When members called attention to it, now his story changes.

Last week I posted about 20 posts using John c's words and he reacted against them he thought they were stupid and then I pointed out that I'm just using your words that you said to me and I'm saying I'm saying I'm back to you. Now imitation is the best form of flattery so I think John is attempting to do a similar thing trying to use my words that I said to him about damage control and he now is trying to say it's the same thing.lol

 

[JonC]

Te way I understood iconoclast remarks were that people need to read what prior saints have written.

But who decides which saints to read? And if they don't read men like John Owen, Harold Bender, and John Wesley are they really defective in their thinking?

 

[JonC]

No you're just trying to reword things and change it around and twist it as usual. I did show earlier this morning in a detailed post exactly what you do and I'll do it again later I deleted it by accident trying to add in something that I said the other day that you said wasn't true but I'll do it again later I'll take the time because everyone is noticing exactly what you do now so it's hard for you to hide it when we when I say to you 4 times you're doing damage control and this thread is another attempt at damage control You turn it around to all know hes doing damage to construct a whole trying to cover up the fact that you've been caught and exposed. What you're saying now is not what you said before and if that's before and it's obvious to everyone they read the other post you forget that but I don't I remember you said those things could you said most of them to me or Martin Martin and some of the other Calvinist on this board

This is silly, @Iconoclast

My position since (and before) I have been a member here has been that Christians benefit from reading books. But at the same time my position has been that the books we read should not be held to the level of authority you afford them.

Anybody studying theology should be familiar with the works of Karl Barth (particularly Romans and Church Dogmatics), Calvin's Institutes, Harold Bender, T.F. Torrance, F.F. Bruce, etc. Otherwise their education is defective.

But not to have read those theologians does not make one defective in thought as a Baptist or a Christian (it just means they are less than qualified in terms of theology).

My point is that YOU MADE A FALSE ACCUSATION THAT YOU CANNOT BACK UP.

I never posted that we should refrain from reading books. YOU INVENTED THIS. Such a post, from me EXISTS ONLY IN YOUR MIND.

The question is whether you are lying. I cannot say. There are conditions that could excuse your false accusations, and you may be blind to the fact you are slandering other people. I consider a lie to be intentional. I do not know your state of mind, your attention span, etc. So I give you the benefit of the doubt and refrain from make ng that charge. I can only deal with the actual words you post and say that what you post is false, and any member who has interacted with me knows it is false.

You may read books written by saints who have come before us, like John Wesley and Owens. That is not the issue. The issue is considering them an authority.

 

[JesusFan]

I agree with a lot of what you offer.

When teaching how to read Scripture I always encouraged people to read, prayerfully, study and form ones own conclusions. Then make sure you are in good company.

If you are a lone wolf theologian then you are most likely very wrong.

I just disagree with the idea that if Baptists have not read John Owen they are deficient of thought. That idea is pretty out there.

So if an author is old, then not worth ever reading?

 

[JesusFan]

I never saw a respected theologian claim that if a Baptist has not read John Owen it is a deficiency either.

He is an example, just like a Calvin, or a Boyce, or a Gill!

 

[JonC]

Where exactly is this post with which I'm supposed to have agreed? @Iconoclast has written

With this I firmly agree,

I think we were looking at different parts

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

If a Baptist does not read books by Owen or in our day Sinclair Ferguson, It shows defective thinking.

The comment had absolutely nothing to do with infant baptism. Infant baptism was not even a part of that exchange.

It was just Iconoclast added later to once again change his story to cover up his error. We have all seen this for years.

 

[JesusFan]

Let's just be honest here.
Most Christians today are theologically illiterate. To read Owens takes intellectual effort and most are simply incapable of the effort. This is true with other theologians like Jonathan Edwards. Instead, people gravitate to an easy devotional read from Charles Stanley, Chuck Swindoll, or Tony Evans. The devotionals fill an emotional void and are easy to follow.
The problem with such easy reading is that we aren't asked to exercise our theology. In becoming theologically out of shape there comes all these wolves in sheeps clothing and the sheep are too illiterate to even notice. We end up with emergent liberals like Rob Bell or open theist thinkers like Greg Boyd or fluffy nothings like Joel Osteen who simply lull people into a cozy feeling without ever knowing they are drifting toward hell. (Read the sermon to the Hebrews)
As to reading.
Go to the primary source, God's word. Observe it, question it, and interpret it. Then go to the great saints of old and see if they agree with you or if you have some wackadoodle thought that no one ever considered. If no one has that view...then I suggest you abandon it immediately. No one holds it precisely because it's wrong.
This is also where the confessions of faith come in. When we write out what we believe we measure it against the great saints of old and what they confessed. If we are confessing something never confessed before, then stop it. Go back and see what you missed because it's a sure bet you're dumber than the saints of old who wrote the confessions.
Ultimately, lone rangers today are simply arrogant people who imagine they are intellectual superiors to the saints of the past and foolishly pawn off bad theology as though it were valuable thought. A person who reads the great saints of old will recognize the puny thought of todays lone rangers and will call out the foolishness of said thought.

So true, many would just pick up Institutes and just refuse to attempt to read it at all, as to old, as per JpnC here!

 

[JesusFan]

Are you suggesting theology and doctrine changes?

that what was good theology back then is not any longer today?

 

[JesusFan]

I agree with a lot of what you offer.

When teaching how to read Scripture I always encouraged people to read, prayerfully, study and form ones own conclusions. Then make sure you are in good company.

If you are a lone wolf theologian then you are most likely very wrong.

I just disagree with the idea that if Baptists have not read John Owen they are deficient of thought. That idea is pretty out there.

Not just him, believe they were saying many older authors!

 

[JonC]

So true, many would just pick up Institutes and just refuse to attempt to read it at all, as to old, as per JpnC here!

Uh...you do realize that I have recommended actually reading John Owen and even Calvin's Institute....correct?

Why attribute to me things I have never said?

Do you believe that is how Christians interact with one another?

Do you believe it is OK to make false accusations against other people? If so, why? If not, why do it?

 

[JesusFan]

Right, but only one can be true. You stated that John Owen is no longer relevant. So are you saying he was in error? If not, he is definitely still relevant. Truth doesn't change.

JonC seems to be stating that we cannot read for profit any author not name in the scriptures then?

 

[JesusFan]

Uh...you do realize that I have recommended actually reading John Owen and even Calvin's Institute....correct?

Why attribute to me things I have never said?

Do you believe that is how Christians interact with one another?

Do you believe it is OK to make false accusations against other people? If so, why? If not, why do it?

You stated earlier that Owen and others would not be profitable to read with scriptures, correct?

 

[JesusFan]

JonC,



You spend too much time worrying about winner, or funny emojis. You said it was immature to use them, and you have used them several times, so do not worry about it.
...

I did not say it was required reading. I said baptists who would not read a padeo baptist theologian is why they remain ignorant of much theology and therefore remain ignorant and deficient of much solid theology. Here you twist it just enough to make it sound different. You do this all the time, so I will continue to point it out.



Sure...he has read your libel and twisting...he did not approve.


You are seeking to be divisive but no one is buying what your selling. Nice try JonC

We can and should read with discernment the likes of a Sproul or of a Calvin, or a Berkhof, as though some issues did disagree, still much meat to chew on!