The Value of Books

[Martin Marprelate]

It's there (hit the up arrow just past the words "Iconoclast said: " ). It is linked to the original.



View attachment 6052


I look forward to seeing exactly what you believe here (it will settle a little bet ).

It doesn't work for me. Can you not perhaps tell me which thread it's on? Then I can look it up for myself.

 

[JonC]

It doesn't work for me. Can you not perhaps tell me which thread it's on? Then I can look it up for myself.

Extreme Posts Against Those who teach the Grace of God

Post # 86

 

[AustinC]

Extreme Posts Against Those who teach the Grace of God

Post # 86

So, you're upset over Iconoclast's use of hyperbole?
I will agree he overstated in his assertion, but his point is that both Owens and Ferguson should be read and considered in matters of scripture and theology. Both are certainly better than whatever modernist thinkers you are being swayed by.

Iconoclast wrote:
There are no infallible teachers as God has put this treasure in earthen vessels;
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.

No one says they are infallible. Padeo baptists are Padeo baptists because they think they make a biblical case from scripture. Baptists see another teaching on it.
Because Padeo baptists are wrong on this issue, does that mean they cannot be correct on most everything else?

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

Certainly one is not less redeemed if they don't read the writings of Owens or Ferguson. But, they certainly could be helped in reading these two persons writings. They are certainly better than the non-substitutionary atonement writers you have latched onto. (No, I don’t believe for one second you came across your nonsense theology in scripture alone.) You simply ignore the entire Old Testament in your view.

 

[JonC]

So, you're upset over Iconoclast's use of hyperbole?
I will agree he overstated in his assertion, but his point is that both Owens and Ferguson should be read and considered in matters of scripture and theology. Both are certainly better than whatever modernist thinkers you are being swayed by.



Certainly one is not less redeemed if they don't read the writings of Owens or Ferguson. But, they certainly could be helped in reading these two persons writings. They are certainly better than the non-substitutionary atonement writers you have latched onto. (No, I don’t believe for one second you came across your nonsense theology in scripture alone.) You simply ignore the entire Old Testament in your view.

I am not upset at all. I have stated my view and stand by it.

Even saying Christians should read Owen is incorrect.

I am a bit concerned that you do not recognize Genesis, Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Proverbs, Habakkuk, and Isaiah as being in the OT.

But maybe you mean your comment as hyperbole. Seems a catch phrase for saying something that is not true. Like I said - "double-speak".

 

[Iconoclast]

@Iconoclast ,

Please consider your posts.

I have not disparaged Reformers. They were dead long before I was born.

You know that I have read and continue to read Reformed theologians and pastors (both of the past and current).

So I cannot understand why you continue with insulting me rather than addressing our true disagreements.

Do I believe the Reformers we're, for the most part, godly men? Yes. So we're many opposed to the Reformers and criticized then for stopping short in terms of moving from the RCC to Scripture.

Do I believe we can learn from their works? Yes. This is obvious as I have said so many times. We can learn from John Wesley,'s writings too.

Where we disagree is you seem to think that God gave Reformed teachers of the past to teach the church. What about free-will theologians that God gave to their congregations? Do you study their books? What about those who wrote before the Reformation?

You choose which books you want to read. But you often dismiss other God given teachers.

The problem, however, goes deeper. And that is the disagreement you are trying to obscure by slander, insults, and false accusations.

The disagreement goes to authority. Let's just summarize with Owen.

You and I both enjoy reading John Owen. You and I both find his books useful.

Where we differ is you believe God gave you John Owen's books as your teacher. You quote him as an authority. You dismiss some of his theology but keep what "tickles your ears".

I stand firm that foundational doctrine has to be written in God's Word (in the objective text, not subjective ideas about what we think is being taught).

What you are doing (your posts) are juvenile. They are not edifying and do not even come close to supporting your position. You are just having a fit ..an emotional outburst or temper tantrum. When you are done, stop crying, kicking the floor, take your fingers out of your ears and let's discuss the reasons why we disagree.

You are a grown man, a child of God, and my brother in Christ. Your behavior is beneath your calling.

Here once again you confuse edification with Accusation.I only discuss things with those who want to learn.

 

[Iconoclast]

So, you're upset over Iconoclast's use of hyperbole?
I will agree he overstated in his assertion, but his point is that both Owens and Ferguson should be read and considered in matters of scripture and theology. Both are certainly better than whatever modernist thinkers you are being swayed by.



Certainly one is not less redeemed if they don't read the writings of Owens or Ferguson. But, they certainly could be helped in reading these two persons writings. They are certainly better than the non-substitutionary atonement writers you have latched onto. (No, I don’t believe for one second you came across your nonsense theology in scripture alone.) You simply ignore the entire Old Testament in your view.

Notice Austin I address that padeo baptist's have come to the wrong conclusion on infant baptism.Then I point out that no one is infallible.Then I make the comment that was wrenched out of it's context that baptist's who will not read such padeo baptist's...I offered two names, could have posted dozens more, show defective thinking.
It was pulled out and portrayed as if it was a stand alone litmus test.
I stand by my post.

 

[Iconoclast]

That's not true. You often shift the focus and obfuscate when you get pinned. And you take advantage of the fact that the administration is old and tired.

Yes indeed...look how he shifted post 86, towards the end of this thread.

 

[Iconoclast]

JonC,
When you speculate as to if I am lying, write paragraphs trying to attack me and offer insults...do you really think we have anything to discuss?
I will only help you by pointing out your unethical posting.
If you stop doing what you do, you will have nothing to worry about.
I am not interested in what you think.
If I want to know what you think, I will post and say.....JonC, what do you think about this?
If you do not see me say that...I am not interested in your unscriptural thoughts.

 

[AustinC]

I am not upset at all. I have stated my view and stand by it.

Even saying Christians should read Owen is incorrect.

I am a bit concerned that you do not recognize Genesis, Deuteronomy, the Psalms, Proverbs, Habakkuk, and Isaiah as being in the OT.

But maybe you mean your comment as hyperbole. Seems a catch phrase for saying something that is not true. Like I said - "double-speak".

I mean my comment for what I said, not what you added.
In regard to the clear teaching in Exodus and Leviticus where the Old Covenant (Testament) is outlined and the foreshadowing of Jesus as our substitute is given, you simply ignore it. So, I stand by my comment that your view ignores the Old Testament.

 

[Aaron]

I mean my comment for what I said, not what you added.

@JonC

Everyone you interact with in the open forums testify to your dishonesty. I'm sure you kiss up to the admins in the private moderators' forums, but out here you're seen for what you are.

 

[5 point Gillinist]

Christians should read as much as they are able. 'In the multitude of counsellors there is safety.'
Reading older books is very valuable (cf. Jeremiah 6:16). John Owen is hard reading, but there are some excellent abridgments. To me he is, along with Jonathan Edwards, the greatest of all theologians. But of course, all Christian books have to be measured against the plumb line of the Bible.

Banner of Truth has published some of Owen's later sermons in their 'Puritan Paperback' series as Searching our hearts in difficult times. We have such times upon us right now and Owen's insights are as up-to-date as tomorrows newspapers with a lot more truth in them. The book was very reasonably priced and of such importance that I bought a copy for each of our church officers.

I quite like banner of truth - I've enjoyed the pocket puritans series, and have decided to but some of the puritan paperback series.

 

[JonC]

Here once again you confuse edification with Accusation.I only discuss things with those who want to learn.

The problem is you only want to discuss things with those who want to learn your opinions. When you encounter somebody that rejects your opinions you attack with insults rather than continue dialogue.

This gives the appearance that you are merely indoctrinated and cannot truly interact with Scripture (you hold beliefs that are not your own).

This is evident with your attempt to censure my interactions with your posts (don't talk unless spoken to).

 

[JonC]

I mean my comment for what I said, not what you added.
In regard to the clear teaching in Exodus and Leviticus where the Old Covenant (Testament) is outlined and the foreshadowing of Jesus as our substitute is given, you simply ignore it. So, I stand by my comment that your view ignores the Old Testament.

I know. But you are wrong. Those who disagree with you are not ignoring the OT. I am not ignoring the OT or the law. I just believe you have misinterpreted the majority of Scripture.

Our disagreement has never been about Scripture. I believe Scripture to teach what is written in the text. You believe Scripture teaches something other than what is in God's Word itself. I can provide passages stating exactly what I believe. You cannot.

You already criticized Romans 3:21 as being an error for viewing our salvation as being "apart from" the law.

We just have different views on Scripture.

 

[canadyjd]

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?

Again, I’ll try to be clear, though I thought I stated it plainly before.

The “defective” thinking is believing you don’t need to know how others addressed the issues in the past. I am certain, though I don’t speak for iconoclast, that is the point he was making.

Using Owens as the example; He is extremely thorough and biblically sound. The others you mentioned just as well.

The way to avoid error is to have a strong biblical understanding of the issues, that way you recognize error when you see/hear it. We can debate the nuance of certain beliefs, but the foundational doctrines are not in question.

For example, and I have mentioned this several times because I think it’s crucially important. There is a member here that has repeatedly stated “many people are saved never having heard the gospel”. Quite frankly, that borders on heresy.

This same member has also repeatedly stated that all they need is to read the Bible. IMO, his thinking is deficient, his understanding of scripture is deficient, his willingness to look how other Godly men and women have addressed this issue throughout history is deficient.

peace to you

 

[AustinC]

I know. But you are wrong. Those who disagree with you are not ignoring the OT. I am not ignoring the OT or the law. I just believe you have misinterpreted the majority of Scripture.

Our disagreement has never been about Scripture. I believe Scripture to teach what is written in the text. You believe Scripture teaches something other than what is in God's Word itself. I can provide passages stating exactly what I believe. You cannot.

You already criticized Romans 3:21 as being an error for viewing our salvation as being "apart from" the law.

We just have different views on Scripture.

Jon, you have shown, repeatedly, your ignorance of Leviticus and the substitutionary atonement requirements. You deny Jesus fulfillment of these requirements in his death on the cross. That is a fundamental ignorance of scripture on your behalf.

 

[JesusFan]

I accept Pauline Justification (if you mean the other dead of justification confirmed by Paul in his epistles).

The idea at the center of the Reformation was Luther's - justification solely by faith. And yes, I agree.

Luther agreed with Calvin though that it was Psa!

 

[JesusFan]

Again, I’ll try to be clear, though I thought I stated it plainly before.

The “defective” thinking is believing you don’t need to know how others addressed the issues in the past. I am certain, though I don’t speak for iconoclast, that is the point he was making.

Using Owens as the example; He is extremely thorough and biblically sound. The others you mentioned just as well.

The way to avoid error is to have a strong biblical understanding of the issues, that way you recognize error when you see/hear it. We can debate the nuance of certain beliefs, but the foundational doctrines are not in question.

For example, and I have mentioned this several times because I think it’s crucially important. There is a member here that has repeatedly stated “many people are saved never having heard the gospel”. Quite frankly, that borders on heresy.

This same member has also repeatedly stated that all they need is to read the Bible. IMO, his thinking is deficient, his understanding of scripture is deficient, his willingness to look how other Godly men and women have addressed this issue throughout history is deficient.

peace to you

All Christians, if at all possible, should have some grounding in historical theology

 

[JesusFan]

Jon, you have shown, repeatedly, your ignorance of Leviticus and the substitutionary atonement requirements. You deny Jesus fulfillment of these requirements in his death on the cross. That is a fundamental ignorance of scripture on your behalf.

I am still not sure his stance on Pauline Justification?

 

[JesusFan]

So, you're upset over Iconoclast's use of hyperbole?
I will agree he overstated in his assertion, but his point is that both Owens and Ferguson should be read and considered in matters of scripture and theology. Both are certainly better than whatever modernist thinkers you are being swayed by.



Certainly one is not less redeemed if they don't read the writings of Owens or Ferguson. But, they certainly could be helped in reading these two persons writings. They are certainly better than the non-substitutionary atonement writers you have latched onto. (No, I don’t believe for one second you came across your nonsense theology in scripture alone.) You simply ignore the entire Old Testament in your view.

Do know that he would not have found any of his views regarding the Atonement from a Calvin, Luther, Berkhof, Bavinck, Hodge, Spurgeon, Gill, Owen, etc!

 

[Salty]

Six hour warning -
This thread will be closed no sooner than 1 am EDT (Fri) / 10 pm PDT (Thr)

This thread is closed