World 3:16

[Dave G]

Christians do not need to read John Murray. Christians need to read God's Word.

Well said, sir.

I am not saying reading these men are bad. But in the end you have chosen Murray, Pink, and Gill over Moody, Wright, and Wesley.

Do you understand why he agrees with what they write, versus the bolded?

Do not elevate these writings to the level of Scripture as if God uses Murray and not men like Billy Graham or Tozer.

I don't think he's doing that.

However, that is why I do not quote men's writings and why I have abandoned commentaries and such.
In fact, I own no other books about Scripture aside from the Bible itself.

Those men are right and wrong. They are subjective.

That depends on the audience, Jon.
But at the end of the day, Scripture is right and all men are wrong.

"Let God be true, and every man a liar."

Preaching by any man should turn the ears of the listener back to what God's word actually says, not what we may want it to say.

 

[Dave G]

No purpose. I just thought it was funny.

I thought it was ill-placed and did not show respect to a fellow professing believer.
I also realize that not everything one person holds as serious, is held by others in equal seriousness.

But...could you maybe not use things like that in the future?
It appeared to be poking fun at him, and I don't think any of us should be doing that to one another...
no matter how much we disagree with a particular belief or point of contention.

In case any of the readers here think I'm favoring one side, I have the same attitude about "Calvinists" resorting to mocking their opponents, as well.

Let's all determine to be void of offense, towards both God and man, shall we?

 

[JonC]

Well said, sir.

Do you understand why he agrees with what they write, versus the bolded?

I don't think he's doing that.

However, that is why I do not quote men's writings and why I have abandoned commentaries and such.
In fact, I own no other books about Scripture aside from the Bible itself.

That depends on the audience, Jon.
But at the end of the day, Scripture is right and all men are wrong.

"Let God be true, and every man a liar."

Preaching by any man should turn the ears of the listener back to what God's word actually says, not what we want it to say.

I do understand why he agrees with their writings. As a Christian I can normally find things in all of those people mentioned to agree with. But I understand that we tend to trust the teachings of those who hold our ideas.

But Christians do not need to read John Murray any more than they need to read John Wesley (Christians can benefit from both).

I disagree with your assessment that he is not elevating the writings of these men to the level of Scripture. But that is based on conversations where he defended following those he likes as God has given them as our teachers. I do not know that I would come to that conclusion based only on this thread, so please take my conclusion with a grain of salt.

 

[JonC]

I thought it was ill-placed and did not show respect to a fellow professing believer.

Could you maybe not use things like that in the future?
It appeared to be poking fun at him, and I don't think any of us should be doing that to one another...
no matter how much we disagree with a particular belief or point of contention.

In case any of the readers here think I'm favoring one side, I have the same attitude about "Calvinists" resorting to mocking their opponents, as well.

Let's all determine to be void of offense, towards both God and man, shall we?

Perhaps. That is, however, my sense of humor. The reply is directed to what he posted, not to him personally. As far as respecting him or his method of study, I plead ambivalence.

It was tongue in cheek as he just insulted @InTheLight and then calls him "friend" as if that word excuses his behavior.

 

[Dave G]

I disagree with your assessment that he is not elevating the writings of these men to the level of Scripture.

I'll put it another way, then.

In the past I've found myself making use of a term some would call, "eating the meat and spitting out the bones", or "keeping the wheat and throwing away the chaff" when it comes to what men write about the Bible.
On certain subjects, I've found where I agree right down the line with an author on say, how salvation works, but when it comes to other subjects, I disagree.
So, what I think is going on, is that Icon is simply using some of the men he agrees with to echo his own thoughts on a given subject, when he may not feel it necessary to state it better himself.

But to arrive at the truth of this, you'd have to ask him.

To me, there's a fine line between using commentaries to define one's beliefs, and using them to echo ones own thoughts.

It was tongue in cheek as he just insulted @InTheLight and then calls him "friend".

I spoke with him on the phone at length last night.

Over the years, I've found that it's easy to get impatient or take offense at someone that we disagree with...

But in the conversation we had, I did not get the impression that when Icon calls someone "friend", he means it in anything less than a friendly way, despite the impression given on a forum...
Where body language, vocal tone and other indicators are not present and can be used to help determine if one is truly insulting or not.

 

[JonC]

I'll put it another way, then.

In the past I've found myself making use of a term some would call, "eating the meat and spitting out the bones", or "keeping the wheat and throwing away the chaff" when it comes to what men write about the Bible.
On certain subjects, I've found where I agree right down the line with an author on say, how salvation works, but when it comes to other subjects, I disagree.
So, what I think is going on, is that Icon is simply using some of the men he agrees with to echo his own thoughts, when he may not be able to state it in a better way.

But to arrive at the truth of this, you'd have to ask him.

To me, there's a fine line between using commentaries to define one's beliefs, and using them to echo ones own thoughts.

I spoke with him on the phone at length last night.

Yes, it's easy to get impatient of take offense at someone we disagree with...
But in the conversation we had, I did not get the impression that when Icon calls someone "friend", he means it in anything less than a friendly way, despite the impression given on a forum...
Where body language, vocal tone and other indicators are not present and can be used to help determine if one is truly insulting or not.

He has called me "friend", yet look at how he has addressed me on this thread. I did not insult him (except if you consider the pic an insult, but I did not mean it that way). I kindly disagree with your discernment about Iconoclast.

There is a fine line between using men who articulate your position well to echo your view and deriving your view from those men. After many conversations I disagree with your assessment.

I have no desire to talk about Iconoclast. You are an intelligent man and can no doubt read through this thread and discern that I have been careful not to engage him in kind. I will leave it at that.

To clarify, my post of The Godfather was meant in jest.

I do not believe we need to read commentaries, although they can be useful (and they can be destructive).

 

[Dave G]

Reading posts on this section of the BB there seems to be the idea that people band together in camps rather than unite in Christ.

I agree.

But there are actual reasons for banding together in camps.
Some of them are due to doctrinal differences that really, in all honesty, cannot ever be reconciled.
Those doctrinal differences will always divide us, as much as we may wish it not to be so.

I think we both know where those doctrinal differences come from, as well...
How one person understands the Scriptures, versus another.

This isn't anything new, Jon, and sadly, it will keep going until He comes again... as long as people take a stand on what they see the Scriptures teaching.

Good afternoon to you.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Why? We have the Scriptures. Do we need to rely on men like John Murray, or whatever Confession fits our camp?

How can we say Scripture is enough if every thread we depend on the teachings of men about Scripture above the Bible itself?

We need to read as much as we can of all reputable theologians. 'The words of the wise are like goads, their collected sayings like firmly embedded nails - given by one shepherd.; they are given by one Shepherd.'
I find it very frustrating when people talk out of both sides of their mouth over this; one moment decrying all reading outside the Bible, the next denying a Biblical teaching because they think the Church Fathers did not teach it, and then presenting some 'expert' or other to contradict a teaching that they themselves cannot disprove.

Read, brothers! Read all you can, but call no man master. Be careful what you receive for truth. I find John Murray very difficult to read, his style is difficult, but he repays the effort with interest.

 

[JonC]

I agree.

But there are actual reasons for banding together in camps.
Some of them are due to doctrinal differences that really, in all honesty, cannot ever be reconciled.
Those doctrinal differences will always divide us, as much as we may wish it not to be so.

I think we both know where those doctrinal differences come from, as well...
How one person understands the Scriptures, versus another.

This isn't anything new, Jon, and sadly, it will keep going until He comes again... as long as people take a stand on what they see the Scriptures teaching.

Good afternoon to you.

Spurgeon once spoke about the benefit of Christian sects in bringing out a better truth to the whole (some focus on the will of men, others on the will of God). I agree with him on that point.

What I disagree with is dividing into camps to fight against other believers. It may be a small difference, but where banding together on common understandings to serve God is good, what I often see is Christians coming together to belittle other Christians. The latter is, I believe, a sin.

 

[JonC]

I find it very frustrating when people talk out of both sides of their mouth over this; ..

As do I. I have seen people claim the "five Solas" with their fingers crossed. But I recommend Murray, Spurgeon, N. T. Wright, Moody, Wesley and so many more men God has used for the Kingdom.

As @Dave Gilbert said, eat the meat and spit out the bones. Being that we are all human there will be bones (some more boney than others). If you can find none then proceed with caution.

But there are no bones in Scripture. It is all meat.

There is a proper place for commentary and confessions.

The problem comes in when people use commentary to defend their position. The usefulness of teachers is to teach, not to be memorized and regurgitated. Learn and work out our beliefs - but let them be our beliefs, not borrowed words from other men.

When we argue we have to base our argument on Scripture. If I argue Calvinism is correct based in Spurgeon to someone who is not a Calvinist and rejects Spurgeon then my argument falls on deaf ears.

But I can argue Calvinism based on Scripture, perhaps using things I learned from Spurgeon, because the non-Calvinist and I have Scripture itself in common.

What I am saying is we can reason over Scripture in a way we cannot over John Murray.

And always look to Scripture over commentary.

 

[JonC]

"World" in John 3:16 means mankind as a whole.

The reason is that we cannot divorce the verse from the Gospel (chapter and verse divisions were given later).

The "world" which rejected Christ is the "world" that God in His love sent His Son.

The "whosoever" part of the passage indicates not all of this "world" would believe and have everlasting life.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The problem comes in when people use commentary to defend their position.

I don't see it as a problem at all. It can be very helpful.

The usefulness of teachers is to teach, not to be memorized and regurgitated. Learn and work out our beliefs - but let them be our beliefs, not borrowed words from other men.

This is obviously true. But when someone quotes from a Confession, you know where they stand. Too often people claim to believe 'just the Bible' but they twist it to suit their own prejudices.

When we argue we have to base our argument on Scripture. If I argue Calvinism is correct based in Spurgeon to someone who is not a Calvinist and rejects Spurgeon then my argument falls on deaf ears.

Spurgeon is great to give to a non-Calvinist in my experience. He is very winsome and Biblical. Give him to non'Christians too!

But I can argue Calvinism based on Scripture, perhaps using things I learned from Spurgeon, because the non-Calvinist and I have Scripture itself in common.

What I am saying is we can reason over Scripture in a way we cannot over John Murray.

I can reason over Murray. Some years ago, someone gave me a booklet by Murray promoting infant baptism. I was able to take it home and study it, and reply to it point by point.

And always look to Scripture over commentary.

Certainly compare any human document to the Scriptures, but the Confessions are hugely helpful in understanding what the Scriptures are actually saying. Where some Presbyterians go wrong is that they cite the WCF as if it were Scripture. I haven't seen anybody on this forum doing that.

Anyway, I hope @Iconoclast will continue to post extracts from old writers and from the various confessions. If people don't like them they don't have to read them, but I find them interesting and, often, very beneficial.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

"World" in John 3:16 means mankind as a whole.

The reason is that we cannot divorce the verse from the Gospel (chapter and verse divisions were given later).

The "world" which rejected Christ is the "world" that God in His love sent His Son.

The "whosoever" part of the passage indicates not all of this "world" would believe and have everlasting life.

As you have written this, it is a non sequitur. Mankind as a whole did not reject Christ or there would be no one saved.
The Gospel goes out to the whole world, but God gave His Son for the whosoevers.

 

[JonC]

I don't see it as a problem at all. It can be very helpful.

This is obviously true. But when someone quotes from a Confession, you know where they stand. Too often people claim to believe 'just the Bible' but they twist it to suit their own prejudices.

Spurgeon is great to give to a non-Calvinist in my experience. He is very winsome and Biblical. Give him to non'Christians too!

I can reason over Murray. Some years ago, someone gave me a booklet by Murray promoting infant baptism. I was able to take it home and study it, and reply to it point by point.
Certainly compare any human document to the Scriptures, but the Confessions are hugely helpful in understanding what the Scriptures are actually saying. Where some Presbyterians go wrong is that they cite the WCF as if it were Scripture. I haven't seen anybody on this forum doing that.

Anyway, I hope @Iconoclast will continue to post extracts from old writers and from the various confessions. If people don't like them they don't have to read them, but I find them interesting and, often, very beneficial.

I disagree. I believe were I to provide N. T. Wright or Karl Barth to defend my view rather than reasoning through Scripture many here would not consider the defense relevant because they reject the theology of the commentators. In fact, I know this to be true based on other threads.

When you use commentaries from men to defend your position against others who believe those men have poor theology your "argument" is lost before it is considered - if it is ever considered).

More than that, Scripture tells us we are given teachers BUT we are to defend our faith rather than expecting the writings of men we choose to study to defend our position for us.

 

[JonC]

As you have written this, it is a non sequitur. Mankind as a whole did not reject Christ or there would be no one saved.
The Gospel goes out to the whole world, but God gave His Son for the whosoevers.

I disagree. I believe John's use of world is fairly obvious and refers to all of mankind. We're Jesus not to say "whosoever believes in me" then it could be questionable, but that qualification excludes limiting the world to a specific group and John's comments in chapter 1 exclude limiting world to the Jews.

Did you miss the "whosoever" part or are you rejecting this as God's love for mankind (I am not following your thought process here)?

Who do you think the "whosoever" speaks of negatively (those in the world who do not believe)?

 

[JonC]

Anyway, I hope @Iconoclast will continue to post extracts from old writers and from the various confessions. If people don't like them they don't have to read them, but I find them interesting and, often, very beneficial.

By that standard I should also be posting pages and pages of competing commentary.

Or do you mean just the commentaries you personally agree with?

 

[JonC]

κόσμος can mean the whole universe, the place where humans live, the world of man compared to heaven, or “all humans without distinction or exception”. In John 3:16 it means “all humans without distinction or exception” because Murray Harris wrote it in a book.


Now that that’s settled, it’s probably time to close this thread and move on to another topic we can look up in a commentary.

 

[JonC]

And once again can you show where I posted in my own words not to read scripture?

Can you show where professor Murray says do not read scripture?

Could you show a puritan who suggests such nonsense?
When you can, post it...thank you so much

Friend,

And once again, can you show where I posted in my words that you said not to read Scripture?

Can you show where I posted in my words that Murray said not to read Scripture?

Can you show where I posted in my words that the Puritans taught not to read Scripture?

In fact, can you show me where I posted in my words that ANY Christian teacher taught not to read Scripture?????

When you can, post it...thank you so much

 

[Iconoclast]

Friend,

And once again, can you show where I posted in my words that you said not to read Scripture?

Can you show where I posted in my words that Murray said not to read Scripture?

Can you show where I posted in my words that the Puritans taught not to read Scripture?

In fact, can you show me where I posted in my words that ANY Christian teacher taught not to read Scripture?????

When you can, post it...thank you so much

I can no longer offer responses to you for reasons I mentioned earlier. When you are no longer a moderator, I will answer you in full.
One time you posted that you do not act as a moderator in threads you are engaged in, but apparently that is no longer true. My posts about you were prophetic it turns out.

 

[Iconoclast]

Martin Marprelate said: ↑

Anyway, I hope @Iconoclast will continue to post extracts from old writers and from the various confessions. If people don't like them they don't have to read them, but I find them interesting and, often, very beneficial.

Yes, you and many others who value the gifts God has given to His local churches. Everyone I know values these gifted preachers and teachers, so we are not left with shared ignorance.