3 John

The Holy Spirit is our Teacher, but we have been gifted books to glean from. No one is eschewing the Bible for books. But we use books as aides to help us better understand His word.

 

To quote Steve Urkel, “Absotoodleootly!” That’s why church attended is of utmost importance. But that doesn’t mean we should not glean from good Christian books, either.

 

"JonC,

Some Christians actually do both...who said we should not read and study scripture? Why do you post this nonsense

 

Another false caricature.

9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.
10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does,

unjustly accusing us with wicked words;

and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either,

and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

These missionaries and church planters were trying to help and offer teaching, he oppoased them then. That same spirit is at work here trying to turn people fron Godly links and teachers, saying they do not offer godly wisdom

 

WE KNOW THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF DIOTREPHIES.
That was not being addressed
Vs. 10 was being referenced to show you have channeled that same foul spirit he had in your posts toward others here, mostly the Cals.

9 I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say.
10 For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does,

unjustly accusing us with wicked words;

and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either,

and he forbids those who desire to do so and puts them out of the church.
11 Beloved, do not imitate what is evil, but what is good. The one who does good is of God; the one who does evil has not seen God.

These missionaries and church planters were trying to help and offer teaching, he oppossed them then. That same spirit is at work here trying to turn people fron Godly links and teachers, saying they do not offer godly wisdom, they are not relevant today.

 

I certainly think things can be gleaned from the Puritans (Owen was one, wasn't he?), but to say that one cannot be erudite without knowing Owen is flat out ridiculous. I certainly hope that is not what you said. Please share with me exactly what you do believe about this. I was going by JonC's actual quotes from you. Did he take you out of context?

 

Yes... On a now closed thread post number 86
The first thread called extreme posts against those who teach grace

I was talking about trusted guides and i said for a Baptist not to read a padeo Baptist because hes wrong on baptism is to SHOW DEFECTIVE THINKING,TO cut himself short.
it's to be ignorant of a lot of truth that could be had because some of these men appeared in the past.
current men like Sinclair Ferguson for example hes a very good writer a communicates truth at a very reachable level And for a Baptist to ignore or despise him is in my opinion very Very unfortunate .
I started part 2 of a thread on on errors posted against the doctris of grace and I think I put the exact post in there or I will when I stopped driving but it was I think it was referenced earlier in this thread where it was post 86 and I had already said no I don't have to go with infant baptism but that doesn't mean I shouldn't read these men on all the other areas of doctrine.
I never said it is mandatory. Owen is a hard read, but worth the effort.

When I have had opportunity to teach in 4 churches, I.prepare a lesson from scripture, using a word study book...Vines.
When I put down my verses and ideas of what scripture declares, I look through Spurgeons sermon index...read the opening of any sermons on those verses.
Will check Matthew Henry, William Hendrickson, Jameson fauscett brown, Dagg, Boyce.and any other source if it is topical.
I have many times consulted and shared precept Austin and glanced at others who do not share my point of view.
So the repeated charge of me getting my ears tickled is just a personal attack as part of damage control by JonC.
We do not quite mesh, as you may have noticed.
I am quite willing to stand against others coming at me, but not when they repost and change the wording or in this case the context.
I do not post unless I can back it up.

 

I should start a thread with this subject, but the charge has been leveled here that scripture is not the authority for those promoting the books by Reformed authors and I am in agreement with JonC about that and much of what he says. I see the Reformed constantly failing to rightly divide the scriptures and it leads them into confused teachings from which they are not likely to ever recover.

Here is a bomb-shell truth. The redeemed in the church of Jesus Christ are not "sheep." The metaphor sheep is always and every time it is used in the NT is applied to the Hebrews. That is a fact one can check for himself.

Following is the last time the word sheep is used in the gospels of Christ and the only time it is used by the apostle Paul in the context of a fulfilled prophecy to Israel.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.
Ro 8:36 As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

The apostle Paul writes the doctrines of the NT church and explains it. He used sheep one time and it takes two or more references to establish a doctrine.

Paul completely by-passes the title of Shepherd for the Lord Jesus in relation to the formation of the church.

The last time the word shepherd shows up in the gospels.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, [and] one shepherd.

The next time it shows up is in the epistle to the Hebrews:
Heb 13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

The metaphor for the collective church of Jesus Christ is bride, one new man, a new creature. Christ is shown as being the husband of this person, (not the shepherd of a couple of flocks) that has been taken from his body and formed into his bride. See Eph 5.

Refraining from mixing metaphors is important to me but I notice it is not so much for the Reformed. Here is another bomb-shell. He does not say the gentiles are lost. He uses that word only once, in 2 Cor 4:3, and he was referencing the people he was speaking of in 2 Cor 3. Gentiles are unsaved if they have not believed the gospel of Christ. Words are important.

 

“but the charge has been leveled here that scripture is not the authority for those promoting the books by Reformed authors”

another unfounded, baseless, and without merit claim. The falsehoods abounding on here are appalling.

 

Show me where Iconoclast has placed Reformed writings above and beyond scripture.

 

Irenaeus dated the birth of Christ to about 14AD, and from this chronology some applied that Christ was older. He also considered that Christ was then able to empathize with old people like you and me. We now know he was wrong, though there were prof's back in the day that considered different years from 10 to 2 AD.

Trough various methods we now that it was 3 to 6 AD, and some hold to their thinking for various reasons.

Hope that helps.

 

When I quoted this snippet from JD…

“but the charge has been leveled here that scripture is not the authority for those promoting the books by Reformed authors”


You agreed that is what is being argued. You said that was exactly what has been argued. Iconoclast has never said reformed writings are the authority we are governed by. We are governed by the word of God. But things like confessions of faith, Christian books are helpful guides.