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.
@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.
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.
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
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
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?
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.
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!