# Timeless eternity: Liam Goligher's sermon on Mark 9:1-8



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 9, 2021)

I have not listened to anything by Liam Goligher until recently (not sure why), though I found this sermon entitled Timeless eternity to be very good.

N.B. He mentions R. C. Sproul's opinion on the importance of Thomas Aquinas and quotes from Thomas's commentary on John, which I am currently reading each Lord's Day.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 10, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have not listened to anything by Liam Goligher until recently (not sure why), though I found this sermon entitled Timeless eternity to be very good.
> 
> N.B. He mentions R. C. Sproul's opinion on the importance of Thomas Aquinas and quotes from Thomas's commentary on John, which I am currently reading each Lord's Day.



Not surprised at the Aquinas reference. Goligher is really strong on the doctrine of God.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Oct 11, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have not listened to anything by Liam Goligher until recently (not sure why), though I found this sermon entitled Timeless eternity to be very good.
> 
> N.B. He mentions R. C. Sproul's opinion on the importance of Thomas Aquinas and quotes from Thomas's commentary on John, which I am currently reading each Lord's Day.


Thanks for sharing, Daniel. I just finished listening. This was my first experience with Goligher. His interaction with Aquinas on John is what drew me in.

What are your thoughts on Thomas's commentary? I ask because I am getting ready to work my way through John again, though this time with much of the material Thomas used—Origen, Augustin, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. I am also using Thomas's Catena Aurea. His commentary is one that I am keen to add to this study.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 11, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> What are your thoughts on Thomas's commentary? I ask because I am getting ready to work my way through John again, though this time with much of the material Thomas used—Origen, Augustin, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. Thomas's commentary is one that I am keen to add to this study.



I'm only familiar with Thomas on Romans 9. Generally, I go to those guys for theological reflection on the text, not exegetical development of it. Chrysostom and Cyril are different, since academic commentators today still refer to their structuring of certain passages.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Oct 11, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I go to those guys for theological reflection on the text


That is precisely what my intentions are. I've worked through John exegetically with commentaries of varying technical degrees.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 11, 2021)

Regi Addictissimus said:


> Thanks for sharing, Daniel. I just finished listening. This was my first experience with Goligher. His interaction with Aquinas on John is what drew me in.
> 
> What are your thoughts on Thomas's commentary? I ask because I am getting ready to work my way through John again, though this time with much of the material Thomas used—Origen, Augustin, Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. I am also using Thomas's Catena Aurea. His commentary is one that I am keen to add to this study.



I have only read the preliminary material and the first lecture. On the Sabbath, I am reading this commentary along with Augustine's _Homilies_ on John's gospel. As with Jacob, I am primarily reading them for their doctrinal reflections, not for their exegesis. Thus far, both of them are excellent, though with some odd stuff here and there. One of the funniest moments in internet theology was when @BayouHuguenot and I upset various Thomas fan girls by suggesting that he might not have been the greatest exegete in Christendom. The fallout was a riot.


----------



## RamistThomist (Oct 11, 2021)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I have only read the preliminary material and the first lecture. On the Sabbath, I am reading this commentary along with Augustine's _Homilies_ on John's gospel. As with Jacob, I am primarily reading them for their doctrinal reflections, not for their exegesis. Thus far, both of them are excellent, though with some odd stuff here and there. One of the funniest moments in internet theology was when @BayouHuguenot and I upset various Thomas fan girls by suggesting that he might not have been the greatest exegete in Christendom. The fallout was a riot.



I've since made peace with them, though I stand by my comments. Thomas (or Augustine) didn't know Hebrew. I wouldn't dream of going to them to find out what the language is. Chrysostom is a different story. His handling of the Greek text is pretty good.

Read Thomas's word studies based on the Latin on how he defines doctrines. It's sort of funny. I say that with all respect, as I actually like Thomas.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 11, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I've since made peace with them, though I stand by my comments. Thomas (or Augustine) didn't know Hebrew. I wouldn't dream of going to them to find out what the language is. Chrysostom is a different story. His handling of the Greek text is pretty good.
> 
> Read Thomas's word studies based on the Latin on how he defines doctrines. It's sort of funny. I say that with all respect, as I actually like Thomas.



I found it hilarious how badly some people took it when we merely stated that Thomas is not the best exegete. It was not even as if I was speaking from a standpoint of hostility to Thomas (having read both _Summas_, several commentaries, and other books by him).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 16, 2021)

I have just listened to another sermon by the Revd Goligher on Beholding Jesus' Glory, which is also very good.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

