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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
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.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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

Completely sold out to the King
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.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.
 

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
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. :lol:
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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. :lol:

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

Cancelled Commissioner
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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top