I am moving all content to https://cocceius.wordpress.com
The domain name is more in line with my work with the local church. I created the other page in a rather dark Heideggerian phase.
I am moving all content to https://cocceius.wordpress.com
The domain name is more in line with my work with the local church. I created the other page in a rather dark Heideggerian phase.
I recently finished reading straight through John Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion. I plan to write an essay on that experience in the near future. For now, one of the things that struck me was how Calvin worked with various theological and philosophical distinctions. I catalogued as many as I could discern and you can find them in this document. There are many of them! Many Calvin works with in a positive way, but there are also a few he rejects as “wily,” “loathsome,” or “worthless.” It’s said that distinguishing well is a hallmark of a good theologian — Calvin certainly ranks up there with the best.
My copy of Anselm was in the other room. My copy of Thomas Aquinas was at work.
I will update this as I read more commentaries. I will also make it a side page.
Rating: * – *****
Commentary Sets
Of course, I haven’t read every page of every set, so I am not giving singular judgments, but I think I can capture the overall tenor.
The Macarthur Bible Commentary. I’m not a huge fan of Macarthur and you will find both strengths and weaknesses. Each commentary is a glorified word-study. Still, the sections are well-divided.
Calvin’s Commentaries. Harmonizes the Pentateuch, which is a huge weakness. Still, Calvin paid attention to the original languages and his arguments, even where I think he is wrong, are always thoughtful. I think his sermons are better.
Pentateuch as a Whole
Brueggeman and Kaiser. Genesis to Exodus. New Interpreter’s Bible. Brueggeman has his insights from time to time, but his project is unstable. Kaiser, of course, is outstanding. ***
Sailhamer, John. Pentateuch as Narrative. Good in gaining an overall flow, hence the title. Sailhamer doesn’t go into his views on creation in much detail. ***
Genesis
Bede. Homilies on Genesis 1-3. Ancient Christian Texts. Great for historical value, but no exegesis.
Hamilton, Victor. New International Commentary on Genesis. Eerdmans. 2 volumes. Good overall commentary. Gently pushes back against Wellhausen.
North, Gary. Genesis: The Dominion Covenant. Zero exegesis but excellent suggestions on apologetics.
Exodus
Numbers
Wenham, Gordon. Numbers. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries. Excellent rebuttal to JEDP. Sound elsewhere. *****
1 and 2 Samuel
Leithart, Peter. A Son to Me. Canon Press. Very good treatment on background and biblical theology. Light on exegesis.
1 and 2 Kings
Leithart, Peter. 1 and 2 Kings. Brazos Theological Commentaries. Similar to his work on Samuel. Good for pastoral application but needs to be supplemented.
Job
Vanderwaal, Cornelis. Job – Song of Solomon. More of a survey than a commentary but excellent nonetheless.
Jeremiah
Brueggeman, Walter. A Commentary on Jeremiah: Homecoming and Exile. While I have problems with Brueggemann, he does a fine job in handling the textual issues.
Zechariah
Klein. Zechariah. New American Commentary. Good treatment on background and good exegesis. Takes a gently premillennial approach to chapter 14.
NEW TESTAMENT
Mark
Horne, Mark. The Victory According to Mark. Canon Press. Excellent treatment on typology and biblical theology. Not as heavy on exegesis.
Acts
Bruce, F. F. New International Commentary on Acts. Eerdmans. A true classic. Somewhat dry reading but I can’t think of a better commentary at the moment. Keener’s will eclipse it in time.
Romans
Moo, Douglas. New International Commentary on Romans. Replaced Murray. Deals with the earlier treatments of the New Perspective on Paul. Somewhat unique take on Romans 7, but otherwise outstanding.
Murray, John. New International Commentary on Romans. The 20th century classic. While it has been surpassed by Moo, it still should be consulted.
Wright, N. T. Romans. New Interpreter’s Bible. Marvelously well-written. Somewhat hamstrung by his so-called New Perspective.
Galatians
George, Timothy. Galatians. NAC. Sound Reformational approach. Worth looking into but nothing earthshaking.
Silva, Moises. Interpreting Galatians. Not strictly a commentary, but an excellent guidebook on some of the exegetical difficulties.
Revelation
Barclay, William. Revelation. Well-written and Barclay’s unbelieving presuppositions don’t play too big a role. Good on history but fairly weak beyond that.
Beale, Gregory. Revelation. I haven’t read it, but by all accounts the best commentary on Revelation.
Caird, G. B. Romans. International Critical Commentary. Caird was the archetypal British scholar. Very strong in argument but fairly limited and dated at points.
Keck, Leander (ed). Hebrews-Revelation New Interpreter’s Bible. I don’t know if Keck was the actual contributor to Revelation. The book wasn’t any good. Had a bizarre fixation with William Blake. Get Beale or Mounce instead.
Keener, Craig. Revelation. Life Application Commentary. Very good on background issues. Sound treatment of the text. Takes a mild historic premil approach. Some odd suggestions on applications.
Sure. some of these are forced,b ut I remember when I first read them in seminary in 2006.
Adapted from Appendix 1 in the phenomenal book: The Doctrine of God by *John M. Frame, Phillipsburg, N.J.: P&R Publishing,2002
I will present here a list of triads that have sometimes been thought to reflect or illumine the Trinity in some way. I will offer a few comments, but normally will present them without comment.
I have tried to weed out those that seem to me to be obviously arbitrary, contrived, or uninteresting, but readers should not assume my evaluation of any of these. I do not place any theological weight on these examples—nor do I urge readers to do so. All I would claim is that these triads are of some interest and that they may in some measure reflect, illumine, or provide for the evidence of the Trinity on any of these triads (except for the first one).
Some are taken from other sources, but I will…
View original post 2,518 more words
First it was Eternal Subordination of the Son; now it’s Theistic Mutualism. It’s hard to keep up with all of these modern evangelical debates over the doctrine of God. For those just tuning in, the latest controversy centers on the recently published volume All That Is in God by Reformed Baptist theologian James Dolezal (Reformation Heritage Books, 2017). Dolezal’s goal is to recover the classical/scholastic view of God, over against a host of modern evangelical and Reformed scholars, whom he lumps together under the label “theistic mutualism.” Stated simply, this is the idea that, in some sense, God has a “give-and-take relationship with his creatures” that entails a real change in his being.
Among the scholars in Dolezal’s cross-hairs is John Frame, retired professor of Systematic Theology at RTS Orlando. Frame, who is known for his near-biblicist prioritization of exegetical theology over historical theology, has recently written a review critiquing…
View original post 1,410 more words
There’s no shortage of connections between British espionage writers and the occult, and while we’ve examined a good deal of Ian Fleming, another writer who wrote quite prolifically of devilish machinations was Dennis Wheatley.
Wheatley was the son of a winemaking family, and he would cause some stir early in his college days for creating his very own campus “secret society.” Following his expulsion for this incident, Wheatley joined the military, fighting in World War I as a Royal Artillery Lieutenant. He was then tasked with military intelligence and covert operations in World War II, serving in the London Controlling Section. After his war activities, Wheatley worked for British Intelligence and was introduced to notorious occultist and black magician Aleister Crowley, stating:
View original post 2,963 more words
This isn’t an outline of the whole book–only the first half. That is where Balthasar’s discussion on Person and Nature is. I first read this book in 2010 when I was new to Maximus the Confessor. Those were heady days.
Syntheses of the Cosmos
Christ the Synthesis
Terminology:
First Substance (Aristotle): the irreducibleness of a thing. It has an inner field of meaning and power defined in terms of potency (49).