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.
Advertisements
Category: Uncategorized
An Index of Calvin’s Distinctions in the Institutes
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.
A Clark comment on Van Til’s “solution” to the “Problem of the One and the Many.”
[This is from Clark’s notes in his personal copy of one of Van Til’s syllabi. Clark signed his name in the book and notes “Gift of Van Til, 4/-/40.”]
Van Til, Christian Apologetics, p. 14: “Using the language of the One and Many question, we contend that in God the one and the many are equally ultimate. Unity in God is not more fundamental than diversity and diversity in God is no more fundamental than unity. The persons of the Trinity are mutually exhaustive of one another. The Son and the Spirit are ontologically on par with the Father.”
Note that the ontological equality of the Son with the Father is used as an argument to show that the One and the Many are equally ultimate in God. This would be a good argument only if the Son represented the diversity in the Godhead and the Father was the unity…
View original post 55 more words
Audio of the Panel Discussion at the 2018 Gordon H. Clark Philosophy Symposium
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=47182010432
Thanks to Rev. Dr. Charles Roberts of Reedy River Presbyterian Church for uploading this audio of the panel discussion from this morning (4/7/2018) at the Gordon H. Clark Philosophy Symposium.
The panel consisted of myself, Dr. Bill Davis, and Dr. Bill Higgins and was moderated by Dr. John Wingard.
I failed to record audio of my speech on “An Introduction to The Life and Work of Gordon H. Clark” but there was a video camera recording it. So hopefully Covenant College will post that.
For the historical record, I wanted to note some of the people who attended the conference and had connections with Dr. Gordon H. Clark. There was his daughter Betsy George, her husband Wyatt George, their son Nathan Clark George, and Nathan’s son Jonathan. Former Clark students in attendance included Lenard Lewis, Bill Higgins, and Bill Davis. Also in attendance were David Hawley, Ed Kellogg, Henry…
View original post 38 more words
My analytic theology bookshelf
My copy of Anselm was in the other room. My copy of Thomas Aquinas was at work.
Bible Commentary Survey
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.
A Fascinating Look At 112 Triads Illuminating the Trinity by John M. Frame
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
