Oh How Great It Is To Finally Finish A Book!
Sometimes it seems as if I will never finish the book I am currently working through. This is definitely the case with my bedtime reading. But in the last few days I have concluded reading three different books that I would like to note. Do not fret. This is not my usual practice. But these books deserve some sort of honorable mention. The first item I want to mention is Phil Ryken’s first volume in his commentary on Luke in the Reformed Expository Commentary series. you can find this book here. This has been a delight to read as part of my personal devotions. Dr. Ryken has consistently pointed me to Christ. Whether the particular sermon (this commentary is based on sermons) was intended to encourage or convict, for me at least, he has regularly hit his target (my head and heart!). What is true for Ryken’s exposition of Luke has been true for the other volumes in the series. Tenth Presbyterian Church is losing a capable exegete and expositor. Tenth’s loss is Wheaton’s gain.
Next I would like to note Dr. James Anderson’s Paradox in Christian Theology: An Analysis of Its Presence, Character, and Epistemic Status which can be found here. We at Christ the Center over at Reformed Forum recently interviewed Dr. Anderson about this book, so be on the lookout for that within the next few weeks. Dr. Anderson is a Van Tillian who has learned how to harvest the benefits of the work of Alvin Plantinga. Anderson argues persuasively that merely apparent contradiction resulting from unarticulated equivocation (paradox) is part and parcel of Christian theology given the incomprehensibility of God and the finitude of human knowledge. This was a challenging, yet most rewarding volume.
Finally, I want to commend to you all the volume The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant which can be obtained here. This book is not without its detractors. However I think the book is well worth your perusing and that it would be worth your effort wrestling with the idea of the republication thesis. The republication thesis is the idea that the covenant of works is in some sense republished in the Mosaic administration. As they say, the devil is in the details. But this much should be recognized. The idea of republication has been an element in Reformed theology from its earliest stages of development. But my concern here is not to defend the republication idea but to commend the volume as a whole and the last two chapters in particular. The chapter on natural law by David VanDrunen and the chapter on Christ’s active and passive obedience by Mike Horton are both worth the price of the whole book. For my part, Horton ably exposits the biblical basis of the imputation of Christ’s active and passive obedience to the believer. Especially intriguing for me in the VanDrunen essay is his recognition that an emphasis on the natural law in the covenant of works entails that the covenant of works arises with creation and is not an overlay over a neutral creation. I do not have space to go into further detail.  But these essays and the others in this volume should be read with critical appreciation.
Now on to a new book. For me that is F. A. Hayek’s Road to Serfdom. More about that when I finish reading it.
About Post Author
Three books I need to get to at some point. thanks Jeff.
I look forward to the interview with James Anderson. I have not had a chance to read this book yet, but I am familiar with Anderson’s other work (articles on the Web) that are outstanding.
I appreciate your mini-review of The Law is Not of Faith. It was fair and balanced. The notion that the ‘covenant of works’ was “in some sense republished” with the Mosaic Law is something I believe the Scripture doesn’t teach, and the fact they had to go to such lengths at times proves this. One of the most embarrassing chapters, in my view, was the one where they spent 40 pages speculating on what Hos 6:7 meant, which is indicative of a weak thesis since it’s pure speculation with a lot riding upon it.
The *best* essay, however, was the one in which Gal 3:15-18 was examined, for he rightly nailed the Apostles point, which is the dispute was over whether the Mosaic Law ever offered eternal life in the first place, to which the answer was in the negative. The Judaizer problem had nothing to do with a ‘covenant of works’, even in the ‘background’ (which makes it a dubious thesis in itself).
As for “active obedience,” Greek expert Daniel Wallace says Romans 5:12-23 is not dealing with Justification:
http://catholicnick.blogspot.com/2010/06/greek-expert-daniel-wallace-on-romans.html
I don’t see an option for “email me of follow up comments,” so I wont know if someone has responded.
Nick, you state “One of the most embarrassing chapters, in my view, was the one where they spent 40 pages speculating on what Hos 6:7 meant, which is indicative of a weak thesis since it’s pure speculation with a lot riding upon it.”
So, the chapter is “embarrassing” because the author spent a lot of time on it, and because he spilt a lot of ink, it is “weak thesis.” I don’t seem to see how these things follow.
Have you read Warfield’s piece on Hosea 6:7? He spent many pages covering the topic as well, does that mean his article is weak?
It was one of the longest chapters in the book and all it did was say one interpretation out of various plausible ones support the ‘covenant of works’ thesis of the book. That’s hardly a scholarly or even sure way to approach things. Such chapter belongs in some theological journal for the ‘nerdy’ type to enjoy (I’m a nerd myself, so that’s not derogatory), and not in a book directed at the average reader.
A strong thesis wouldn’t ever need to go down such a path in the first place and would confine such an argument to a mere footnote.
“…all it did was say one interpretation out of various plausible ones support the ‘covenant of works’ thesis of the book. That’s hardly a scholarly or even sure way to approach things. Such chapter belongs in some theological journal…A strong thesis wouldn’t ever need to go down such a path in the first place and would confine such an argument to a mere footnote.”
Given the fact that Estelle, et. al. are the editors and not Nick, I believe it is their decision to include and exclude chapters. They obviously would disagree with you which is why the chapter is included; it has everything to with the covenant of of works, so why not.
I have no idea what you mean by average reader, but your average church goer is certainly not going to read this book. Those who are interested in this specific topic(s) would.
Have you read Warfield’s piece on this passage?
Nick
I certainly hope you do not think that the doctrine of the covenant of works depends upon a certain exegesis of Hosea 6:7. It does not. As for Byron Curtis’ chapter in the book, it transgresses no boundaries of scholarly decorum. The book as a whole is an academic work that is not targeted to a general audience. However, I would love it if members of the “general audience” would in fact read it.
Thanks for the recommendations, Nick. I just read Hayek recently as well – I think you’ll be blown away at how applicable it is to our current situation economically. He also points up many similarities in how word meanings are corrupted – something we saw in theological liberalism as well. Look forward to your thoughts…
AG
Oops. Jeff, you wrote this post, not Nick. Sorry!
Aron
I am enjoying the read of Hayek so far. I suspect I will want to read further in his corpus.
No problem confusing me with Bishop N. T. Batzig!