Thus, in order to properly understand the context of this post, please start with Post 1 before continuing below, as I anticipate that each post to build upon each other.

Aim of this Review
Please understand that I have no intention of fully presenting each author’s point of view. Instead, my aim is to present a basic overview of each man’s position, as I understood it, and then provide some quotes to highlight the strength and weaknesses of each author.

Overview of Willem A. Van Gemeren’s “Reformed” Essay on Law and Gospel
Though I myself adhere to the ‘Reformed’ view on Law and Gospel, I found this essay by Willem A. Van Gemeren to be the weakest in the book. Though I agree with his view on just about every point, I did not find his essay convincing or properly presented for the format of this discussion (which was debate-style, apologetic type book). The essay simply seemed unorganized, broad, with no real progression of argument, and written as if the reading audience was one that was already convinced of his position.

Summary of the Reformed position:
The Reformed position is one that believes there to be continuity between the Old Testament and New Testament Law, with discontinuity only being identified by NT texts. This is in contrast to total discontinuity argued for by Dispensationalism/New Covenant Theology (NCT). The Reformed position divides the Law of God into 3 categories: Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial Law. Moral Law in the Old Testament is not repealed for Christians in the NT. Civil Law, in contrast to Bahnsen’s Theonomic view, has (largely) been repealed by the New Testament/New Covenant. And Ceremonial Law was fulfilled in the appearing, Person, and work of Jesus Christ. These categories are helpful in helping us understand the OT Law in relation to the NT law, but are not categories explicitly used in scripture. In addition to this, the Reformed position sees the 10 commandments as the summary of the ‘moral’ law, and from texts like Romans 2, would argue that this same moral law has been written on the hearts of all men.

Here are some choice quotes to help you understand for yourself what the author presents: [My comments here will be preceded by '--NW']

P15: “…Law and Gospel are not in opposition to each other because Law contains Gospel and the Gospel contains Law. Both Law and Gospel affirm the place of the moral law as a “perfect rule of righteousness.”

p16: “The total witness of the Old and the New Testament has a “basic unity and continuity of the biblical ethic.”

P16: “…the Reformed view of the law of God is the result of integration of exegesis” P16 –NW: On this point I believe the author makes a very important point. Throughout the book it becomes clear that Strickland and Moo, and to some extent Bahnsen, rely on arguments that are largely theology and structurally driven. However, I also saw Van Gemeren’s essay as severely lacking in exegesis as well, but I believe his overall position (which is almost identical to Kaiser’s) is the only one explicitly driven by exegesis of the text rather than an overarching system of theology ruling the interpretation.

P20-21: he argues from the Hebrew that the nouns and verbs that describe Noah being ‘righteous’ and Abraham who “obeyed Me and kept My requirements”, anticipated the revelation at Mount Sinai. In other words, the obedience of these men is described as synonyms of obedience to the Mosaic (moral) Law –thus the moral portion of the Law given to Moses was not something new, a very important point.

P20-21: he argues that the moral law revealed in the Creation order is the same law that Noah and Abraham had ‘internalized’, though unwritten, and that “the written law became necessary because of human sin and hardness of heart.” But “Since the will of God does not change, the law remains virtually the same throughout redemptive history.”

P25: after quoting Psalm 147 and Psalm 19: “Far from looking at the law as a negative experience, saints in the Old Testament rejoiced in this revelation…” Many similar passages/comments are made.

P27: “Moses’ ministry prepared the people for the coming of Christ. Hebrews portrays him as a witness to the coming of Jesus Christ (Heb 3:5)…Moses witnessed through the Torah to the spirituality of the covenant and to the need of a redeemer whose atonement would remove the burden of the law.” –NW: Here is a great section identifying the Christocentric nature of the OT Law, culminating in the following statements, which show that the Law has never been an end or focus itself, but has always had Christ at its center.

P28: “The Mosaic covenant is a development of God’s covenant with creation…and with Abraham…In other words, the Mosaic covenant is a sovereign administration of grace and promise by which the Lord consecrated a people to Himself under the sanctions of His holy law…The Law was never intended to be the focus or the end in itself.”

P29: “The Decalogue…opening provides a constant reminder that the context of law is God’s work of redemption: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery” (Ex. 20:2)”. Obedience to the commandments is in response to God’s grace in being Israel’s deliverer.” –NW: A good point when we consider all the NT texts which refer to our salvation as ‘redemption’, and other phrases drawing from the imagery of the Exodus from the bondage of Egypt. The people of Israel and their Exodus is a picture of the People of God and the Exodus found through faith in Christ. And the giving of the Law has always been an act of God’s grace; and our obedience has always been first and foremost out of love in response to what God has done for us.

P34: Regarding the concept of love that underlies the Law: “C. Craigie sees rightly law and covenant in the context of love: “The Decalogue was representative of God’s love in that its injunctions, both negative and positive, led not to a restriction of life, but to fullness of life.”

P34: “Obedience to the law always begins with a heart that fears the Lord…” And he goes on to examine several Old Testament texts such as Prov 3:5-7, Psalm 15 and 24, Isa. 57:15 and 66:1-2, Mic. 6:8, Hos 6:6 and Zech 8:16-17, to demonstrate that obedience to God’s law, even OT law, always entails heart obedience rather than just outward obedience.

P36: “The Ten commandments, as a summary of the moral law, are a guide in the imitation of God. By the Spirit the letter becomes alive and powerful within the hearts of the godly.”

P38: “Jesus gave a stricter observance of external concerns than the rabbis. He rejected the mere observance of external concerns and complacency with tradition…He abrogated not one commandment but instead intensified them all.” –NW: Furthermore, the entire New Testament intensifies the commandments. The New Testament opens them up, expands them in revealing their true nature, builds principles/inferences upon them, and presses them home at the root level of the heart. This is much different than the replacement idea of a ‘new’ law that is argued for by Dispensationalism/NCT.

P38: quoting John Murray: “…Jesus came to realize the full measure of the intent and purpose of the law and the prophets…to bring to full fruition and perfect fulfillment the law and the prophets.”p39: “…Jesus simplified the complexity of the Mosaic law by focusing on one word (“love”)…Because He is greater than Moses…He authoritatively summarized the moral law of God in two commandments…”

P42: “…I agree with Ladd when he says, “more than once he [the apostle Paul] asserts that it is the new life of the Spirit that enables the Christian truly to fulfill the Law (Rom. 8:3-4; 13:10; Gal. 5:14).

P45: Quoting E.F. Kevan: “Any change in relation to Law that occurs in Christianity is not in the Law but in the believer…To say that Christian conduct is now governed by holy principles is…incorrect…if it meant that any withdrawal or modification of the Law.”

P45: Discussing the need and relevance of the Law: “Sin and rebelliousness keep humans from reflecting the divine perfections and from understanding the moral law as revealed in creation….The Law at Mount Sinai made much more explicit the moral law and supplemented the moral law with ceremonial and judicial regulations.”

P48: “The Mosaic administration by itself is incomplete but has an eschatological and Christological focus.”

P51: “The law is “the heart and core of Scripture” (quoting Hesselink on Calvin). “…the prophets and psalmists, apostles and Christ Himself are all nothing but expounders and interpreters of the law.” –NW: Again, Christ and the NT authors expound and interpret the Law; they never replace it.

P51: The law…”used to be a pedagogue…but now that Christ has come, He is the focus, the perfection, the complement, the fulfillment of the law…whatever perfections the law has, they reveal Christ.” –NW: Again, the Christocentric nature of the OT Law clearly continues on, as Christ continues on. To replace the OT Law is to annul its Christocentric nature.

P51: Quoting Hesselink, “The whole of the law then -not only the covenant but also its promises, threats, rules and regulations, sacrifices and ceremonies- finds its meaning in Christ who is its life, soul, spirit, substance, fulfillment and goal.”

P52: “What then is the power of the moral law since the outpouring of the Holy Spirit? Negatively, it no longer has the power to bind (Rom 7:6; Matt 5:17) or condemn us…by its teachings, admonishments, reproofs, and corrections, the law is the instrument of growth in faith and sanctification (2 Tim 3:16-17).

P53: “The moral law is summarized in the Ten Commandments and was supplemented by the ceremonial and judicial laws.”

P53: “The moral law is the rule of perfect righteousness.” –NW: This is supplemented by Jesus and the Apostles as well (Matt 19:16).

P54: “These commandments (Ten) put our love for God to the test, because it is all too easy to assume to one’s relationship with God is good.”

P55: “Berkouwer express it pointedly, “There is no difference between Christian liberty and being ‘under the law of Christ.’”

Here are some excerpts of Greg Bahnsen’s reply to this essay:

P59: “Our hearts surely beat in tune with the recurring and tender not throughout Dr. VanGemeren’s essay that Sprit-given understanding of the Law of God serves to magnify our need and love for the gospel of God’s grace in Christ.”

P61: “The task of critically analyzing VanGemeren’s essay…however, is made almost impossible by his manner of presentation. To go right to the point: there is simply nothing like an argument here -no discursive and systematic unfolding of a particular and clearly defined conclusion (or interrelated set of conclusions)…It is sometimes not easy to find natural transitions, logical connections or subordination between points, interfacing of of interpretations of texts, conceptual synthesis, or precision.”

P64: “…the judicial code is simply the application of the Decalogue (and thus an unpacking of its meaning).” –NW: With this I agree, though I do not see how his argument for Theonomy then follows from this premise. (More on this when we get to Bahnsen’s essay.)

P65: “…when God’s people get embroiled in moral dilemmas, they desire more inspired law (guidance), not less. It is surely no blessing to be left only with broad generalities: e.g., see how many people are blessed and happy by trying to play a basketball game under the single rule of ‘play fair’.” –NW: A very poignant reminder that all forms of antinomianism down through history have lead to eventual shipwreck.

P65: “In the teaching of Jesus (as well as of Paul), love does not replace the law (or its complexity then), but provides a summary statement. A summary does not abrogate that which it summarizes.”

P67: “The judicial law was not…’abrogated’…what was binding in the judicial laws was not their specific cultural form, but their underlying principle or purpose.” –NW: Here Bahnsen simply disagrees with the statements made by VanGermeren that the judicial laws have been abrogated. I think Bahnsen makes a great point, but again, I do not see how his position then follows; this is something I will expand upon when we get to his presentation.

Here are some excerpts of Walter Kaiser’s reply to this essay:

P70: “The covenant of Grace is divided into two ‘administrations’: Law and Gospel, even though neither administration is devoid of either Law or Gospel, since Law contains the Gospel and Gospel contains the Law.”

P70: “The focus of biblical ethics remains very much the same for both Old and New Testaments…It is the call for holiness of life. Since God is holy, His moral law is holy.”

P71: “Following the lead of Calvin, VanGemeren argues for the existence of a moral order in creation prior to the publication of the will of God in the Mosaic covenant…This natural law reveals both the will of God and His attributes. It is for this reason that the human race was accountable to the same standard of righteousness even prior to the publication of the law of God under Moses…I find this to be an especially strong argument.”

P72: Discussing apparent contradictions in statements of the Apostle Paul, “…the Christian belongs to the new creation of God and therefore may use the law of God only as it is internalized by the Holy Spirit in producing righteousness and in creating a new community that fulfills the law of love. This is not to argue for some new replacement theology wherein the Spirit now replaces the law, but it is to recognize the key role that the Holy Spirit plays in transforming us to apply the moral law of God.”

P75: Discussing the third use of the law, Kaiser says, “This third use of the law guides believers in righteousness, provides a basis for obedience, yet does so without enslaving any who are so bound to this, which may now also be called the “law of Christ”.

P75: “God’s law can only be kept by His grace. Moreover, as VanGemeren concludes, it may only be appreciated in light of the gospel of Jesus Christ and kept by the power of the Holy Spirit –all this is true for either Testament!”

Here are some excerpts of Wayne Strickland’s reply to this essay:

Strickland focuses on some details like some NT commands that aren’t found in the Old, or that contradict the Old, like marriage to non-Jews (P79).

P80: commenting on Heb 8:6, “…there has been an abrogation of the entire Mosaic law with the coming of Christ…”

P80: “…it is not the moral law of the Mosaic code that the Holy Spirit employs to supervise the believer; rather, it is the law of Christ that is made imperative by the Spirit.” –NW: Note, throughout the book, neither Strickland nor Moo ever really define this ‘law of Christ’, other than implying that it only contains what is repeated in the New Testament alone. Very ambiguous.

P81: Strickland mentions that the Sabbath commandment ‘provides a mechanism for testing the accuracy and coherency of the Reformed paradigm with regard to the applicability of the law in ethics.” –NW: This is an fairly accurate observation, but it fails to recognize the greater implications of the differences between the Reformed and Dispensational/NCT position. The Sabbath is often seen as the crux, but it is the overall hermenutic that has greater (often unseen on the surface) and more serious implications.

P81: Strickland then goes on to argue that the Sabbath was never a creation ordinance, that it has been abrogated in the NT, that it has not changed to Sunday, thus the authority of the entire Decalogue is undermined. –NW: Weak arguments that fail to account for the development and support of the Sabbath in the New Testament, not to mention the explicit upholding of the Decalogue in the New Testament. But this is surprisingly one of the only times in the book the Sabbath comes up, so I will not deal with it here.

P82: “…submission and obedience must be to the law of Christ rather than to the law of Moses.” –NW: A very misleading statement, for Reformed theologians would agree that Moses is not our head or our teacher. We would argue that the ‘law of Christ’ has the Law of Moses as its foundation and support. Just like the ‘Israel of God’ is not an entirely new creation, but a starting with ethnic Isreal and then expanding to all the nations, the Law of God starts with Israel as its foundation and is opened up by Jesus and the Apostles to reach its true meanining/intention.

Here are some excerpts of Doug Moo’s reply to this essay:

P83: “I commend VanGemeren for insisting on the clear and unchanging standards of God’s moral law.”

P85: “I want to make clear that I am not denying that the Mosaic law, especially the Ten Commandments, contains principles and requirements that reflect God’s eternal moral will. My point, rather, is that the Mosaic law is not identical with this eternal moral law.” –NW: Reformed theologians would agree that the 10 are not exhaustive of the moral law, but is rather how God/scripture summarizes the essence of the moral law, but would disagree that the Ten are (ultimately) subjective/optional principles, retaining instead their status as commands.

P85: “What is the evidence for treating the Ten Commandments as eternal moral law in distinction from the rest of the Mosaic Law? VanGemeren provides little. He notes that these ‘ten words’ are apodictic in form, expressing therefore principles upon which the rest of the law is built.” –NW: He is right in that Van Gemeren provides little justification of this, but he would be wrong in assuming that this Biblical justification does not exist.

P85: Commenting on Col. 2:14: “Clearly…Paul would not be thinking only of sins committed against the ceremonial law; he must be thinking of the Mosaic law as a whole.” –NW: Of course, but this fails to grasp the Reformed position, and deal properly with the issue of obedience/sanctification of the law, rather than simply justification only. This error by Moo and Strickland can be seen throughout.

P86: “Paul claims explicitly that Christians, led by the Spirit and subject to the ‘law of Christ’…are not ‘under law’ (the Mosaic law).” –NW: A shallow dealing with Paul’s argument, what Paul means by ‘law of Christ’, and how not being ‘under law’ means the Mosaic law only. Too many questions/contradictions not dealt with here.

P87: “There is no evidence that Jesus isolated the Ten Commandments from the rest of the Mosaic law and put them in a separate category.” –NW: One wonders how Moo can say this considering the most famous and far-reaching sermon of all time, the Sermon on the Mount, not to mention Matthew 19…etc.

P87: commenting on Mark 7 where Jesus declares all foods clean, “…Mark is telling us that Jesus teaches that His followers need no longer obey large sections of the Mosaic law. I am not necessarily claiming that this means that we, as new covenant believers, no longer obey the law in the form it was originally given; we are not directly under its authority.” –NW: We are not under the Old Covenant, but the Old Covenant Law is the foundation upon which the New Covenant is built and sustained.

P87: “It is only as we look at the way that Jesus and the writers of the New Testament treat the commandments of the Mosaic law that we can know which ones continue to apply directly to us and which ones no longer do.” –NW: This is as close as he gets to defining this ‘law of Christ’. However, Moo makes a great point here; the NT and the Spirit teach us how to interpret, apply, and divide the OT Law.

P88: “…(Christ) is the ‘filter’ through which the whole law must go…”

P88: “…worshiping on the first day of the week is not what the fourth commandment requires: It explicitly requires cessation of work on the seventh day.” –NW: Clearly Moo misses the point of the command, and fails to account for the full, biblical development of the 4th commandment (which continues on into eternity…thus it is a moral issue; a baffling oversight on his part), particularly in what we see in Isaiah 58, etc.

P88: Just like Strickland, Moo argues that the Sabbath commandment is the “crucial ‘test case’, suggesting that the Ten Commandments, in their Mosaic form, were not intended by God to be eternally binding on all people everywhere.” –NW: This, like Strickland, fails to see the greater implications of the disagreement.

P89: Speaking of the other 9 commandments (minus the Sabbath), “They are binding on us not because they are in the Ten Commandments but because the New Testament makes clear that they are expressions of God’s eternal moral law.” –NW: One is left wondering how such a position can be consistently maintained and applied. This example shows why Moo is repeatedly the most ambiguous and subjective of all the participants in the book.

P89: “…Christians live under the ‘law of Christ’ and not under the Mosaic law.” –NW: The crux of the matter here is that Moo (as we will see) argues for a form of Replacement theology that exegesis simply cannot support.

That is certainly more than enough for this portion. Next I will attempt to review Greg Bahnsen’s Theonomic position, which I hope will be a much shorter post.

Summary: A warm, devotional exposition of 1st John 3:3, “everyone who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.”

Though Jeremiah Burroughs is personally not my favorite Puritan to read, I find him to be one of the the very easiest of Puritans to read. This book is no exception, and I would strongly recommend it to young Christians, women, and to friends/family as a short gift book.

But having read a few Burroughs’ books before, I think he is at his very best when he is discussing the vanity of earthly pursuits. The SDG work, A Treatise on Earthly-Mindedness (I’ve blogged excerpts from this work before) is a marvelous work on this topic, and I mention it here because Hope also deals with a lot of the same thing.

Overview:
Hope is a book with two separate sections, the first being and exposition of 1 John 3:3, and the second half of the book being a sermon on Psalm 17:14 entitled ‘The Misery of Those Who Have Their Portion in This Life‘. I personally found the first half to be exceptional, with the second half of the book a little forceful and long-winded.

But the essence of the book deals with the phrase ‘purifies himself’ in 1 John 3:3, where Burroughs rightly shows how the Christian’s hope (i.e. the true Christian’s hope, as opposed to a false professor’s hope) is a a hope that purifies us, prepares us for and greatly anticipates the second Coming of Jesus Christ when “we shall be like Him”.

I greatly benefited from Burroughs expounding on this ‘hope’, as opposed to the ‘hope’ of the ungodly, who prove by their lives that their professed hope really isn’t the hope of Christ’s second coming. Oh, what our churches would be like if this type of exposition took place in pulpits across America! The true ‘hope’ in Christ is a hope that causes the saints to purify themselves, purge themselves from sin, and cast all of their hope in Christ to set things right at His coming! There is no room here for ‘carnal Christianity’, or those who continue unabated in their sinful behavior, even after professing Christ.

Quotes:

While the summary above captures the gist of the book, below I’d like to add a few choice quotes to give you a glimpse of Burroughs’ tone:

“Objection (to the preacher): “But the best of men have some sin”. Answer: Since the best of men have some sin, therefore you hope that all is well with you? The worst of all may have some good in them, just as the saints have had some ill in them. So you hope that, notwithstanding your evil, you may go to heaven. Then I tell you that some reprobates have had more good in them than you have; and notwithstanding your good you may go to hell…Never tell me of some sin in the saints as being your comfort. Rather, look upon the good that was in the wicked and reprobate, and see whether that is not more for your discouragement.” – P40

“When the wicked and ungodly have sin in them, it comes into them as filthy water, and there it putrefies. But the saints sin is as a running water, the principle that they have is stirring in them, and so comes to be cleansing. Indeed, the more active Christians are, the more clean. Christians, if you would be clean, let grace be active. If grace is stirring and active, you will be clean. A man who is most active and stirring usually has the most clean body, and people who stir but little find diseases growing on them. Grace makes the saints active and stirring, and so by that means they purify themselves.” – P46

“It’s not what we have in the world, or what comforts we have in our families; nothing can give rest to the heart but the cleansing it from sin.” – P54

“The main thing that hardens others in their sin is their hope: They hope that they shall be saved when they die and that God loves them; therefore they are secure in their evil and sinful way. The hope of the wicked is the very thing that makes them more secure in their evil ways. The hope of God’s mercies that the saints have is the thing whereby the come to purge out corruption; yea, to purify themselves as Jesus Christ is pure.” (1J ohn 3:3). The hope of the saints makes them purify themselves.” – P56-57

“The very first work that shall draw the heart to believe and hope in Jesus Christ will draw the heart from the love of every sin and corruption whatsoever.” – P80

“What was the great plot in His election? He has chosen us that we might be a holy people unto Him. Now if you think, ‘I hope that God intends good to me,’ and yet go on in wickedness, you cross the plot of God’s election.” – P83

“God gives wicked men a portion here to show unto them what little good there is in all these things, and to show the world what little good there is in all the things that are here below in the world. Certainly, if there were much good, they should never have them. It is an argument that there is no great excellency in the strength of body, for an ox has it more than you; an argument there is no great excellency in agility of body, for a dog has it more than you; an argument no great excellency in gay clothes, for a peacock has them more than you; an argument there is not any great excellency in gold and silver, for the Indians who know not God have them more than you. And, if these things had any great worth in them, certainly God would never give them to wicked men…God, in giving all the things of the world to Turks and wicked ones, His enemies, shows there is not much excellency and good in them.” – P98

Conclusion:
This is a tough call. While the first part of the book (86 pages) is excellent, the second part of the book is simply average (63 pages). Thus given the shortness of the first half and the steep price of this nice hardback, I simply cannot rate it very high. If this book was cheaper, or if this book was simply the first half only, I’d rate it much higher, but because of these things I’m going to give it three and a half stars. If you can find it free to read online, or at a cheap price used, definitely pick it up.

The contributors and their respective positions are as follows:

• Wayne G. Strickland: Dispensational
• Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: ‘Evangelical’
• Douglas J. Moo: ‘Modified Lutheran’
• Willem A. Van Gemeren: Reformed
• Greg Bahnsen: Theonomic

Because of the book’s length (416 pages of heavy material), I have decided to break up my review into 6 sections: this introduction post and 5 posts examining each position and their counter-points. This way there will be room for me (and you) to examine the claims and counter-claims.

Introduction

I have found the book fairly easy to read, but somewhat redundant. 400 pages is just too short of a space to present 5 different views. So because of the short space, there is not as much interaction as one would hope for. Basically, the author’s present their position based upon a number of proof texts, and the other authors don’t have the space to do much more than state broad counter-arguments and deal with one or two texts in depth. But as an broad overview of the respective positions, this book is a good introduction.

In reviewing this book, please note that I come at this discussion from a particular position, a Reformed Baptist position, you might say. You can cross-reference my confession for its statement on this issue if you like. Thus, my objective is not to present each position equally per se, but to simply cherry-pick a few statements where I agree or disagree, sharing a few thoughts of my own along the way. No matter where you come down on this issue, there are going to be stronger and weaker points of your position –and I hope to highlight some of these for each position, including my own.

Other important thing to remember about this book is that there are obviously strengths and weaknesses of each author and their ability to communicate and debate. This is unfortunate, in a way, because it can sway the reader in the direction of a particular position simply because the argument is better (rather than the truthfulness of scripture).

For example, I found the Reformed view, written by Willem A. Van Gemeren, to be the weakest in the book. Now on paper I agree with his view on just about every point, but he clearly did not write his essay from an apologetic or debate-like standpoint, and he is much less convincing than any of the other authors.

Another example with be Greg Bahnsen’s essay. I’m probably futher away from Bahnsen theologically, but he is a brilliant debator and I found his paper much more convincing than I anticipated.

So keep these things in mind, including the fact that we all approach this subject with presuppositions, when trying to be fair and objective in examining this book.

General Observations

When we get to where the rubber meets the road, I found that the authors had much more agreement than disagreement. Basically, from my perspective, they all agree with some continuity of Law between Old Testament and New Testament, thus they end up spending their time arguing over how much, and what theological perspective we use in determining this.

Bahnsen, Van Gemeren, and Kaiser are in almost 100% agreement, with Bahnsen’s theonomy being the only significant point of disagreement.

On the other side of the ring, Moo and Strickland are in almost 100% agreement, though they differ on how they each get there.

Thus, the book really ends up being 3 against 2, with Bahnsen kind of being the odd man in the middle (all disagree with him on theonomy).

Furthermore, I found Kaiser to be the most exegetical (which isn’t surprising), with Bahnsen and Moo close behind. Van Gemeren was clearly the most dogmatic and theological.

Note the length of each essay:

• Wayne G. Strickland: 50 pages
• Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: 22 pages
• Douglas J. Moo: 57 pages
• Willem A. Van Gemeren: 45 pages
• Greg Bahnsen: 50 pages

From a personal standpoint, I found myself aligning most with Kaiser’s view (his essay was the strongest, IMO, even though it was by far the shortest), followed by Van Germeren, then Bahnsen, Moo, and least of all, with Strickand. I certainly wish that some of the key texts were isolated and all 5 guys presented their own exegesis for us to review, but there is enough here to form some very clear opinions.

Conclusion

A good introduction to the Law/Gospel issue, though there are some pretty big theological words used throughout. I would recommend it to the semi-advanced student of theology and layman.

Next post: I will examine the introductory essay, the Reformed view, by Willem A. Van Gemeren, and the counter-arguments from the other men.

Summary: A powerful and vivid read on the true nature of conversion; a ‘must read’ for Christians of all walks.

“These things may seem ridiculous to others, even as ridiculous as they were in themselves, but to me they were most tormenting considerations.” P96

‘Ridiculous’, as in the statement above, rightly articulates the initial reaction Christians would probably have now days (including myself) upon reading this book. In ‘Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners’, John Bunyan traces his own spiritual pilgrimage from his youth to his conversion to Christ, and in the process paints a vivid picture of spiritual trials, temptations, sorrows, fears, depressions, and personal inability to perform deeds in accordance with his beliefs. Such views, struggles, and mindsets exhibited by Bunyan are certain foreign to today’s culture.

My initial reaction upon reading his constant fears and inability to lay hold of Christ by faith (this in his words) was that he was a little too extreme, and that he had too high of a view of what it means to be converted. Puritanism, with all of its grandeur and strictness, can sometimes seem distant and extreme to the 21st century mind, and it is easy to fall into this stereotypical thinking when reading Bunyan’s view on sin, true conversion, guilt, etc.

But the more I read, the more I began to see the brilliance of Bunyan’s illustrative mind. He is far from extreme and strict in his view of sin and salvation; rather, I found him to be deep, profound, and painstakingly accurate in describing his battles with unbelief, sin, and true conversion. Things that our 21st century thinking glosses over or takes for granted (largely due to the free-will, easy-believism, and revivalist mindset brought to this nation by Finney, Moody, and Graham) are not missed by Bunyan. Indeed, Bunyan cuts to the heart when describing the difficulty of ‘the narrow way that leads to life’, and how our churches would benefit from a thorough reading of his experience!

Synopsis:
Bunyan’s story is all too familiar. As a young man, he spurned the things of God and even a sound education to the point that “few could equal me for cursing, swearing, lying and blaspheming the holy name of God.” And even as a young man, he was sometimes tormented with fearful dreams and visions, which continue particularly in the early stages of his Christian life.

Although often afflicted in mind and cast down in spirit, “I could not let go of my sins”, Bunyan says, and as soon as these terrible dreams left him he would drown their memory with ‘the pleasures of the world.’ During these early years, Bunyan looks back with amazement that his life was spared. He mentions his escape from civil justice, as well as several escapes from death.

It wasn’t until Bunyan’s first marriage that he began to take an interest in religious things. His wife had two books, The Plain man’s Pathway to Heaven, and The Practice of Piety, that Bunyan often found as ‘pleasing’ to him. Years of superstition and struggle follow, alongside his initial adherence to a ‘religion of works’.

A telling quote describing his first stirrings of soul towards Christ,

“I was all this time ignorant of Jesus Christ trying to establish my own righteousness. I would have perished in it had God, in mercy, not revealed to me more of my natural state.”

It is at this point precisely where I think Bunyan is at his strongest, proclaiming an understanding of the depths of human depravity much-needed in our day. Bunyan knew sin; he knew it in its deepest, subtlest forms, and we would all do well to understand our fallen nature in like manner:

“I found now that lust and corruption manifested themselves within me in wicked thoughts and desires I had not known before…Sin and corruption, I said, would as naturally bubble out of my heart, as water would bubble out of a fountain.”

Bunyan’s high view of sin led to a high view of God and thus a high view of true conversion, areas where the church in our day desperately needs a reform, as tough as these truths might be to our human nature.

Another area where Bunyan’s view is needed in our day is his understanding of God’s sovereignty –although Bunyan did initially struggle with some improper views on this doctrine:

“This scripture, ‘It is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of God who shows mercy’ (Rom 9:16) also seemed to trample upon all my desires. I could not tell what to do with this scripture, as evidently I saw that unless Almighty God, out of his infinite grace and kindness, had voluntarily chosen me to be a vessel of mercy, no good could come of it, even though I should desire and long and labour for eternal life until my heart broke.”

From a personal standpoint, I was brought to faith in Christ chiefly through understanding that unless Christ chose me, I had no hope of saving myself. So I deeply identified with Bunyan here, and like him, my self-righteousness was shut up by the doctrines of depravity/election until I understood that my only hope is to cry to God for mercy through Jesus Christ, having nothing in and of myself (even my will) to offer Him in exchange for forgiveness and eternal life.

Conversion
For the sake of space, I must skip over Bunyan’s torments of mind and struggles with unbelief, which encompassed many years of his life. Indeed, his experience was definitely unique, but one which we would do well to read over and deeply consider. But the story of his conversion is one we dare not pass by:

“One day, as I was walking in the field, my conscience still somewhat wounded and still fearing that all was not well, these words suddenly entered my soul: ‘Your righteousness is in heaven.’ And I thought, moreover, that I saw, with the eyes of my soul, Jesus Christ at God’s right hand. I say, my righteousness was there [in heaven]; so that wherever I was, or whatever I was doing, God could not say of me, ‘He is in need of my righteousness,’ as my righteousness was right in front of Him. I also saw, moreover, that it was not my good state of heart that made my righteousness better, nor even my bad state of heart that made my righteousness worse, since my righteousness was Jesus Christ Himself, ‘the same yesterday, today, and forever’ (Heb. 13:8).

Conclusion:
As I stated above, Bunyan presents with precise detail and illustration the depth of sin and the nature of true conversion, which is unlike anything produced by the brilliant minds of our day. Indeed, if you are at all familiar with Bunyan’s greatest work, The Pilgrim’s Progress, you probably have an idea of the vivid gifts possessed by this great Puritan. I label this book as a ‘must read’ for every Christian of all walks, just as we would say the same regarding The Pilgrim’s Progress.

One great benefit from Bunyan’s great struggles of conscience, sin, and unbelief, was that after his conversion, he aimed in his ministry to ‘preach what I felt’. That is, remembering all his terrors of the law, guilt, conscience, and so on, Bunyan preached from the perspective of depression and fear he experienced all those years before he was brought to Christ. This, I believe, puts an edge upon all of his writings in that he isn’t coming to us from a high, theological, ivory tower, but from the perspective of an uneducated ‘tinker’ who has ‘walked a mile in our shoes’.

5 out of 5 possible stars, no doubt.

But because I am way behind on doing book reviews (they take a lot of time to write), I thought a couple of quick thoughts on this month’s reading will suffice.

Books I read this past month (January):

• Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners, John Bunyan: I enjoyed this work, but not as much as I thought I would. I plan on posting a full review soon, but I’d give this book 4 stars out of 5.

• Reforming Marriage, Douglas Wilson: Very good book. One of the best I’ve read on the subject of marriage. Currently re-reading this with my wife. 5 stars.

• Forgotten Spurgeon, Iain Murray: This is my second time through this book, and it was even better than the first. 5 stars, no doubt.

• The Market Day of the Soul, James Dennison: Fantastic work showing the history of the Puritan Sabbath. This is a must read no matter what your position is on the issue. I plan to post a full review this book as well. 5 stars.

• The Lord’s Day, Joseph Pipa: Most thorough and exegetical work on the Sabbath I’ve read. This is a complete defense of the Lord’s Day Sabbath. 5 stars.

• The Child’s Book on the Sabbath, Horace Hooker: A very practical approach to the subject, aimed at teaching children the issues concerning proper Sabbath doctrine and practice. Excellent book for children, but there are some fallacies here and there that adults might want to edit out. 4 and a half stars.

• The Law of Perfect Freedom, Mike Horton: Wow. This is the second book in a row I’ve read from Horton that has floored me (after reading two others previously that weren’t very impressive). Excellent treatment of the Ten Commandments (note: this is not a defense of the morality of the Decalogue or of Covenant Theology, but is rather an exegesis to practicality of the commandments). I plan to post a full review of this work as well. 5 stars.

• Spectacular Sins, John Piper: A warm, devotional approach to God’s Sovereignty over sin and providence. Another excellent book by Piper. Certainly not thorough or exhaustive, but a good introduction to a wonderful subject. 4 stars.

Well, as you can see, I’ve read a lot of good books this month (all 4 and 5 stars!). Without hesitation, I’d recommend all of these books for you, and say that they are definitely ‘above average reading’.

If you’d like to know more about a particular book, or if you’ve read one of these yourself and have some thoughts, please share.

Summary: A largely academic approach in examining the history of Puritan worship, but very thorough and informative on several critical issues surrounding worship and the Word of God. This is a much needed work in our day.

On the back cover of this book is written:

“There has, arguably, been no more pure worship since the days of the Apostles than that of the English Puritans of the 17th century. It was Christ-centered, Scripture-based, and reverential. God was the focus of all the elements of worship. He was the focus of the preaching, the praying, and the praises. This book explains the crux of Reformed worship.”

Indeed, in The Worship of the English Puritans, the foundational elements of Puritan worship –included how it was first formed and then defended– are explained in great detail, and Horton Davies gives a detailed, historical analysis of the disagreements and debates between the Puritans and the Church of England.

The first thing that struck me about this work was how academic it was. On the surface, the author doesn’t seem to have much of an agenda. And throughout the work, it is more of a recounting of history –plentiful in quotes and sources– than it is an examining of the Puritan’s claims in light of scripture. Nevertheless, it was a book that I simply couldn’t put down.

Regulative Principle of Worship
The importance of the book clearly lies in how the Puritans go back and forth with the Church of England, the Episcopalians, the Roman Catholic Church, and the separatists on the issues of public worship. Here we see the very beginnings of the Regulative Principle of Worship, where God’s word is our sole guide in determining what is and is not necessary and acceptable in the public worship of the church.

On Page 64 the author candidly says:

“…the authentic puritan note: If God does not ordain these things in His worship, how can they either please Him, or be edifying to His people?”

Ultimately, this sola scriptura logic is used by the Puritans from beginning to end. For this book discusses in detail the debates in the church over Liturgy, specifically the orders and sets of worship, such as the Book of Common Prayer, set forms of prayer versus extemporary prayer, song and praise in worship, the preaching, the sacraments, as well as ordinations, services of marriage, funerals, and church discipline.

Furthermore, I found it refreshing that the author recognized how the issue of the total depravity of man’s will played such a significant role in these debates. Clearly, he understood that the Puritans, working off of Calvin’s doctrine of sin and its effect on man, stood against the Anglicans at this very foundational level. Given this, it almost seemed impossible that they would agree on anything. Thus, it was clear that the inability of man to scheme, to invent forms of worship himself, and indeed, to decide what was appropriate for worship, that played a pivotal role in the debate just below the surface.

Regarding the Puritan’s stance:

“If they stood for the pure word of God, they stood out against all impurities which, by hypothesis, were the admixture of human traditions in doctrine and discipline. Their platform was based upon two tenets inherited from John Calvin…his doctrine of scripture…his reaffirmation of the doctrine of original sin in its most sombre colours.” (P49)

Elaborate Show in Worship/Reverence
Just a quick note here, for this subject is barely dealt with in this work, but the Puritans “objected only to elaborate church music which did not edify the congregations…” (P271).

Furthermore, regarding elaborate shows in worship, art, elaborate choirs and musical arrangements, I found this quote fitting in light of the casual, indifferent attitude that is prevalent today:

“To call on the name of God, to claim the presence of the Son of God, if men truly know and mean what they are doing, is in itself an act so tremendous and so full of comfort that any sensuous or artistic heightening of the effect is not so much painting of the lily as varnishing of sunlight.” (P270), B.L. Manning

Needed in our day
Without a doubt, we live in an age where the public worship of God is largely seen as an indifferent thing, an entertainment, or a means primarily aimed at healing our own emotional wounds. Not only have we lost the order, reverence, and devotion that the Puritans found fought so hard for, but we’ve lost the grasp on scripture that teaches us that Christ is the Head of the Church, and that God’s word is the sole guide to how we worship Him.

Consider,

“…that God’s worship hath no accidentals, that all that is in it and belonging to it, and the manner of it, is false worship, and if it have not a divine institution in particular; that all liturgies, as such, are such false worship…used to defeat Christ’s promise of gifts and God’s spirit.” (John Owen, quoted on P113)

And,

“The end wherefore God granted his word unto the church was, that thereby it might be instructed in his mind and will as to what concerns the worship and obedience that he requireth of us, and which is accepted with Him. This is the whole scripture itself everywhere declares and speaks out until all that do receive it; as 2 Tim 3:15-17;…it supposeth, it declareth, that of ourselves we are ignorant how God is, how he might be worshiped, Isa 8:20. Moreover, it manifests him to be a ‘jealous God’, exercising that holy property of his nature in an especical manner about his worship, rejecting and despising every thing that is not according to his will, that is not of his institution, Exod 20:4-6.” (John Owen, quoted on P257)

Are not reminders like these sorely needed in our churches today? Don’t we likewise need a resurgence, by God’s grace, of the firm old doctrines of Sola Scriptura, Total Depravity, and the Regulative Principle of Worship?

Conclusion:
I must also say, however, that with all that I agreed with in reading this book, I found myself challenged at times by the presentations of the Anglicans/Church of England in opposition to the Puritan’s Regulative Principle. This book certainly made me stop and think on just why it is that I believe what I believe about the instructions God has given us in the area of public worship. But what an edifying look back that this turned out to be. How refreshing it is to see God’s truth shine as pure gold through all the disagreements and debates that sometimes cloud our understanding.

This book was not exactly what I expected. It isn’t devotional or warm; rather, I found it very academic and didactic. But given the importance of the issues at stake, then as much as now, I mark this work down as a vital contribution to the reformation of today’s churches. We MUST know where Protestantism came from, and how we got to where we are today. We not only need a recovery of the precious truths the Puritans fought for, but we need bold men like them as well. Men confident in the scriptures, bold to declare what God’s word says, and not swayed by public opinion or political pressure when it comes to the truth of God’s word.

I give this book 4 stars out of 5.

Please note that I am prefacing this Bibliography with a ‘as the Lord wills‘. It seems as though every time I have set out a Bibliography before, for some reason or another, I’ve failed to read about 25% of the list. This has been caused by time restraints, unexpected providence, and general change of interest. Most specifically, I find that my interests often change throughout the year, so I might add or subtract books depending on the specific subject I desire to study.

Nevertheless, in no particular order, here is what I plan to read in 2009. If you have read something on the list, please throw in your two cents. Likewise if you are familiar with a similar book I might enjoy. And if you’d like me to let you know whether a book is worth the read or not, also let me know and I’d be glad to do so.

Bibliography: 2009

• An Old Testament Theology: An Exegtical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach?
  by Bruce K. Waltke, Charles Yu
• Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith?
  by Samuel E. Waldron
• Jesus Made in America: A Cultural History from the Puritans to the Passion
  by Stephen J. Nichols
• From Jerusalem to Irian Jaya: A Biographical History of Christian Missions?
  by Ruth Tucker
• Respectable Sins: Confronting the Sins We Tolerate?
  by Jerry Bridges
• Christ And Culture Revisited?
  by D. A. Carson
• David Martyn Lloyd-Jones: The First Forty Years, 1899-1939?
  by Iain Murray
• The Expository Genius of John Calvin?
  by Steven J. Lawson
• Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ?
  by Nehemiah Coxe, John Owen
• Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition?
  by Peter Golding, Golding Peter
• When Sinners Say “I Do”: Discovering the Power of the Gospel for Marriage?
  by Dave Harvey
• Him We Proclaim: Preaching Christ from All the Scriptures?
  by Dennis E. Johnson
• The Law of Perfect Freedom: Relating to God and Others Through the Ten Commandments?
  by Michael Horton
• Gospel Worship, Or, the Right Manner of Sanctifying the Name of God in…?
  by Jeremiah Burroughs
• The Worship of the American Puritans 1629-1730?
  by Horton Davies
• Shepherding a Child’s Heart?
  by Tedd Tripp, Theodore A. Tripp
• Manly Dominion: In a Passive-Purple-Four-Ball World?
  by Mark Chanski
• John Newton: From Disgrace to Amazing Grace?
  by Jonathan Aitken, Philip Yancey
• Letters from the South Seas?
  by Maggie Whitecross Paton
• With Reverence and Awe: Returning to the Basics of Reformed Worship?
  by D. G. Hart, John R. Muether
• Revival and Revivalism: The Making and Marring of American Evangelicalism
  by Iain Murray
• Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership
  by Alexander Strauch
• The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors
  by David Martyn Lloyd-Jones
• Logic, Or, The Right Use of Reason in the Inquiry After Truth with a Variety
  by Isaac Watts
• The Works of John Flavel?
  by John Flavel
• The Godly Family: A Series of Essays on the Duties of Parents and Children?
  by Henry Venn, Samuel Davies, Samuel Stennett, Arthur Hildersham, Philip Doddridge, George Whitefield
• Goldsworthy Trilogy: Gospel and Kingdom, Gospel and Wisdom, Gospel and Revelation
  by Graeme Goldsworthy
• The Pauline Eschatology?
  by Geerhardus Vos
• The Art of Man-fishing?
  by Thomas Boston

Summary: Devotional, Succinct, Convincing

The rise in dispensational theology in our day, specifically the so-called ‘literal’ hermeneutic that underlies it, complete with its call for proof texts of ‘thou shalt’ in order to establish truth, has largely annulled any concept of man’s duty to keep the Sabbath holy. Sabbath-keeping in our day is largely seen as out of touch or just plain legalistic.

But don’t be mistaken: this denial of man’s duty to keep the Sabbath is largely a new phenomenon in the Church. And given this, I find it interesting how Christians now days are so quick to form firm opinions on the matter while the historic heroes of the faith that they study and admire would have excommunicated them for such an abrogation of God’s holy Law.

Nevertheless, regarding the defense of the Christian Sabbath, I am very thankful for this book. This is not a full defense of the validity of the Christian Sabbath. This is not a full treatment of opposing views. This is not an examination of church history and teachings over the last 1900 years, in contrast to the last 100 years where the Sabbath has dropped off the map. Those arguments are certainly needed and appropriate in their place, but sometimes, a short, succinct, and devotional explanation of the Sabbath can be the strongest persuasion.

In The Day God Made, Glen Knecht begins at a very practical level in explaining how a one-day-in-seven rest is nourishing to the body, especially in this fast-paced culture. From there, Knect moves on to the Creation account, the Commandments of the OT, and then to the teachings of Jesus Christ in explaining the validity of the Christian Sabbath. Nothing fancy. Nothing mind-blowing. Just simply: this is how we get there; this is how we see all of the scriptures teaching us to keep the Sabbath holy.

Other important issues that Knecht briefly hits on: Christian holiness in our day, the issue of ‘delighting’ in the Sabbath, the popular antinomian thinking within today’s church, and the future consummation of the Sabbath Day.

Personally, I appreciate his emphasis on ‘delight’ in the book. Too often in our day, which is again, derived from a ‘proof-text’ mentality, Christians just demand a new law; Christians just want a straight command that they can externally obey and get on with their lives. But scripture never treats obedience in this manner, as it always cuts to the heat and motives of an issue. Even some Christians in our day who do hold to the validity of the Sabbath often misunderstand the true intent of the command. But with ‘delight’, we find the true essence of Sabbath-keeping, wonderfully brought out by our Savior’s teaching on the subject, and rightly emphasized here in Knecht’s work.

Conclusion:
Christians in this culture who hold to the Sabbath are looked at as if they missed something obvious when reading Colossians 2:16, or Romans 14:5. Either that or we’re seen as being stuck in puritanism. Sabbath-keeping is, again, seen as legalistic and an obvious error of biblical interpretation.

It is because of these prevailing ideas that I highly recommend this book. This book is one of the best I have ever read dealing with this subject. Again, not because it is exceptionally deep or profound, but because of its simplicity. Knecht very succinctly explains the true nature of the Sabbath, considering all of scripture as relevant to instructing us in this manner.

In The Day God Made, Knect opens up the argument for the Sabbath in way that will motivate you to study it further. And he certainly doesn’t ignore objections the his position, such as the fact that the we are no explicitly commanded in the New Testament to keep the Sabbath holy. Knecht answers objections succinctly, using all of scripture as our guide, and his answers will encourage readers to study the issue further. You will be blessed by reading this book, particularly on a lazy, Lords-Day afternoon. And it would also serve as an excellent, succinct argument, maybe in the form of a gift book to a friend, for those who do not fully understand the issues at stake in this debate.

I heartily give this book 5 out of 5 stars.

For those of you who do not know me personally, I have a full time job, I attend college courses part time (Kennesaw State University), and I also have a wonderful family (pregnant wife and soon to be two-year old!). Needless to say, my responsibilities at work, school, home, not to mention my involvement with my local church, often leave me without much spare time.

And so considering all of this, I’m often asked just how I find time to read so much. Generally, my friends and family assume that I’m just a fast reader, or that I speed-read (only reading the summary of chapters and/or skipping unimportant paragraphs). Not true. I’m actually a slow reader, and one of my pet-peeves is that I cannot put down a book until I have read every last word –including all introductions, appendixs, and references. So I never start another book until I have completely finished the previous one.

Nevertheless, I do get a fair amount of reading accomplished. I probably average 2-3 books per week when school is slow or out, and 1-2 books per week when things are busy.

Tips for reading more in 2009:

Thus, to offer a big secret plan (not really) on how you can read more in 2009, I offer this: read 30min – 1 hour before starting the day, read 30min or so during the day (usually at lunch), and read 30min – 1hour after the day is over. Of course, your Sabbath should encompass a full day of reading and worshiping the Lord, so you should be able to get a few hours in there as well. And this plan doesn’t even count the additional time you should have on Saturdays and holidays.

So it’s really that simple. Nothing special about it; just commit to a little time each day, and the plan above will get you through at least a book a week on average. Just commit to sacrifice a little time: a little sleep to get up slightly earlier; a half-hour lunch break to eat instead of a full hour; and that 30min television show or internet surfing in the evening, and you will find that reading and getting through books is really quite simple. In fact, you’ll find that if you commit even a small time (say 15minutes at the times above), then you will get into the reading itself to the point where you will magically find more time to read (in other words, you will enjoy it enough to place it as a higher priority over things such as TV, surfing, etc.)

Recommended Reading:

The list below is my top-ten book recommendations from what I read in 2008. Only one book in this list was published this year, so understand that this list is my personal recommendations based upon what I’ve read in 2008. It is not a list recommending new or even newer books. But I highly recommend these books, as I have carefully read and benefited from every one:

1) Without question, the best book I have read this year, and probably the best book I have read in quite some time, is Christless Christianity by Michael Horton. Excellent book. I can’t say enough about it. It is absolutely a must have. I would consider paying some people to sit down read this one. Go out and buy this book today. I will be buying boxes for friends and family. Lord-willing (and time-willing), I hope to post a review of it soon.

2) John G Paton Missionary to the New Hebrides, John Paton: This is a classic, best-seller of the great missionary John Paton. A phenomenal and exciting read of John Paton and his faith on an island of cannibals. I am actually re-reading this book, with my wife and daughter for family worship, and am enjoying it even more the second time around.

3) The Puritans on Prayer, Various authors: A great devotional read. This book will be a top 10 in any list I put together. It will change the way you look at prayer, and by God’s grace, it will stoke your fire for prayer.

4) Precious Remedies from Satan’s Devices, Thomas Brooks: another Puritan classic. If you’re not familiar with puritan literature, this is an excellent place to start. This is another one of my very favorites, as is everything I’ve read from Thomas Brooks.

5) Counted Righteous in Christ, John Piper: a short little doctrinal work on the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ (often called the active obedience of Christ). This book just warmed my heart. A great defense of a doctrine that is at the heart of the gospel (though much attacked in our day).

6) The Fear of God, John Bunyan: a devotional, warming, and classic puritan argumentation on an important subject.

7) War Psalms of the Prince of Peace, James Adams: this will change the way you look at the Psalms. A great Redemptive Historical argument for Christ-centeredness in our Psalm reading.

8 ) Lectures to My Students, Charles Spurgeon: A classic which I had never read before, but one that I really benefited from. A must read for any student of ministry.

9) Christ’s Counsel to His Languishing Church, Obadiah Sedgwick: Excellent book on recovering from spiritual lethargy. We all fall into those periods of struggle; this Puritan work will change the way you look at things next time you fall into a lull.

10) Rediscovering Catechism: The Art of Equipping Covenant Children, Donald Van Dyken: Short little work on catechizing. I thought the author’s argument for how children learn and thus how to catechize children was excellent.

Other honorable mentions of what I’ve read this year:

• The Day God Made, Glen Knect: best book I’ve read on the explanation of the Christian Sabbath.
• Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, Graeme Goldsworthy: A must-read of biblical interpretation for the preacher/teacher.
• Redemption Accomplished and Applied, John Murray: classic work; one I’ve read before, but reading through it again helped stoke my fire for the gospel in all of its beautiful facets.
• A Treatise on Earthly-Mindedness, Jeremiah Burroughs: for the dedicated reader, this thorough work is a great puritan work on a very important subject.
• The Hidden Smile of God, John Piper: great gift book; short, devotional read, and an excellent treatment on suffering by John Piper.

I hope that’s enough to get you started reading in 2009! I’ve got quite a book list in front of me, but the question is, do you?

In Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture, Graeme Goldworthy sets forth a very clear agenda, an agenda reflected in the title, and one that serves as the main thesis of the book from beginning to end:

“The aim of this book is to provide a handbook for preachers that will help them apply a consistently Christ-centered approach to their sermons.”

Very simply put about what Goldsworthy means when he says ‘Christ-centered approach’, Goldsworthy emphasizes that all of scripture and redemptive history testify and point to Jesus Christ, and therefore, “Jesus is the interpretive key to the Bible”.

In essence, this book is intended to assist the preacher to begin his sermon preparation with the question: “How does this passage of Scripture, and consequently my sermon, testify to Christ?” And I must say, Goldsworthy definitely accomplishes this goal on a very practical level.

A few personal thoughts on the thesis:
Part one of the book deals with various presuppositions that we might bring to the table when sitting down to interpret scripture. Goldsworthy here argues for what is called a “Redemptive-Historical” or “thematic” approach to interpreting scripture. Biblical Theology, as it is termed (Google this term if you are unfamiliar with its definition), and the approach of Goldsworthy in this book, is to help the preacher understand how each part of scripture ultimately points to fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ. That is, how certain themes run throughout the Old Testament into the New, and how these themes point to and culminate in the Person and Work of Christ. We understand the Old Testament through the lens of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and Biblical Theology traces ‘gospel’ themes throughout all of scripture. Very important to recognizing these themes and properly interpreting scripture is the solid understanding of the point in redemptive history in which the text is given.

With that being said, this book is not a full defense of the Redemptive Historical method. This book is certainly a good explanation and guideline to the RH method, but it is certainly not a defense or full treatment of the subject. In fact, I found the author to be very dogmatic at times, making statements all throughout that he does not fully support. The book is riddled with argumentation that presupposes the tenants of Biblical Theology/the Redemptive Historical method that some readers might disagree with. However, I do not consider this a bad thing, for I agree with most of what Goldsworthy sets forth, how he goes about interpreting the text of scripture, and thus I found his wisdom and logic to be very edifying. But considering this, I would first recommend this book to those who already agree with the basic tenants of Biblical Theology/Redemptive Historical interpretation, or to those who fairly new to this biblical science of interpretation.

The second half of the book covers “The Practical Application of Biblical Theology to Preaching”. Here Goldsworthy examines different ‘epochs’ in scripture, such as the Old Testament Law or the Wisdom Literature, and he demonstrates how we might go about examining themes/pinpointing how they point to Christ and the gospel/put the BT/RH method into practice. I found this section to be a very helpful and practical guide as to how to preach and put into practice the method of examining scripture in light of Jesus Christ and His accomplished work.

This section is very easy to follow, with many helpful charts and diagrams to help explain and understand redemptive history. It is specifically written to the one who will be teaching and preaching on this subject, though I imagine that any layman would have no trouble following what Goldsworthy sets forth.

A few concerns I had:
I approached this book from a layman’s perspective, as I have aimed this review. With this in mind, understanding that critiquing the theology and flow of argument was not my main objective, I must say that I did not find much wrong with this book. However, if I were to go a little deeper, I would like to further examine a few minor concerns:

-In the introduction Goldsworthy shares a little story highlighting how Christological preaching can easily become predictable, and that his goal in the book is to help keep us from being predictable/boring our audience with the exact same ‘Christ-centered’ message week after week. This book certainly helps us in that goal, but I do not believe he goes far enough in this work to fully flesh it out.

-Goldsworthy expresses much concern on the ‘moralistic’ preaching of our day and the emphasis on ethical imperatives divorced from the gospel, rightly so. He warns that exegetical, verse by verse preaching can sometimes separate the first part of an epistle (gospel) from the second part of an epistle (practical application). I highly applaud his concerns here, but without question he does not set forth a clear alternative to this problem to help preachers avoid this dichotomy. Are we to scrap verse by verse preaching and preach entire epistles instead (in one sermon)? Personally, I was left a little disheartened at times in that preparing to preach in Goldswothy’s system is something that will require immense preparation, or life-long practice in order to preach a simple text of scripture in its context.

-As others have pointed out in reviews of this book, Goldsworthy sees Redemptive History as beginning with Abraham rather than in Genesis 3 with the promise of the Seed. His charts and diagrams reflect this error all throughout. Fleshing out the implications and ramifications of this view is beyond the scope of this review, but this is definitely a sticking point with me, and should be noted with caution.

-Furthermore, Goldsworthy’s view on scripture division is Abraham to Solomon, Solomon to Exile, and Christ to Parousia. While I agree largely with his division, specifically in how he uses this to teach proper interpretation (properly considering the point in redemptive history which a text is given, and not jumping from that point directly to the modern reader while skipping how it ultimately points to Christ first), I believe Goldsworthy to be lacking in the area of traditional Reformed/Covenant theology and how the covenants provide the proper structure and support for biblical interpretation. I will have to read more of his works to form a full opinion, but I was uncomfortable at times with his divisions and neglect of traditional ways of understanding the divisions and covenants in scripture.

Conclusion:
Preaching the Whole Bible as Christian Scripture is a must have for any student of scripture. Even if you do not agree with everything Goldsworthy says, you will undoubtedly view scripture in a different light, and will have an immediate desire to re-read your bible and trace the Messianic/Gospel themes littered throughout. I would label this a great introduction to the Biblical Theology/Redemptive Historical hermeneutic, not only for this presentation, but for his practical outworking of this method found in the second half of the book.

I give it 4 out of 5 stars.

A few choice quotes:

“Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a particular hobbyhorse or denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis of our acceptance of other Christians.”

“Our operative gospel will be the thing that preoccupies us as the focus of our preaching and teaching. It may be a particular hobbyhorse or denominational distinctive. Baptism, a particular view of the second coming, social action, creationism, spiritual gifts, and the like are all easily raised to the status of gospel by becoming the main focus of our preaching. This is especially deplorable when these spurious gospels are made the basis of our acceptance of other Christians.”

“We [often] recognize the existence of elements of discontinuity between us and the Old Testament, but we do not so readily recognize those that exist between us and the New Testament.”

“There is often a failure to think through how the link between the people and events of the Old Testament are to be made with us as, presumably, New Testament people. This failure leads to some major defects in preaching, not the least of which is the tendency to moralize on Old Testament events, or simply to find pious examples to imitate.”

“It is clear from the New Testament that the ethical example of Christ is secondary to and dependent upon the primary and unique work of Christ for us. Yet this does not seem to be clear to many when it comes to the Old Testament. The message of the Old Testament is too easily reduced to the imitation of godly example and the avoidance of the ungodly example.”

“My concern about evangelism is that sometimes there is a greater emphasis on the need for some kind of response than on the clear exposition of the gospel…Telling people the need for the gospel, both their felt need and the real need, is plainly important, but it is not itself the gospel. When we have explained what God has done for us in Christ –the gospel– then we may go on to explain the benefits of receiving the gospel and the perils of ignoring it.”

Other posts on this subject:

• Moralistic Preaching
• What is Your ‘Gospel’?
• Newsweek Magazine, Gay Marriage, and Moral Examples from Scripture