Sean Brenon > Recent Status Updates

Man, after the amazing piece of work that is Schreiner’s commentary on Hebrews, I had hoped that this one would live up to that standard.

It does not, but that’s not because of the scholarship— I just think the Tyndale commentaries don’t go deep enough for me personally. Others may get more out if this than I am.

I think this book makes some really good arguments against the Presbyterian covenantal theology. I think he’s much worse when establish a Baptist one because he doesn’t understand the Baptists position. Or at least, his language is really sloppy. It’s a problem either way.

Oh boy. Starting off with an assumption of the regulative principle of worship is a useful apologetic tool. But the regulative principle is self-defeating since it is not only NOT in the Bible but is almost explicitly refuted in 1 Corinthians. Very interested to see if Malone makes any defense of the regulative principle.

Fascinating discussion. I think Trueman is 95% correct. The only minor squabble I have is in terms of what society is TRYING to do. He argues that desecration is the point— I’m not sold on that; I think it’s a symptom.
He raises some amazing points I hope he gets into. Chiefly— is autonomy of ability true freedom? Why is Christian freedom better than autonomous freedom?

WUTLH is ambitious and amazing. This one drops a lot of the uniqueness of WUTLH, aiming for a more straightforward horror experience. So far, that’s been a disappointment.

I made a mistake here. Chapter 2 is almost incomprehensibly dense. Let’s hope it gets more accessible after that.

We will see how NT Wright comes back from using John 8:1-12 as the basis for his discussion in justice… that section of verses almost definitely was not part of the original manuscripts, and most versions of the bible either omit it or make a note to that effect. I do think he will get better, but that’s a rough start for me.

I can’t believe how dash sting the last 300 pages of this book have become. This is truly a fascinating story.

I can’t speak for the whole book yet. But Clarke’s first 100 pages are the kind of first 100 pages that every author wishes they could write.

A quick read with unique and interesting characters. Looking forward to seeing where this one goes.

I want to like this more than I do. Schreiner is one of my favorite theologians today, and he has a commentary on 1 Corinthians. So I was hoping to hear an academic take on the topic of spiritual gifts.

This is not that. This is a very surface level discussion that doesn’t quite scratch my itch to read on this topic.

I both love and am disappointed by this book. His large points about the use of art to reveal God’s purpose for man and the world are awesome. He says stuff that I already believed and didn’t know anyone else had written on it. He also occasionally uses absolutely dreadful exegesis to make his points. And the thing is that he doesn’t have to. I have questions about some of the more progressive things, too.

I think there’s a lot of merit here. My problems with Keller in this book generally struggle with his epistemology. Basically, he falls back on the idea that an individual’s experience defines social injustice. And I just think that’s a dangerous viewpoint. I think it’s also dubious to translate the word ‘sojourner’ as ‘immigrant’ 100% of the time. Those things are not the same.

I like this. I don’t know if I’m on board with all his applications. But there’s something to be said about the expressive spirit of the Christian artist as it relates to the expressive Spirit of God Himself. He may be onto something in implicitly claiming that the Church hasn’t internalized movement away from Middle Ages scholasticism. He doesn’t say it like that, but that’s my interpretation.

Something about this feels icky. It’s like, ‘Here are some tips you can use to make people like you more without actually changing yourself!’ Or put another way: ‘Here are some tips that even serial killers can use to be more likable!’ Ew.

Bavinck does the thing with philosophy. That thing where you use all the old Greek and Latin and German terms without defining them so that you have to have read all the philosophers of the past to keep up. Except this is even worse because he’s responding directly to people in his era, which did not produce many famous philosophers. So it’s even more inaccessible. I call it accidental gatekeeping.

One thing I like about Bavinck in this book is that he is very brief and to the point. That’s how philosophy should be done.

One thing I don’t like about Bavinck is that he uses terms without explaining them as if his audience is rooted in the same German tradition. These were originally lectures, so maybe that was true. But gosh, these Dutch guys are tough.

Absolutely brilliant approach to the topic. My only concern is that Sanders is TOO ecumenical to call out practical problems where they exist. The ‘nonliturgical and nonsacramental’ Churches are, in my opinion, Biblically deficient. Sanders seems to think so, too. But he also doesn’t want to ruffle feathers, unfortunately.

For my money, this one contends for the best of the series so far. I’ve always liked Swain, so that’s not surprising.

I think this is one of the better commentaries I’ve read; the problem is that his sections are almost too short

Wow did this book take a mighty left turn into eisegesis in the Psalms and Gospels. I just don’t think his thesis can stand through the epistles. We will see how he works them together. Not a chance it goes well.

The whole dream aspect of the story is dumb and confusing and it’s way better to just leave that bit out. Other than that, I actually find myself sucked into the story, although I can’t really fathom why every land is associated with a negative figure: Demonland (the good guys somehow), Witchland, Goblinland, Impland, etc.

I don’t think these are all useful. But the ones that ARE useful are really solid. I’d give this a 3.5 trending toward 4 stars?
I agree with the reviewer who said this feels like a cash grab.

This is one of my personal favorites in the series, but its impact is limited by one major flaw: this book is not nearly long enough for Millar to argue his point. He assumes his thesis. I think he is correct to point out that calling upon the name of the Lord IS prayer, but I don’t think it’s fair to say that all prayer is that. This is useful to me, but far from being a complete discussion.

This one is mercifully short. But man, I love Peterson’s approach. He has Johnson’s understanding of Greek but not his over reliance on Western forms. I love where this is headed.

Johnson’s covenantal understanding is just dreadful. He’s so concerned with arguing against ‘replacement theology’ that he misses the point of covenant theology in general. There is a base assumption that the covenant in Genesis 18 is the same as the covenant in Genesis 15 and the promise of Genesis 12. 12 and 15 should be read symbiotically, but 18 is something different.