Sean Brenon > Recent Status Updates

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.

What an amazing book this is. Because it’s Catholic, it almost misses the point of its own argument by demystifying Christianity in realizing it through the senses in the Sacraments. But, the point that Imagination is, generally, the point of contact between mankind and the metaphysical is fascinating and useful.

Again, this book is exhausting. I don’t understand why it is important to know every position regarding one facet of a larger topic. I don’t care what others said; what do YOU say? The series description at the beginning doesn’t say that the series necessitates such engagement with everyone else. It slows the momentum of the thesis down so much.

I always forget how exhausting books in this series are to read. Most are excellent. They’re just tiring.

An excellent introduction. It is clear that the authors’ Catholicism will color the way that one lives out their apology. In that way, they are unapologetically Catholic. I would have liked to see them respond to Van Til, who comes to many of their conclusions by critiquing Kantian rationality. I don’t know if it’s fair to call Van TIL a rationalist though.

This is a bit more difficult to read because the language is imprecise due to the era of its English. Once you get into it, however, it is possibly the most encouraging book I e read.

In my mind, this introduction is far superior to Schreiner’s, but the commentary itself focus way too much on the Greek so that the overall thrust of the argument can get lost in the individual words and phrases. Schreiner avoided this well by picking and choosing his battles. It remains to be seen if Johnson will continue this or if his discussion of Greek is tied to a complicated first chapter.

It’s almost over.
This book is absolute nonsense in my opinion. Moltmann would have been condemned as a heretic with Nestorius at Ephesus.

An amazing tonal piece on the terrible state of public schools that is actually more applicable for the modern day than it was in 1979.

Books like this make me wish that Germans never partook in philosophy. Kant really did screw the pooch.