Drake > Recent Status Updates

Two chapters in, and it's off to a good start. Bandy's overview of Revelation's reception in the early church is fascinating. Ian Paul's treatment of Revelation's genre is possibly the most helpful I've come across.

Here. We. Go.

Didn't think I'd be revisiting this one so soon, but the book club at my work is going through it, so picking it up again to join the discussion. So far, it's been every bit as good as I remember it.

DNF. Made it about a quarter of the way through. Not bad by any means, but just having a hard time getting into it. This is the first time I've ever said this about a book, but I think it would actually be better in the form of a documentary than a book. I will try Philbrick again in the future, though, with one of his more traditional historical writings.

I also find it interesting (and humorous) that they felt confident enough to dismiss any notion of male headship in the home—a view that has been held by the majority of the church throughout its 2000 year history—on the basis of (1) their survey results and (2) a single footnote addressing a single verse in the New Testament.

Only two chapters in, and I’m already struck by:

- the lack of any serious interaction with the biblical text

- the generally arrogant tone of the authors (most of the church has gotten this wrong, but we’ve figured it all out because WE TOOK A SURVEY)

- the sleight-of-hand use of statistics to “prove” their points

- the shallow, glib treatment of what should be a serious topic

Halfway through. Excellent so far.

Third attempt to finish. I’m determined to make it this time!

He’s come dangerously close to persuading me to change my understanding of Romans 11.

Dangerously close.

This is shaping up to be my favorite book of the year so far. Keller’s presentation of the gospel against the backdrop of the devastating hopelessness of secularism is just beautiful.

I’ve gotten saved at least four times while reading this book.

Recurring theme of the book so far:

“And then Eragon lost consciousness.”

Scholarly community: "It's impossible to write a detailed and compelling case for the trustworthiness of the gospels in less than 150 pages."

Peter Williams: "Hold my papyrus."

Fascinating read so far. His discussion of the early church (second to fourth centuries) was a bit disappointing, but the rest has been thought-provoking. His distinction between “religion” and “magic” is quite helpful, and he’s been crushing it so far in his discussion of religion and science. So many myths debunked.

So far, Craig’s and Habermas’s essays have been pretty good, while Feinberg’s was very disappointing. Next up is Frame, whose responses to each author have been spot-on.

“So what is the kingdom? It is concrete; it is earthy; it is people; it is place; it is about Jesus; it concerns the cross; it is about the new heavens and the new earth; it is about community, politics, order, bodies, and human flourishing... [T]o close the door on the vast picture that the Scriptures use to paint the kingdom is to misinterpret and misunderstand the goal of redemption.”

"Tell someone to do something, and you change their life -- for a day. Tell someone a story and you change their life."

This has been really, really good so far. Wright's insights into both the Jewish and Roman cultures of the first century have been very helpful, and his discussions of Paul's "zeal" and his sojourn in Arabia were fascinating.

Chapters 12-14 have been my favorites so far. Their unpacking of the New Covenant and exegesis of Daniel 9 were both helpful and fascinating!

On to the New Covenant!

Transitioning now from the Old Testament to the New in his discussion of idolatry.

This book continues to be excellent.

Alright, I'm going to take a break from this one for a bit and read a smaller book in the meantime.

Tons of good stuff here, but man, some of it is really dense (including discussions of textual issues that don't always seem to tie back into the main purpose of the book). It makes me wish I had retained more from my Hebrew classes; that definitely would have made it easier to follow some of their discussions.

I am loving this book so far. Scholarly but not tedious. It's also instilled in me a greater love for a thoroughly "Reformed" understanding of Scripture, as the author does a fantastic job of showing how a robust, fully-orbed Reformed theology gives us a foundation for a deep, fleshed-out theology of other religions.

Dr. Kruger is absolutely CRUSHING it right now (and I don't use that term to describe academic works very often). He's addressed so many problems I've found in typical answers given to the question of how we know we have the correct books in the New Testament. I'm only beginning his discussion of a "self-authenticating model of canonicity," but it seems very promising.