Five Books That Have Most Influenced My Reading of the Bible

I got tagged about a week ago by Richard and I just saw it on my dashboard. Here we go (in no particular order):

1. Kingdom Prologue - Meredith Kline
This was the main book that brought me over from dispensationalism and opened up an entirely new way of reading Scripture, particularly the Old Testament. Although I’m not entirely settled on everything in KP, the book definitely shifted my entire approach to the Bible. Kline’s framework interpretation of Genesis showed me that there are other ways to inerpret/understand Scripture that are true to Scripture and consistent with science though not at all contingent on the latter.

2. Church Dogmatics - Karl Barth
I’m actually working through the 30 volumes (or 14 depending on which edition you have) right now. I’m almost done with III.4 and so far I’m loving it. There have been very few dull moments reading Barth. While I certainly don’t agree with everything he says, there are many things thatI have gained from my readings. Just to name a few: the fact that he is not content to merely dismiss Schleiermacher, but seriously engages him and takes whatever good things he can is admirable. It’s also interesting to see him interact with Roman Catholic theologians and agree with them on some points, but on other points (e.g., justification) be bold enough to say how wrong they are. His section on the teaching/hearing Church is a must read for every theologian. Finally, the greatest strength (and to many, the greatest weakness) of Barth’s theology is his thoroughgoing Christology. He refuses to keep Christology apart from any aspect of his theology. I feel this makes his theology a lot less arbitrary in certain aspects–which clarifies a lot–but (paradoxically) it seems to make other places in his theology more arbitrary (this may be due to my own theological blindness, though).

3. The Eclipse of Biblical Narrative – Hans W. Frei
I absolutely hated this book by the time I was almost finished and it wasn’t until a few months later that I began to realize the impact it had on my thinking (Shane, if you’re reading this: thanks again for recommending it!). Reading this book allowed me to see how much the meaning of the text had shifted from the narrative in the text itself to the world behind the text (i.e., ostensive historical reference). I still don’t know what to think of Frei’s conclusions, but I do think he tracks a very important decline in the priority of the biblical narrative itself. This relates to Kline’s framework interpretation of Genesis–focusing on the ostensive historical reference, though it may at times be important, may end up being a hindrance to understanding what Scripture is actually about.

4. Biblical Theology of the Old and New Testaments - Brevard S. Childs
This book led to books 2-3 on this list. Andrew Compton blogged about Childs and Phil Sumpter seemed to really like him so I thought I’d give him a try and I ended up being blown away by his stuff. I think a good amount of that being blown away was due to the fact that he was the first “non-conservative” Biblical scholar I’d read, but I think that he presents some really profound and interesting material. His view of the shaping of the canon has helped me to see just how complex the issue itself is as well as helped me, again, to focus on the text itself for its meaning rather than the world behind the text. Another thing about Childs is his desire to let both the OT and NT speak in its respective voice without either separating or confounding the two. Barth’s influence comes out here–Childs keeps the two testaments together by their common subject matter, which is Jesus Christ. Out of excitment I read about five more books by Childs immediately after I’d finished his BT. There are several more sitting on my bookshelf, but those’ll have to wait until I’m done with CD.

5. On Being a Theologian of the Cross – Gerhard O. Forde
This isn’t explicitly related to reading Scripture, but it was for me. Luther’s distinction between a theologia gloriae and a theologia crucis is, I believe, something that  applies to all spheres of theological exercise. One could say that it was Luther’s theologia crucis that opened my fundamentalist ears to even bothering listening to Kline or Barth or any of the other guys listed above. Forde clearly and profoundly expounds Luther’s theologia crucis. I think this is a book every Christian must read (a cliché, I know).

New Book on Images of Christ: In Living Color by Rev. Danny Hyde

Rev. Danny Hyde’s new book on images of Christ is out. Here’s a link to his blog. Click here to purchase his book from Amazon. And if you haven’t done so already, make sure you check out his commentary on the Belgic Confession here.

Some endorsements:

Danny Hyde has written an excellent piece on a very misunderstood subject. Through effective combination of biblical, theological, and confessional discussions, he has presented the Reformed view of the second commandment winsomely and attractively. He helpfully emphasizes not the negative prohibition of making images of God but the positive facts that God has revealed himself now so generously in Word and Sacrament and will one day reveal himself visibly in the most perfect and authentic way.

—David VanDrunen, Robert B. Strimple Associate Professor of Systematic Theology and Christian Ethics, Westminster Seminary California

In these pages, Danny Hyde argues with great clarity against all images of Jesus as man-made media. He shows that all such images are abominated in Scripture and roundly rejected by the Reformed confessional heritage without exception. Hyde goes on to argue, however, that God does provide us with His “media”—the preaching of His Word and the administration of His sacraments.

—Joel R. Beeke, President, Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary

Marilyn Manson or Ned Flanders?

What would a “Satanic” city look like? See Inwoo Lee’s post here.

Christless Christianity

If you have an hour listen to Michael Horton’s interview on his new book Christless Christianity here.

During the month of October you can purchase his book for 50% off. For information go to the Christless Christianity website.

This is the most urgent issue of the day. The seeker-sensitive movement, Emerging church movement, prosperity gospel, and sadly most Evangelical churches each have this fundamental problem at their core: Christ is not preached. Religion without the true gospel becomes moralism or some vague spirituality. It’s not enough to preach Scripture. The Pharisees were masters of Scripture, but they failed because they did not see Christ at the center. What separates Christianity from every other moralistic religion is this: ours is grounded in what Christ has done for us in history. It’s not about us “following” him as a religious teacher, but primarily about us believing in Christ as the one accomplished our redemption.

Some Quotes from Recovering the Reformed Confessions

Dr. R. Scott Clark’s book titled Recovering the Refomed Confessions was published recently. The book packs quite a punch as Dr. Clark deals with the crisis facing our Reformed churches. Having established the fact that Reformed believers do, in fact, have a specific identity (theology, piety and practice), Dr. Clark argues that many of our Churches have lost it and have instead turned to quests for illegitimate religious certainty (biblicism, moralism, rationalism, etc.) and/or experiences (revivalism, pietism, subjectivism, etc). Rather than searching for a new identity, Reformed believers must return to Geneva, that is, to our confessions of faith.

For those who want to understand what it means to be Reformed, this is the book to read. Some will be surprised to find that it is much more than holding to the doctrine of predestination, or reading Jonathan Edwards.

Here are a few quotes from throughout the book:

On the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE):
Nevertheless, consistently it seems, whether in hearing professions of faith, in house visitation, or casual conversation, Christian piety is reckoned chiefly in terms of the private and the subjective. If someone asks, “What is God teaching you these days?” one has the sense that the expected answer is not to be a summary of the week’s sermon or reflection on the significance of baptism or the Lord’s Supper, but an insight derived from special experience or private revelation. 73.

On subscribing the confessions:
It is not that the authority of the confessions “is very nearly tantamount to that of Scripture,” but it is tantamount to that of Scripture, assuming that a given confession is biblical and intended to be subscribed because (quia) it is biblical. If a confession is not biblical, it should be revised so that it is biblical, or it should be discarded in favor of a confession that is biblical. 178.

It is one thing to have a high view of Scripture. It is another thing, however, to have a theology, piety, and practice which are actually biblical. It is not widely known today, but the theologians and pastors who set the framework for the confessional Reformed reading of Scripture and theology were devout, passionate, sophisticated, and serious students of the Bible. I do not meant to suggest that merely because the classic Reformed theologians produced a great deal of published biblical study, their theology was therefore biblical. The Roman, Lutheran, Arminian, and Amyraldian scholars of the age also produced a considerable amount of biblical scholarship, and yet the confessional Reformed community would be reluctant to say that those works were biblical, at least not in the same sense. By biblical, I mean that the Reformed theologians have taken Scripture as the primary and unique authority for their theology… They read Scripture with considerable sophistication and sensitivity and insight, in part because they typically refused to segregate their theological concerns from their reading of Scripture… Without denying the difficulty of interpreting texts and Scripture in particular, we nevertheless believe the Scriptures to be sufficiently clear to learned and unlearned readers so that from them, with the illumination of the Spirit, we may come to a sufficient understanding of them for saving faith and the Christian life. 198-99.

On the ordinary means of grace:
Most forms of mysticism tell us that God works immediately, that is, without means, agents, or instruments. Pietism tells us that he works primarily through private prayer and devotions. The logic of mysticism and pietism is relentless. If God is thought to work primarily in private ways, apart from the ministry of Word and sacrament in the congregation, why attend any service at all? If God’s people have come to think this way, then a proper estimation of the Sabbath alone is not enough to restore the second service. The sufficient condition for restoring the evening service is the recovery of the biblical and confessional doctrine of the means of grace. We need to regain our conviction and confidence that not only can God work through means but that he has promised to do so and even that we should not expect him to work apart from those ordained means. 326.

Nevertheless, Berkhof’s distinction between the objective and the subjective is important and needs to be recovered if we are to recover the Reformed confession. Since the eighteenth century the emphasis in American Christianity, including the Reformed churches, has certainly been on the subjective aspects of piety. Berkhof’s discussion of the means of grace is outstanding partly because it is unusual. Whether in literature or in the pulpit, contemporary Reformed piety often seems to have more to do with Jonathan Edwards than with Louis Berkhof. We are much more likely to hear sermons and talks about private piety and the immediate experience of God than about the divinely ordained publicly administered means of grace. If Berkhof is correct, however, perhaps attendance to the second service is actually a better indicator of spiritual maturity than are the calluses on our knees or the wear on our Bibles. 330.

On being Reformed:
If our young, restless, and Reformed theologians could not find hospitality at Dort or Westminster, we may fairly ask whether the adjective “Reformed” is properly used of them. If, as this volume has argued, the Reformed confessions are the measure of what it means to be Reformed, then it cannot include those, however earnest, who deny doctrines that are of the essence of the Reformed theology, piety, and practice…. as a matter of principle (ecclesiareformata, semper reformanda ) the pillars of conservatism and predestination are not enough to sustain the churches and Christians that would be Reformed. The choice is squarely before us: we can settle for a lowest common denominator theology, piety, and practice that are different from the prevailing evangelicalism and fundamentalism only in degrees, or we can, with heart and mind, recover the Reformed confession. 344-45.
-R. Scott Clark, Recovering the Reformed Confessions (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing)