Tag: commentary

Book Briefs: “A Commentary on the Psalms (vol. 1)” by Allen P. Ross

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Very few commentaries can function as a single comprehensive resource for the Biblical passage at hand. The wise expositor makes use of theological introductions, critical comments on the Greek or Hebrew, a good exegetical commentary and then a few devotional commentaries – of course he also makes his own personal study of the passage.

What Allen P. Ross does for us in his new book A Commentary on the Psalms: volume 1 (Kregel, 2012), is distill the insights of decades of research and study on the book of Psalms into a single tool that can truly be a one-stop-shop for the busy pastor.

Ross provides 180 pages of introduction to the book of Psalms, focusing on structure and theology. He then gives us more than 700 pages of commentary on just the first 41 psalms. Each psalm is covered separately, the text is provided with an eye for meaningful textual variants (which are discussed at some length). The psalm’s composition and context is then briefly sketched and an exegetical analysis is provided. Then comes a detailed commentary focusing on exposition, and all this is wrapped up with a brief recounting of the message and application of the psalm.

Ross aims to help modern preachers and teachers to truly exposit all of the psalms in their entirety (not just a line here and there). He blends contemporary insights with gems of yesterday as he analyzes the Psalms and provides a very useful tool for the modern preacher. Ross with help from the team at Kregel, has crafted his tool to be most user-friendly. The font is large, there are helpful charts and diagrams, and clear section headings which break up the massive book. He uses footnotes throughout for more technical discussions, but chooses not to provide Hebrew transliterations as a rule, preferring just English translations and the Hebrew words themselves.

When we have his entire three volume commentary (at least from reading the introductory material it appears this will be three volumes), we will truly have a single and comprehensive resource for what may be the most important book in all of Scripture. His approach is to stick to the text but not to shy away from reading the text in light of the context of the NT revelation as well (at a later stage in the interpretation). Even if in some respects one differs with Ross, he will still find Ross’s book immensely helpful.

Ross shows how vital the Psalms were both for Hebrew worship and that of the early church. Even in the Reformer’s era, intimate knowledge of the psalter was a prerequisite for anyone aiming to take up a pastorate. How far we have fallen from an age where psalms made up the bulk of corporate worship. May Ross’s work help revive a study and interest in the Psalms today.

Pick up a copy of this book: ChristianBook.com, Amazon.com, or direct from the publisher.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Kregel Publications. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.

About Book Briefs: Book Briefs are book notes, or short-form book reviews. They are my informed evaluation of a book, but stop short of being a full-length book review.

Dr. Bruce Ware on Fundamentalism

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

I recently came across an interview of Dr. Bruce Ware, one of the professors at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville. And 25 minutes of the interview was devoted to his thoughts on Fundamentalism and the differences between Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism. [HT: Andy Naselli]

I appreciated his explanation of Evangelicalism and generally agree with his characterization of the differing mindsets of the two movements. You’ll find the clip of this portion of the interview below, but there’s a lot more to the interview. I’m interested in your thoughts on this clip. I find myself basically in agreement with most of what Ware says.

A Third Option for Separation: Tetreau on Type A, B & C Fundamentalism Again

~ Bob Hayton ~ 1 Comment

Back in 2006, Pastor Joel Tetreau posted a three part series at SharperIron.org called “Three Lines in the Sand”. In it, he explained the landscape of fundamentalism in terms of Type A, Type B and Type C fundamentalists. You can still read that original series of posts at Sharper Iron: part 1, part 2 and part 3.

Type A is the traditional, hard-line fundamentalist who won’t budge on music or other cultural issues and doesn’t see any need to fellowship with those who disagree with him. Type B were those like Tetreau who didn’t mind moving beyond the boundaries of the fundamentalist movement for fellowship and cooperation, but nevertheless self-identified as fundamentalists — holding to the fundamentals and a practice of separation. Type C fundamentalists were the conservative evangelicals who shared ideals with fundamentalists but not the name and had no organic connection with the movement.

This week, Tetreau has revisited this topic and gives some more observations about where we are now, five years removed from his original series. His post is well worth the read and has already attracted a lot of interaction in the comments at Sharper Iron.

I wanted to excerpt his description of the fundamentalist types as well as his view of a “third option” for separation. Then I have a few comments on his taxonomy.

Joel’s Taxonomy

Type A fundamentalists are those fundamentalists who emphasize a first and second degree separation with militancy. Typically with these brothers, fellowship or separation is an “all or nothing” proposition. Another common characteristic with this group is a kind of sub-culture identity that not only separates them from the secular world but from the rest of evangelical Christianity. There is very much an “us vs. them” identity. Type A men would in the main not view Type C men as fundamentalists. This is probably the chief difference between Type A and Type B fundamentalists. Type A fundamentalism holds that it needs to not only protect the gospel but a specific set of sub-Christian ecclesiastical practices and forms that are especially clear in the typical Type A congregation’s corporate choice of music.

Type B fundamentalists like myself, while growing up under and holding on to much of the heritage found in Type A fundamentalism, do not believe the Scriptures teach an “all or nothing” approach to separation and unity. Type A’s generally feel that there simply is really no arena where they could have any kind of real ecclesiastical co-work with a conservative evangelical. Type B’s disagree. We believe there a variety of occasions where fundamentalists can and should have co-ministry with those that self-identify as conservative evangelicals. This is especially true of those evangelicals who are militant and even separastistic. The recent flap over the Elephant Room “second edition” demonstrates that many conservative evangelicals know how to be both militant and even separatistic from other evangelicals when the gospel or orthodoxy is blurred!

Type C fundamentalists are evangelicals who, while not participating in the more Type A or Type B fellowships and not calling themselves fundamentalists (mainly because of the way many in Type A and Type A+ fundamentalism believe and behave), are in fact part of the fundamentalist heritage because of their gospel militancy, their clear commitments to the fundamentals of the faith and the veracity of Scripture, and their willingness to do “battle royal” against an ecumenical agenda. Examples of this approach include men such as John MacArthur, Phil Johnson, Mark Dever and a host of younger men who are clear on the gospel, clear on truth and willing to stand especially against evangelicals who are spineless—or clueless—on theological veracity.

Joel’s “Third Option”

Over the last few decades of ministry I have become convinced that the Type A fundamentalist’s aim to separate from all evangelicals or evangelicalism carte blanche is at best, biblically unhealthy and, at worst, sinfully schismatic to the body of the Christ. Not only have they thrown the poor baby out with the bathwater; but they’ve also condemned the whole nursery as if it was contaminated with some kind of an ecclesiastical leprosy! You slapped the initials “NE” (New Evangelical) on the poor baby’s forehead just knowing that eventually he’d be the next Billy Graham!

Some Type A’s might object that this means I must be for ecumenicalism, because they have been trained to think in the “us vs. you” mentality. They demonstrate the fallacy of the excluded middle. There is a third option that is better than “we separate from everybody or we separate from nobody.” That third option is we cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our “camp” or “group.” You would think this reality would be near the Christianity 101 level.

[headings and the bolded emphasis in the last paragraph, are mine.]

I don’t want to excerpt more than this because you’re really going to want to read his whole piece. One area of difference I have with Joel (besides being a Type C fundamentalist — Joel is a Type B), is that he limits fellowship to just the Type C’s rather than those who are perhaps a Type D.  I’m referring to those who are further removed from the mindset of militancy, but who nevertheless respect the fundamentals and are confessionally based. I notice John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tim Keller and the like, are not listed as Type C fundamentalists – yet I would argue each in his own way does much to stand for the fundamentals of the faith against the inroads of modernism and liberalism (and a whole host of other -isms). They may not have that “edge” or sharpness about them in their critique of other movements in Christianity. They may not be as shrill as fundamentalists typically would like. They may not have pronounced as many anathemas over the Elephant Room 2 as some would like, perhaps, but they nevertheless are leaders who represent a mindset that Type B and C fundamentalists should respect and cooperate with.

Still, Joel’s explanation of Type A, B, and C has really helped me in my thinking through the tangled reality of fundamentalism and evangelicalism over the years. And I’m happy he is continuing to expound on his simple matrix for processing how we can “cooperate with brothers who love the gospel and are walking in obedience to the teachings of Scripture, even if they aren’t in our ‘camp’ or ‘group’.” That is the spirit I see exemplified in Jesus’ teachings in the Gospels, and embodied in his call for unity in John 17. May such a spirit of cooperation and unity continue to spread among fundamentalists and conservative evangelicals everywhere.

In the Box: Books from Kregel, Brazos, Eerdmans and IVP

~ Bob Hayton ~ 4 Comments

In the Box posts highlight new books I’ve received in the mail.

Over the last couple years, I’ve really enjoyed staying up to date with many of the new books being published by the major Christian publishers. This year, I plan to share news and thoughts on publishing and books more often here at Fundamentally Reformed. One of the recurring posts I plan to showcase is my “In the Box” series. In these posts, I’ll showcase new books received or purchased in the last week or so.

Today’s post will cover the last 3 weeks or thereabouts — and it won’t cover all the books I’ve received, otherwise this will get too long. I won’t mention (or I guess I am mentioning!) that I just love the NIV Application Commentary series and am slowly adding to my collection. Or that I picked up the IVP Bible Background Commentary on the OT to match my NT volume. Well, enough about that, now on to the new titles of note I’ve received in the last 2-3 weeks or so.

Invitation to Biblical Interpretation by Andreas Kostenberger and Richard Patterson (Kregel)

Never before have I encountered a book with this many endorsements! I counted 39 endorsements on 13 pages! The book is quite impressive, so I guess it earned all the glowing remarks. With that many positive remarks from so many different respected Christian leaders, I am all the more excited to read and review this book! It looks to be an accessible and comprehensive manual on interpreting Scripture.

UPDATE: Read my review of this book here.

To learn more about the book, visit the book detail page at Kregel, or check out the sample pages at Westminster Bookstore.

Reformation Commentary on Scripture – Volume 12: Ezekiel, Daniel (IVP)

This is the second volume in the Reformation Commentary on Scripture series from IVP. They are doing for the Reformation era writers what they did with the Church Fathers in the Ancient Christian Commentary series. Many of the comments included in this book have never before been available in English. It promises to open up a window into the thought of the Reformers like nothing else. This is also a beautiful volume, that will earn a prominent spot on anyone’s bookshelf.

To learn more about the book, visit the book detail page at InterVarsity Press, or check out the preview available at Amazon.com.

The Best of The Reformed Journal edited by James Bratt and Ronald Wells (Eerdmans)

This book brings the best articles from The Refromed Journal, which was a top-notch journal from 1951 to 1990. The selections range from comments on humor and literature to politics and theology. Reflections on Billy Graham and JFK, baseball and Watergate, the Vietnam war and conservatism. This anthology promises to be an enjoyable look at some of the best evangelical writing of years gone by. Authors of the excerpted articles include Richard Mouw, George Marsden, Mark Noll, Cornelius Plantinga, Nicholas Wolterstorff, Stanley Hauerwas and many others.

UPDATE: Read my review of this book here.

To learn more about the book, visit the book detail page at Eerdmans, or check out the preview available at Amazon.com.

The Evolution of Adam: What the Bible Does and Doesn’t Say about Human Origins by Peter Enns (Brazos Press)

I will have much more to say about this book in the near future. I jumped into this work with both feet as soon as it arrived at my door. I was intrigued by the subject matter and impressed with Enns’ writing abilities. But ultimately, I was disappointed and alarmed by how far he took things.

The topic is controversial so there will be a variety of opinions on this, I’m sure. Enns seeks to show how we should best think of Adam in light of evolution. His contention is that Scripture is often misunderstood when it comes to the Adam story. It remains to be seen whether he succeeds in his quest.

To learn more about the book, visit the book detail page at Brazos Press, or check out the excerpt available at Christianbook.com.

John Piper on Limited Atonement

~ Bob Hayton ~ 10 Comments

In reading through Bloodlines: Race, Cross and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011), I came across a section where Piper clearly explains his view of “limited atonement”. He says something to this effect elsewhere, I believe, but the section as found in this book is very helpful. I recommend Piper’s booklet length explanation of the five points of Calvinism as perhaps the best introduction to Reformed theology available for a layperson. His booklet was very instrumental in my conversion to a Reformed viewpoint.

Anyway, what follows is most of Piper’s explanation and defense of “limited atonement” from Bloodlines, his latest book:

————————————-

Hand in glove with the doctrine of our disabling depravity is the doc­trine of God’s effective purchase of his people on the cross. The reason it’s like hand and glove is that our inability because of sin calls for a kind of redemption that does more than offer us a forgiveness we don’t have the ability to receive. Rather, it calls for a redemption that effectively purchases not only our forgiveness but also our willingness to receive it. In other words, the unwilling glove of depravity calls for the insertion of a powerful hand of ability-giving redemption.

Sometimes this doctrine is called “limited atonement.” It’s not a helpful term. Better would be the terms definite atonement or particular redemption. The reason limited atonement isn’t helpful is that, in fact, the doctrine affirms more, not less, about Christ’s work in redemption than its rival view called “unlimited atonement.”

The view of unlimited atonement takes all the passages that say the death of Christ is “for us” (Rom. 5:8; 1 Thess. 5:10), or for his own “sheep” (John 10:11, 15), or for “the church” (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25), or for “the children of God” (John 11:52), or for “those who are being sanctified” (Heb. 10:14) and makes them refer to all human beings. In this “unlimited atonement” view, the sentence “Christ died for you” means: Christ died for all sinners, so that if you will repent and believe in Christ, then the death of Jesus will become effective in your case and will take away your sins.

Now as far as it goes, this seems to me to be biblical teaching— salvation is offered to all because of Christ. But then this view denies something that I think the Bible teaches. It denies that Christ died for his church—his bride (Eph. 5:25)—in any way different from the way he died for unbelievers who never come to faith.

There is no dispute that Christ died to obtain great saving benefits for all who believe. Moreover, I have no dispute with saying that Christ died so that we might say to all persons everywhere without exception: “God gave his only begotten Son to die for sin so that if you believe on him you will have eternal life.”

The dispute rather is whether God intended for the death of Christ to obtain more than these two things—more than (1) saving benefits after faith, and (2) a bona fide offer of blood-bought salvation to every person on the planet. Specifically, did God intend for the death of Christ to obtain the free gift of faith (Eph. 2:8) and repentance (2 Tim. 2:25)? Did the blood of Jesus obtain not only the benefits that come after faith but also the gift of faith itself?

We want to be biblical. Does the unlimited atonement interpretation of any of the “universal” texts on the atonement necessarily contra­dict this more that I am affirming about God’s intention for the death of Christ—texts like John 1:29; 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; 2 Peter 2:1; and 1 John 2:1–2?

I don’t think so…

…The fact that God makes salvation possible for all through the blood of Christ does not contradict the view that God does more than that through the death of Christ. I don’t affirm that God does less but that he does more. He actually secures the salvation of his chosen people. He secures all the grace needed for their salvation, including the grace of regeneration and faith.

Paul says in Ephesians 5:25, “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.” This was a particular redemption. Christ had his bride in view differently than he had all in view. He knew his bride, and he wanted his bride, and he bought his bride. Jesus says, “I lay down my life for the sheep” (John 10:15). He said, “I am praying for them. I am not praying for the world but for those whom you [Father] have given me, for they are yours” (John 17:9). He said, “And for their sake I consecrate myself [to die], that they also may be sanctified in truth” (John 17:19). In other words, Christ had a specific design in his death for the sake of his people—the cross would be sufficient for the salvation of the world, but efficient for his sheep, his bride.

And Paul carried through this understanding of Christ’s work when he said in Romans 8:32–33, “He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him graciously give us all things? Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?” God’s elect in verse 33 are the same as the “us all” in verse 32. This group, he says, will most surely receive “all things.” God will see to it. And the reason Paul gives is that Christ did not spare his own Son but gave him up “for us all.” That means that the giving of the Son guarantees all the blessings of the elect.

This does not limit the extent of what the atonement offers. The benefits of the atonement are offered to everyone. If you believe on Christ, they are all yours. But “the Lord knows those who are his” (2 Tim. 2:19). For them, for his bride, he is securing something that can­not fail—their faith and their justification and their glorification. Those for whom he died, in this fullest sense, will most certainly obtain all things—they will finally inherit the kingdom of God. His death is infal­libly effective for the elect.

–pg. 136-138, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian by John Piper (Crossway, 2011)

You can pick up a copy of this book at any of the following online retailers: Westminster Bookstore, Monergism Books, Christianbook.com, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, or direct from Crossway.

Disclaimer: This book was provided by Crossway Books for review. I was under no obligation to offer a favorable review.