Really enjoyed the thesis of this meaty book. And when I say "meaty" I am talking about a thick-cut sirloin, and not talking about any watered down slReally enjoyed the thesis of this meaty book. And when I say "meaty" I am talking about a thick-cut sirloin, and not talking about any watered down sloppy joes.
The Reformation was not responsible for unleashing interpretive anarchy into the world, and furthermore, on top of that, a "mere Protestant" approach to the issues revolving around the five solas is the only way out. This is a worthwhile book....more
Good book. The point of the book comes into focus in the last chapter, so wait for it. Until then you might think the book should have been better namGood book. The point of the book comes into focus in the last chapter, so wait for it. Until then you might think the book should have been better named as Trace Elements of the Trinity....more
I really enjoyed this book, and want to commend it to everyone. Dolezal does a fantastic job of outlining the classical view of God's simplicity, contI really enjoyed this book, and want to commend it to everyone. Dolezal does a fantastic job of outlining the classical view of God's simplicity, contrasting it with "theistic mutualism." What Dolezal says in his conclusion is, by the time you reach that conclusion, undeniable: "These two approaches to the doctrine of God are not two slightly different ways of saying basically the same thing" (p. 135).
As might be inferred from the above, I am in the classical theist stream, enthusiastically so. When it comes to the main outlines of Trinitarian theology, I think the historic catholic view gets it right. But, having said this, I do want also to confess that Thomas and Thomists sometimes remind me of a college of June bugs trying to explain quantum physics, and so I want to acknowledge the importance of that phrase above, "main outlines." We sometimes ask and try to answer questions about God that we have no business trying to answer.
I also want to note that his discussion of the authority of the Father ad intra (pp. 132-134) is, in my view, inadequate. Authority and submission within the Godhead is no more incongruous than a Father and Son within the Godhead, provided it is articulated in the same spirit. And I tended to agree with the reviewer at the Calvinist International who kicked at the simple inclusion of Frame and Vanhoozer in the ranks of the theistic mutualists.
For these (and a few other things) I wavered between five stars and four, but I still came down on five. This is a really important book because it reveals how many of the ancient landmarks are being shuffled around. And Dolezal manages to talk about very serious issues with the seriousness they deserve, but without going into hysterics over the heresies. It was just very well done....more
This book was a lot of fun. Apparently there are a lot of European king lists that go back a long ways, in ways that make the left eye of the seculariThis book was a lot of fun. Apparently there are a lot of European king lists that go back a long ways, in ways that make the left eye of the secularist historian twitch....more
This book is a very fine defense of C.S. Lewis's "argument from reason." The argument was central to Lewis's entire frame of mind, and Reppert provideThis book is a very fine defense of C.S. Lewis's "argument from reason." The argument was central to Lewis's entire frame of mind, and Reppert provides a meticulous treatment of it. Also worthwhile is his treatment of the Anscombe/Lewis encounter, revolving around this particular argument. I give this book high praise despite his view, as expressed in a footnote, that in a debate with Theodore Drange I personally did not cover myself with glory....more
Loading...
