Free Matthew, Mark CBC Commentary from Logos
Oct 29, 2008 Author: admin | Filed under: Uncategorized
Ιn аn effort to promote thе Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series, Logoѕ іs giving аway thе Matthew, Μark volume bу Dаvid L. Turner аnd Darrell L. Βock for frеe—no strings attached! Μake ѕure to uѕe coupon ϲode CORNERSTONE.
ΝOTE: Ιf уou don’t already hаve a Libronix Customer ΙD, mаke ѕure to download thе frеe Libronix engine аnd create a Libronix Customer ΙD before уou grаb thіs commentary.
Ιt’s a limited-tіme offеr. Spread thе word!
Categories
- Design (8)
- Faith (221)
- Faith Naked (2)
- Graphics (1)
- Writing (76)
Archives
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
15 Responses for "Free Matthew, Mark CBC Commentary from Logos"
QUOTE: “Even the conservative Free Church of Scotland could not stomach his full orbed Scriptural Calvinism and in utter absurdity branded him a heretic!”
Ewan, I might be wrong on this, but my recollection was that the debate over Greg Bahnsen in Scotland was more to do with Reconstructionism / Theonomy, than the intent / extent of the atonement.
I bought several copies. I’m keeping one, of course.
Phil,
It’s mainly been the Church Fathers, particularly Athanasius and Origen that have been influential for me embracing the doctrine, but I see it as having a strong biblical basis, plus it makes sense logically. I haven’t read Frame (although I want to) but Letham has also been a major resource in my studies. His is my favorite book on the Trinity.
Thanks, Nick.
I’m not quite sure where I stand on eternal generation and procession. Back in seminary when I first took systematic theology, I landed on the side of the many I was reading who reject them (e.g., Buswell, Reymond).
My recent trinitarian studies have lead me to reconsider the doctrines. Letham and Frame are two supporters whose writings have influenced me. Frame basically takes the position that eternal generation is true, but all we can really say about it is that it indicates that the Father and the Son were in an eternal father-son relationship. I’m okay with that. He points to Lee Irons’s paper “The Eternal Generation of the Son” as a good defense. I plan to read it soon. Who has been influential in your embracing the doctrines?
I agree that the Yandell-McCall argument doesn’t work, and I think you have defended your position well both here and abroad. This does seem to be a good example in your favor. I just think it’s a shame that Feinberg wants to jettison eternal generation and eternal procession from trinitarian thought. When I review this book for Crossway I’m going to have some choice words about this section.
I’ve not made a big attempt to acquire the Apocrypha on my Logos CD-ROMs, but have managed to accumulate a few that came as parts of bigger packages of things. To date I have the Apocrypha for the KJV, RSV, NRSV, and NAB in the Logos Suite, and how sweet it is!
I actually have a plethora of cassette tapes, not cataloged as you have, but all sermon and teaching tapes as well as christian music that I’d love to donate to a ministry, not just Goodwill. I’d even cover shipping if it were to a missions organization. Any suggestions?
Yes, it refers to you. Sorry about the typo. I look forward to your response.
I basically argue that, per your request, that the Yandell/McCall position sufficiently meets the objections of his counter-example.
James, looks like a little too much copying and pasting going on. I assume the “his” refers to me, correct?
At any rate, I look forward to reading your response, and perhaps responding in due time.
Phil,
You can see my complete response to your question here. I basically argue that, per your request, that the Yandell/McCall position sufficiently meets the objections of his counter-example.
God bless,
James Gordon
Phil,
You can see my complete response to your question here. I basically argue that, per your request, that the Yandell/McCall position sufficiently meets the objections of your counter-example.
God bless,
James Gordon
[…] however, not everyone was so excepting of MYP. Phil Gons, for example, vicariously through Andy Naselli in a perichoretic sort of way, asked a question […]
Phil, right…I noticed that line too. I guess I’ll keep an eye on the ESV-related blogs for more info.
Thanks.
Doug, good question. I’m not sure. All I know is from this line in the description:
The English Standard Version Bible with the Apocrypha , for which the Apocrypha has been commissioned by Oxford University Press, employs the same methods and guidelines used by the original translators of the ESV, to produce for the first time an ESV Apocrypha.
If you find anything out, I’d be interested to hear it.
Thanks for the comment, James. My responses follow the quoted portions of your comment below.
I think it is clear that your question asked to Dr. Yandell on Thursday night is fatally unconvincing as a counter-example due to its clumsy phrasing. As you noticed in your post dealing with your more extensive response, you left out a key component for a question that would coherently challenge the position of McCall/Yandell.
Absolutely false. The original phrasing of my question is perfectly legitimate. It simply omits the first premise, which was unnecessary to establish the argument. Once you get to the language of necessity, which is where I started in my original question, it is unnecessary to speak of “all possible worlds.” My question stands perfectly on its own so long as you are in agreement with the first premise, which both Yandell and McCall are. So it is your objection to my question is that “fatally unconvincing.”
I am having difficulty piecing together your understanding of the McCall/Yandell argument because you have changed the phrasing of your question as well as your assessment of their argument several times.
Please show me were I changed both my “phrasing” and my “assessment” of their argument “several times.” Again, this is utterly false. I changed the phrasing in the first line of the fuller argument once, and acknowledged as much, but I was assuming its presence in my argument all along. The omission required nothing else to change in anything I had written. I never changed my assessment.
However, a response is forthcoming nonetheless.
I look forward to it, because I was never given one when corresponding with Tom over the last several weeks prior to the debate.
I think that McCall/Yandell do show how their position—on their own premises—can account for necessary differences in the persons of the Trinity without denying homoousian.
Where? I’d love to see how.
Furthermore, they argue do [sic] that all necessary differences are essential differences, because, as a basic philosophical idea that would be covered in any Metaphysics 101 class, it is true. Necessary difference entails essential/ontological difference.
If you read my fuller post, you’ll see that I don’t challenge the legitimacy of this premise. I conclude that it is misguided in its application because it confuses the shared essence with the individual essences or personal properties.
Moreover, your question should have been directed to Dr. McCall. Dr. Yandell’s argument did not focus on the premises about which you were questioning him.
I agree that Dr. McCall would have been the better recipient of the question. That was a poor choice on my part. However, both used the argument. And Dr. Yandell had just reiterated it prior to the Q&A. In hindsight I should have directed it to Tom, since he already understood the force of the objection and as of yet has not responded to it.
Leave a reply