There was an error in this gadget

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

What I Am Reading These Days

Most of the time I find myself working through several books at a time. Here are some of the books I have currently been reading and studying:
1.       The Reagan Diaries by Ronald Reagan (edited by Douglas Brinkley) (Harper Perennial, 2009). Did you realize that Ronald Reagan kept a journal entry for almost every day of his presidency? What a treasure! I have been slowly reading this book for the last year and a half. I’m in June 1988 with only half a year left in Reagan’s presidency. Approaching the end makes me sad. As an American I miss Reagan and the leadership he brought to our country.

2.       Three Views on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by Walter Kaiser, Jr., Darrell L. Bock, and Peter Enns. (edited by Kenneth Berding and Jonathan Lunde) (Zondervan, 2010). I find myself going to this book over and over again lately to see how different men approach the more difficult uses of the OT in the NT. Kaiser and Bock do a good job. Enns’ view concerns me since he argues that there is often a “disconnect” between what the OT authors meant and how the NT uses the OT.

3.       Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament by G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Baker, 2007). This book does not deal with any theory of how the NT authors used the OT but there is a ton of helpful information in it. This is not a book to be read cover to cover but it does help when you are looking at a specific use of the OT in the NT. I find myself using this book several times a week.

4.       Three Views on the Rapture: Pretribulation, Prewrath, or Posttribulation by Craig Blaising, Alan Hultberg, and Douglas J. Moo (ed. Alan Hultberg) (Zondervan, 2010)  I am only about a third done with the book but there is a lot of information in this book. It is very dense with specific and often complicated arguments. This not for the faint of heart and is a book mostly for theologians who have a love for this topic. We are reading this for my Eschatology seminar.

12 comments:

  1. Dr. Vlach,

    Thanks for posting this. It is encouraging to know what guys like yourself are reading.

    Jason Alligood

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you Jason. I think it's fun to know what others are reading.

    ReplyDelete
  3. May "Three Views on the Rapture" reach the Philippines. I am very ignited by the fact that Prewrath replaces Midtrib.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mike, I recently finished 3 views. I spoke with Dr. Blaising prior to its release so I had an idea where he was going with his contribution. I found his defense of pretrib to be the best anywhere. Much of pretrib material assumes the Chafer/Scofield model and then makes logical statements based on that. Blaising did the hard work of exegesis.

    I admit that the prewrath position is interesting and serious about interpretation. I remain unpersuaded though about it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You'll find that Enns' view of Scripture is extremely low. He's basically a liberal critic. He equates Adam and Eve to a spiritual Israel, and does not believe in a literal fall. Here's a lecture that talks about these points:

    http://peterennsonline.com/2011/02/22/adam-and-evolution/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Very good choice of books, I'd say! I was very impressed with both sets of counterpoints books you have listed. The commentary is good too, at least for cataloging all that's available for a given OT citation in the NT. Not sure I would agree with a lot of the authors' conclusions.

    PS: I've been working on the paper for class, and I believe that I might have finally become convinced of a "progressive" understanding on the New Covenant! Yes, I know, angels are rejoicing in heaven!

    ReplyDelete
  7. James, I have thought for a while that everything that could be said for the pre-trib view has already been said, but Dr. Blaising offers some fresh insights.

    ReplyDelete
  8. vcd...
    very interesting. Understanding person's broader theoloigcal views helps shed light on other areas.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Kent, thanks and congratulations. Understanding the new covenant helps with understanding other key areas.

    ReplyDelete
  10. True Mike. I didn't mean to imply Blaising gave a new argument. I should have said that Blaising's contribution was the best I had seen in one place.

    ReplyDelete
  11. James, I know what you mean. I agree.

    ReplyDelete
  12. @ Kent and/or Mike. Now you have me curious. What is a "progressive" understanding of the New Covenant?

    ReplyDelete