 » Site Navigation | | | |  | 
08-07-2009, 07:09 PM
|  | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manhattan, KS
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 495
Thanked 2,303 Times in 846 Posts
| | | Which book on the Doctrine of God is better?
Which one is better:
No One Like Him: The Doctrine of God, by John Feinberg or The Doctrine of God, by John Frame?
Strengths/weaknesses of each? Is one more of a "must have" than the other?
(FYI - I own and have read Feinberg... I really want to know how it compares with Frame.)
__________________
Ben
Chaplain, US Army
Ft. Riley, KS
TE Ohio Valley Presbytery, PCA
|
08-07-2009, 07:35 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 587
Thanks: 228
Thanked 220 Times in 122 Posts
| | |
Frame.
Although I am not a fan of Frame's presuppositionalist framework, Feinberg is a little 'experimental' for my taste.
__________________
Nathan Tyler
Reformed Baptist
University of Toronto (Student: Hons. B.A. in Philosophy)
Ontario, Canada 1689'er http://nathantyler.wordpress.com |
08-07-2009, 09:39 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 619
Thanks: 142
Thanked 261 Times in 152 Posts
| |
If you can afford only one, then get Frame. Feinberg rejects the atemporality of God:
" I believe that the best way to understand God’s relation to time is to see God as temporal." page 428, Ch 9.
A fair review of Frame's work is found here: http://www.librarything.com/work/26867
AMR
|
08-07-2009, 10:55 PM
| | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manhattan, KS
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 495
Thanked 2,303 Times in 846 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion  If you can afford only one, then get Frame. Feinberg rejects the atemporality of God:
"I believe that the best way to understand God’s relation to time is to see God as temporal." page 428, Ch 9. | Indeed. He is aware of the difficulty and so follows that up with, "Of course, if an evangelical theologian in our day opts for a temporal God, he may be accused of taking a first step down a slope that eventually leads to process theology. Hence, I must explain why I think one can hold to a temporal view of God while remaining thoroughly within the bounds of evangelical theology."
While he didn't convince me to accept a temporal notion of God, nonetheless his argumentation DID convince me that he isn't a heretic.
|
08-07-2009, 11:04 PM
|  | Puritanboard Professor | | Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Lisbon, NY
Posts: 5,895
Thanks: 423
Thanked 635 Times in 294 Posts
| |
I'd rather go with Bavinck 
__________________
Patrick
MDiv, RTS Jackson
Pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church (OPC), Lisbon, NY "He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.
"Let us not please ourselves that we have deep understandings, but let us shew our understandings by our practice." Richard Sibbes
| | The Following User Says Thank You to Puritan Sailor For This Useful Post: | |
08-07-2009, 11:04 PM
| | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manhattan, KS
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 495
Thanked 2,303 Times in 846 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor I'd rather go with Bavinck | I didn't ask about Bavinck.
| | The Following User Says Thank You to SolaScriptura For This Useful Post: | |
08-08-2009, 09:28 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 587
Thanks: 228
Thanked 220 Times in 122 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor I'd rather go with Bavinck | I think it best to avoid European-sounding names on this subject.
|
08-08-2009, 09:39 AM
|  | Iron Dramatist | | Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Decorah, IA
Posts: 6,258
Thanks: 251
Thanked 2,373 Times in 1,240 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaScriptura Quote:
Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor I'd rather go with Bavinck | I didn't ask about Bavinck. | Sure, but he beats the other two hands down on the Doctrine of God.
|
08-08-2009, 09:40 AM
| | Iron Dramatist | | Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Decorah, IA
Posts: 6,258
Thanks: 251
Thanked 2,373 Times in 1,240 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Thomist Quote:
Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor I'd rather go with Bavinck | I think it best to avoid European-sounding names on this subject. | Tongue in cheek? Bavinck is one of the soundest 20th century theologians you could ever hope to read on the subject (or indeed on any other in Reformed dogmatics).
|
08-08-2009, 09:49 AM
| | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Manhattan, KS
Posts: 4,129
Thanks: 495
Thanked 2,303 Times in 846 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by toddpedlar Quote:
Originally Posted by SolaScriptura Quote:
Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor I'd rather go with Bavinck | I didn't ask about Bavinck. | Sure, but he beats the other two hands down on the Doctrine of God. | How so? Given the almost innumerable accolades that Frame has received for his book from within the Reformed community... you're going to have to explain why/how Bavinck beats him "hands down."
Unless the basis for your assessment is that Frame is Frame and Bavinck is dead.
|
08-08-2009, 10:24 AM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Hague, North Dakota
Posts: 3,063
Thanks: 981
Thanked 2,455 Times in 841 Posts
| | |
I do not think one should have to choose. I enjoyed Frame on the Doctrine of God, although I do not think that his multi-perspectivalism is nearly as true in nearly as many places as he thinks it is. His perspective works best with ethics rather than theology proper. Nevertheless, I think his book on God is well worth reading. Charnock, Letham on the Trinity, and Bavinck, however, would be probably the best read on the Doctrine of God.
|
08-08-2009, 12:46 PM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 587
Thanks: 228
Thanked 220 Times in 122 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by toddpedlar Quote:
Originally Posted by Reformed Thomist Quote:
Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor I'd rather go with Bavinck | I think it best to avoid European-sounding names on this subject. | Tongue in cheek? | Firmly.
|
08-09-2009, 02:46 AM
| | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Chandler, AZ
Posts: 619
Thanks: 142
Thanked 261 Times in 152 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by greenbaggins I do not think one should have to choose. I enjoyed Frame on the Doctrine of God, although I do not think that his multi-perspectivalism is nearly as true in nearly as many places as he thinks it is. His perspective works best with ethics rather than theology proper. Nevertheless, I think his book on God is well worth reading. Charnock, Letham on the Trinity, and Bavinck, however, would be probably the best read on the Doctrine of God. | I agree completely. Frame seems to go overboard on the multi-perspectivism and it comes off as strained at times (as you note), wherein he tries to force fit doctrine into this presupposition.
I did not recommend Bavinck since he was not one of the choices in the OP, but he would be my recommendation for the overall best treatment. Beg or borrow money to own Bavinck's Reformed Dogmatics.
AMR
| |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | |
|
