Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Controversial Topics' started by Backwoods Presbyterian, Jan 9, 2010.
Find the review here in PDF: KERUX
Thanks for posting this. I'd like to read it. I am currently reading The Law is Not of Faith and would encourage people to first read the book before reading the review.
Amazon.com: The Law Is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant (9781596381001): Bryan D. Estelle, J. V. Fesko, David VanDrunen: Books
Read it. Download it. Pass it on to friends.
Part 1 of a five-part response begins here. Each of the posts are linked in succession.
I too want to encourage folk to read the book for themselves. This review would never be published in a real journal where the authors had to defend themselves from criticism.
That said, I'm glad the review appeared if only to expose the silliness of the arguments it presents. Any rational person who actually reads the book and then the review, even if he doesn't agree with the thesis of the book, will see that the review is quite out of touch with reality and that's putting it mildly. It make's John Frame's review of Mike Horton's Christless Christianity seem sweetly reasonable.
I don't think that it's too strong to say that If you haven't read the book you should not be commenting on it or disparaging it (see below). You can get it from The Bookstore at WSC for $14.29 + 5.00 shipping
You may also want to listen to this interview with the editors (and who also contributed). They anticipated and responded to many of the allegations made in the review.
The WLC teaches:
Are you claiming I have not read the work Dr. Clark?
You of course should always read a book before the review. That only makes sense. However I will maintain that your continued derogatory tone and calling the authors of the KERUX work "silly" and "irrational" further even claiming they breach the 9th Commandment is not only not very professional but not to be the way to win people to your side Dr. Clark.
As you can see here I commend people to read the work first before reading the review.
Ben... he never said anything about you reading the work. He was merely suggesting the obvious. When you posted the link to the review you simply implied that it should be read. He was stating as is obvious that you should read the book that is reviewed before reading a critical review such as this one. That's all. He said not a word about you, nor could one ever properly infer from what he posted that he thinks you didn't, or accuses you of such.
You also should read carefully what Dr. Clark said. He never called the authors silly, nor did he call them irrational. He leveled that complaint of silliness at the review, and said that a rational person reading both the book and the review will see its problems... and I frankly agree wholeheartedly with that critique. The review is unfortunate, and in many places not much more than a semi-public excoriation of individuals, and is riddled with misrepresentations and clear misunderstandings. It lacks a great deal in terms of professionalism and appropriate tone, if it is to be judged a professional "review". This is all Dr. Clark was saying. You have misrepresented what he has said.
But.... let the people judge for themselves.
This thread will not last very long.
I don't think anything I wrote implied anything about you.
I'm just reminding everyone of their duty according to the law of God and giving them an opportunity to hear the whole story before they come to conclusions.
I don't repent of anything I said in the responses. Regardless of the material issues, as a formal matter, this was perhaps the most inadequate, unprofessional review I've ever read. It was shockingly bad. As a matter of principle, when I mark essays, I give extra latitude when I mark essays with which I disagree personally. Nevertheless, were such a paper presented to me it would fail utterly.
If they wanted to be persuasive, the should first have given a scrupulously fair account of what the book actually says. They should then account for the strengths of the book and then they should have offered measured, careful, thoughtful criticisms of the book and its positions.
As it is they "open up" on the book at the very outset with outrageous distortions and misrepresentations and the review only goes downhill from there.
I must say it is disappointing to see members of this board promoting this review and encouraging its dissemination.
Closed as we head into the Lord's day. The moderators will determine if it will be reopened later.
Moved to Controversial Topics Forum and reopened. Please review this moderated forum's description and the sticky post.
Is your review of the review going to stop at part 5? Having read the book and the review, I was looking forward to your continued review of the review.