Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Has anyone here read Engelsma's commentary on the Belgic Confession and is willing to provide a review? I picked up a copy of Vols 1 and 2 and have referred to it occasionally, but I am probably not sharp enough to pick up on any idiosyncrasies.
I cannot provide a review, Paul, as I have not read it and only possess an e-book copy of the first volume. One significant methodological problem with Hoeksemite commentaries on historical Reformed confessions is that most of their authors (with the possible exception of Homer Hoeksema's commentary on the Canons of Dort) tend to reject what they see as "historicism", i.e. interpreting the confessions in light of the writings of the Reformed divines who framed them and their contemporaries.
For example, when you point out to them that Zacharias Ursinus believed in a covenant of works by referencing his both his commentary on the Heidelberger and his Large Catechism, and thus certain statements in the Heidelberg Catechism must refer to the covenant of works, they will dismiss that point on the grounds that the covenant of works is not expressly mentioned in the catechism and that we are not bound by Ursinus's private opinions.
This method of interpreting a historical document reminds me more of postmodern relativism than something that you would expect from those committed to objective truth. If you adopt this approach, then the confession does not mean what the framers intended it to mean but whatever the church now decides that it means.