Spring Reading Days: To Read or Not to Read

Tony Kummer tagged me, so here we are:

1. What are you reading on Spring reading days? [Books I’ve brought home with me to Toronto, that I “plan” on reading]

  • Donald McLeod – The Person of Christ (Top priority–must finish this by the end of the week)
  • Tim Challies – The Discipline of Spiritual Discernment (leisure reading!)
  • Robert Stein – A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible
  • Dan McCartney – Let the Reader Understand
  • Daniel Doriani – Getting the Message
  • Graeme Goldsworthy- According to Plan
  • Paul Barnett – Jesus and the Rise of Early Christianity (I don’t know if I’ll get to this)

2. What do you wish you had time to read?

  • R. C. Sproul – The Truth of the Cross
  • Sinclair Ferguson – In Christ Alone

3. What have you decided NOT to read that you were assigned to read.

  • Carson and Moo – An Introduction to the New Testament

4. What is one great quote from your reading?

In fact, without the eternal sonship we should have to abandon the phrase, begotten, not made, altogether. On MacArthur’s construction, for example (taking the sonship to derive from the virgin birth), we should have to insist he was made, not begotten. This is surely perilous. We can speak of God creating the humanness of the Son from the substance of the Virgin, but we dare not speak of his begetting the Son from the substance of the Virgin. That would take us right back to the pagan notion of intercourse between the gods and the daughters of men.

McLeod, The Person of Christ, page 129.

McLeod criticizes MacArthur’s seeming rejection of the preexistence of Sonship, citing MacArthur’s statement in his NT Commentary on Hebrews (pg.28). Since I don’t have MacArthur’s commentary on Hebrews in front of me, I cannot tell exactly what MacArthur is commenting on, and thus McLeod’s point by quoting MacArthur’s comment seems unsubstantiated. While McLeod clearly states on page 128 that “MacArthur’s position must be kept in perspective”, McLeod does not provide a satisfactory perspective to understand MacArthur’s position. Clearly I am a MacArthur fan, and thus take offense — to caricature MacArthur for saying that “sonship began in a point of time, not in eternity” readers should be given the passage MacArthur is commenting on in order to understand what Scriptures MacArthur is interpreting.

Furthermore, McLeod fails to provide biblical evidence or exegesis for eternal Sonship in the 4 pages he allots for the issue. I was left confused by his arguments from church fathers and cannot fully get onboard with eternal Sonship just through biblical logic. While the entire chapter is titled “The Christ of Faith: ‘Very God of Very God’ “, I find it hard to just side with a church father (say even Athanasius) if it’s only because their argument was more biblically logical and is historically accepted! Give me the Scriptural support! (I’m hoping the other half of the book will solve these issues I’ve got with the book;-) )

5. Why are you blogging? (You’re supposed to be reading!)

  • McLeod ain’t tickling my theological mind and I’m left unsatisfied with his arguments! Argh :@

I tag Jordan, Bryan, Matt Click, Joshua, and Letoto!

2 thoughts on “Spring Reading Days: To Read or Not to Read

  1. Pingback: Spring Reading Days Meme | Said at Southern Seminary

  2. Pingback: Spring Reading Days Meme « ἀκολουθῶ Χριστω

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s