# Which book on the Doctrine of God is better?



## SolaScriptura (Aug 7, 2009)

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.)


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 7, 2009)

Frame.

Although I am not a fan of Frame's presuppositionalist framework, Feinberg is a little 'experimental' for my taste.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 7, 2009)

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


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 7, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> 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.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Aug 7, 2009)

I'd rather go with Bavinck


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 7, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I'd rather go with Bavinck



I didn't ask about Bavinck.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 8, 2009)

Puritan Sailor said:


> I'd rather go with Bavinck



I think it best to avoid European-sounding names on this subject.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 8, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather go with Bavinck
> ...



Sure, but he beats the other two hands down on the Doctrine of God.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 8, 2009)

Reformed Thomist said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather go with Bavinck
> ...



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).


----------



## SolaScriptura (Aug 8, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> SolaScriptura said:
> 
> 
> > Puritan Sailor said:
> ...



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.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 8, 2009)

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.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 8, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> Reformed Thomist said:
> 
> 
> > Puritan Sailor said:
> ...



Firmly.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 9, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> 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


----------

