Anyone picking up Handwriting on the Wall by James Jordan

[Anton Bruckner]

I know he is an FV heretic, but this work is his commentary on the Book of Daniel. In addition American Vision and Gary Demar are plugging it primarily because of its post millennialist slant. What are your thoughts?

 

[brymaes]

I'll probably get it eventually, just for reference. No fundage at the moment, though.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I know he is an FV heretic, but this work is his commentary on the Book of Daniel. In addition American Vision and Gary Demar are plugging it primarily because of its post millennialist slant. What are your thoughts?

I wish Gary DeMar would distance himself from James Jordan; however, I still might get the book as it will probably have plenty of great partial preterist and postmillennial stuff in it.

 

[J. David Kear]

I have found that several of the FV writers have written some very good books. I have books by Wilson & Leithart in my library. Some I would highly recommend (like some of Wilson's books on family and Apologetics), some I would recommend only to mature readers (like Leithart's Against Christianity), and some I would only recommend for critical analysis (like Leithart's The Baptized Body).

I am sure that there is some good stuff in Jordan. All that being said I will more than likely not pick it up because he comes off very abrasive to me which makes for very un-enjoyable reading.

 

[Kevin]

I will certainly get it.

What ever you think of Jim Jordans theology, his biblical studies are always thought provoking & challenging.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I might pick it up too. But I have to put him and David Chilton at the far end in my library. I honestly can't recommend them to anyone because of where they are currently.

 

[toddpedlar]

I might pick it up too. But I have to put him and David Chilton at the far end in my library. I honestly can't recommend them to anyone because of where they are currently.

Well, Chilton's not on this Earth anymore, so I'd not be too afraid of him

 

[Anton Bruckner]

oops, thanks for the correction Todd.

 

[greenbaggins]

I have purchased the volume, since I am planning on preaching through Daniel soon. I expect that Jordan's work is a lot like Warren Gage: full of good biblical-theological insight, mixed in with some really wierd typology-on-steroids connections that leave you scratching your head, going "huh?"

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I guess Lane is an optimist and I'm a pessimist. Lane thinks there's a pony in there and all I see is ....; well, this is the Puritanboard so I'll leave it at that. Seriously. My dollars will stay in my pocket instead of supporting a guy to whom the church surely should not be listening.

 

[greenbaggins]

I guess Lane is an optimist and I'm a pessimist. Lane thinks there's a pony in there and all I see is ....; well, this is the Puritanboard so I'll leave it at that. Seriously. My dollars will stay in my pocket instead of supporting a guy to whom the church surely should not be listening.

I can certainly sympathize with this reasoning. After all, there are commentaries I read through which it is a constant exercise in gritting one's teeth. Westermann on Genesis was certainly one of those. But if conservative scholars should read liberals to know what they're saying, then shouldn't we also read FV commentaries to know how they are (ab)using Scripture?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I guess Lane is an optimist and I'm a pessimist. Lane thinks there's a pony in there and all I see is ....; well, this is the Puritanboard so I'll leave it at that. Seriously. My dollars will stay in my pocket instead of supporting a guy to whom the church surely should not be listening.

I can certainly sympathize with this reasoning. After all, there are commentaries I read through which it is a constant exercise in gritting one's teeth. Westermann on Genesis was certainly one of those. But if conservative scholars should read liberals to know what they're saying, then shouldn't we also read FV commentaries to know how they are (ab)using Scripture?

I agree that ministers of the Gospel should, yes.

 

[greenbaggins]

I guess Lane is an optimist and I'm a pessimist. Lane thinks there's a pony in there and all I see is ....; well, this is the Puritanboard so I'll leave it at that. Seriously. My dollars will stay in my pocket instead of supporting a guy to whom the church surely should not be listening.

I can certainly sympathize with this reasoning. After all, there are commentaries I read through which it is a constant exercise in gritting one's teeth. Westermann on Genesis was certainly one of those. But if conservative scholars should read liberals to know what they're saying, then shouldn't we also read FV commentaries to know how they are (ab)using Scripture?

I agree that ministers of the Gospel should, yes.

Then we are saying the same thing. I would NEVER recommend Jordan to someone in the pew, unless they were well-read already, and were wanting to read him critically. I'm not sure I would, even then.

 

[DTK]

My dollars will stay in my pocket instead of supporting a guy to whom the church surely should not be listening.

Chris, I share precisely the same sentiment.

Let me pause, in this thread, to thank you for your work with The Confessional Presbyterian. We need a good journal like this one circulating, and few people have the time and energy required, plus the willingness, to make it happen. So thanks!

DTK

 

[NaphtaliPress]

My dollars will stay in my pocket instead of supporting a guy to whom the church surely should not be listening.

Chris, I share precisely the same sentiment.

Let me pause, in this thread, to thank you for your work with The Confessional Presbyterian. We need a good journal like this one circulating, and few people have the time and energy required, plus the willingness, to make it happen. So thanks!

DTK

Thank you David. It does take a lot of time and energy, and resources, which seem to get harder each year. I would be remiss though in not acknowledging the large amount of time it takes the author's to put their material together, and I am very grateful they deem CPJ worthy of their efforts. And also, thanks to all the subscribers that help make the journal "happen".
That reminds me; maybe time for a PB special on CPJ issues.

 

[wsw201]

I have one of his books. Got through the first two chapters. It gave me a headache, so I put it down and haven't picked it up since. I'm with Chris. There are better things to spend money on.

 

[Contra Marcion]

I have purchased the volume, since I am planning on preaching through Daniel soon. I expect that Jordan's work is a lot like Warren Gage: full of good biblical-theological insight, mixed in with some really wierd typology-on-steroids connections that leave you scratching your head, going "huh?"

I have it, and so far, Lane is exactly right. Much like his THrough New Eyes, Jordan's commentary is loaded with good stuff, and just enough wierdness to remind you that you're reading Jim Jordan. I definately would not be giving this book out to a non-discerning reader, but for those who are familiar with Jordan and his oddities (and can pick them out), this may be a valuable resource.

 

[Stephen]

I might pick it up too. But I have to put him and David Chilton at the far end in my library. I honestly can't recommend them to anyone because of where they are currently.

Well currently David Chilton is dead. He did reject the final future return of Christ and the bodily resurrection at the end of his life, so you will not be reading much new material.

 

[Stephen]

I have purchased the volume, since I am planning on preaching through Daniel soon. I expect that Jordan's work is a lot like Warren Gage: full of good biblical-theological insight, mixed in with some really wierd typology-on-steroids connections that leave you scratching your head, going "huh?"

Lane, I hope you are not identifying Gage as a Federal Visionist as some do because of his typology. This is a stretch.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have the book. Haven't read it. Makes a lot of interesting suggestions. Sort of requires an understanding of his method. Does a good job against some liberal scholarship. Has a lot of interesting political suggestions. Did I see anything entailing the denial of sola fide? No. I wouldn't make it the sole source of sermon prep, and I would be careful introducing this to a congregation who didnt have an understanding of poetry in the bible.

 

[RamistThomist]

does anyone know where the thread regarding Dr Leithart's commentary on Kings is?

 

[greenbaggins]

I have purchased the volume, since I am planning on preaching through Daniel soon. I expect that Jordan's work is a lot like Warren Gage: full of good biblical-theological insight, mixed in with some really wierd typology-on-steroids connections that leave you scratching your head, going "huh?"

Lane, I hope you are not identifying Gage as a Federal Visionist as some do because of his typology. This is a stretch.

No, absolutely not. The point of comparison is limited to what I've said. Gage is similar to Arthur Pink, in my opinion, who also loved typology to a fault.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

does anyone know where the thread regarding Dr Leithart's commentary on Kings is?

Check the Literary Forum.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

does anyone know where the thread regarding Dr Leithart's commentary on Kings is?

Check the Literary Forum.

Forget that comment, this is the literary forum. Here is the link below (I remembered that Richard made the thread):

http://www.puritanboard.com/f40/1-2-kings-Peter-leithart-24648/