Logos is offering 50% off on one book each day this week from the Baker Academic catalog. Yesterday's was the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Today, it is New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ.
The twitter link is https://twitter.com/Logos/status/357145756760670209
Anyone here have the Schreiner Theology volume. The price is right, just wondering how useful it is.
Logos is offering 50% off on one book each day this week from the Baker Academic catalog. Yesterday's was the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Today, it is New Testament Theology: Magnifying God in Christ. The twitter link is https://twitter.com/Logos/status/357145756760670209
The twitter link is
Thank you for the heads-up.
I don't have it (quite yet) but it comes highly recommended.
See http://www.bestcommentaries.com/book/6684/0801026806-new-testament-theology-magnifying-god-i-thomas-r-schreiner
See also: http://www.bestcommentaries.com/nt-theology/
Remember you have 30 days to examine a resource and return it without charge.
Is his theology one or two kingdom? ( if you dont understand my question, never mind you wont be able to tell me.)
I read an excerpt, not overwhelming, but given that Logos makes it easy to read the referenced material, one really can't go wrong.
Just a tip.
The coupon code for day 1 (the EDT volume) is still working, so if you missed out on that on day 1, you can try again.
Anyone knows the difference between the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and the Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology in terms of content? Both are by Elwell and the EDBT is no longer in print.
This thread should offer some help: Re: "Evangelical Dictionary of Theology" and "Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology":
Anyone knows the difference between the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and the Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology in terms of content?
Thanks Unix for the help. [:)] Next time, I will remind myself to search more.
If You look at Twitter, it seems like what they offer today is the first Edition. On Monday it was the 2nd Edition.
The EDT (Monday offer) is in its 2nd edition and still in print. The EDBT (today's deal) is out of print.
was EDT ever bundled in Logos4 package? or any previously bundle sale?
I believe the EDBT was in the Baker Reference Library (I could be wrong) but not the EDT
EDT is part of http://www.logos.com/product/30361/baker-theology-collection
EDBT is part of http://www.logos.com/product/16860/r-c-sproul-digital-library
so EDT was never part of L4? I'm new to L5 that's why...
According to the spreadsheet discussed here http://community.logos.com/forums/p/71591/498371.aspx#498371 I can't find EDT in any L3 or L4 collection.
Today's deal Understanding Paul: The Early Christian Worldview of the Letter to the Romans is only referenced once in my entire library (Carson and Moo's Short Intro to the NT.) Anyone with more hits?
I believe this is an unscientific way to evaluate the worth of getting a resource I am unfamiliar with. [:D]
Anyone with more hits?
It's reviewed in the Ashland Theological Journal Vol. 37, but that is the only other significant hit I got:
Stephen Westerholm, Understanding Paul: The Early Christian Worldview of the Letter to the Romans. 2nd edition; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2004. 176 pp., paper, $14.99.
This is the revised edition of his Preface to the study of Paul (Eerdmans, 1977). The subtitle tells the story: Westerholm introduces the reader to Paul’s worldview, using the text of Romans as a guide to its major facets. He wants to be able to answer an outsider’s question, “what is so big about Paul?” The major impediment lies in worldview: “Contemporary readers of Paul… soon encounter difficulties. Many do not share the assumptions that underlie Paul’s vision of life; and to make sense of his train of thought without grasping its premises is no easy matter” (p. 11). Thus the author starts off with some questions that might strike a first-time reader: why does Paul sound so self-important? Why isn’t Paul as concerned as we are about feelings of guilt? Why is homosexual activity an offense against God?The basic “Jewish-Christian worldview” that Paul accepts is that “God is good, and so is his creation; evil represents an inappropriate and disruptive response on the part of moral beings to what is good; the triumph of the Good is ultimately assured by the character of God” (p. 24 note 7).Westerholm’s chapters follow a standard outline of Romans. In each, he begins by asking modern and post-modern questions about truth, reality, responsibility and freedom, and God. He then typically moves on to a description of the Jewish-Christian worldview, usually with reference to the Old Testament. He ends with the specific development of that view as found in Romans.An outstanding chapter is “3. War against goodness”. Here Westerholm delves briefly but carefully into questions of determinism vs. freedom, the language of right and wrong, and the nature of freedom and restraint in a pluralistic society. In the following chapter, he captures the nature of sin and judgment well with “Paul allows that human beings (even Gentiles!) may do good…[but] the very selectivity with which humans sometimes choose to do the right, sometimes the wrong, may itself be seen as an expression of their setting themselves up as moral arbiters independent of God” (p. 62).At every point, the author takes great care to distinguish a Western worldview from the Pauline one; for example, in his conclusion he shows that Paul’s image of sacrificing ourselves to God (Rom. 12:1–2) is one of the hardest concepts for us to swallow, given our obsession with personal freedom and autonomy.Westerholm writes with his customary humor and parabolic style. He particularly tickles the fancy with stories about an albatross couple (yes, as in birds!) named Jack and Jill, and later about giggly teenaged pals Ashley and Chrystal. The albatrosses help to illustrate what we mean by human freedom, the girls what we mean by sin. His book is fantastic for someone with a college course in philosophy but with littleATJ 37 (2005) p. 134to no understanding of the Bible or Christianity. It’s also of great use for Christians of whatever stage, particularly in helping them to articulate their faith today.
“Ashland Theological Journal Volume 37” 37 (2005): 133–134.
Today's deal Understanding Paul: The Early Christian Worldview of the Letter to the Romans is only referenced once in my entire library (Carson and Moo's Short Intro to the NT.) Anyone with more hits? I believe this is an unscientific way to evaluate the worth of getting a resource I am unfamiliar with.
I believe this is an unscientific way to evaluate the worth of getting a resource I am unfamiliar with.
I too would like to know more before choosing this as I am not familiar with this work.
I took the plunge and got it.
It is a concise overview of the Jewish-Christian worldview of Paul's time and Paul himself, interspersed with popular-level writing that seeks to explain the idea. It is an intriguing mix of genres to be sure.
This excerpt may not help you at all in making your mind up. But it is crazy enough for me to post it (I mean that in a good way, the author teaches at McMaster in Hamilton, so yay for that!)
"Intuitions of Goodness—and Divine Tzedakah
Romans 1:16–17
That life—all life—is meaningful and good, and that evil distorts and disrupts the good and cries out to be set right: these convictions are fundamental to the “Jewish-Christian” worldview, of which Paul is a notable exponent. They are not self-evident today. In this chapter a general discussion of the differences in horizons will be followed by a look at the theme of underlying goodness in the biblical book of Psalms. We will then see, in conclusion, how that vision provides the framework for the Pauline manifesto in Romans 1:16–17.
Love—and the Nature of Things
We may begin with a parable.
Barb and Bob knew each other for years before they “discovered” one another. The details of the discovery need not concern us here. Barb and Bob themselves feel that what has happened to them is utterly unique in the annals of human history, and in a sense, of course, they are right: Barb is unique, so is Bob, and so perforce must be their relationship. But though we grant the point with goodwill—we were, after all, once young ourselves—we do them no injustice when we insist that, broadly speaking, what has happened to them has happened to others before; that for all its novelty in detail, there is a certain predictability about many aspects of their relationship; that the whole experience is sufficiently common in sufficiently significant ways to warrant the dusting off of a well-worn tag: Barb and Bob have “fallen in love,” and even those who know neither Barb nor Bob, when they hear the news, have a fair idea of what has taken place.
Indeed, whether or not Barb and Bob care to acknowledge it, their mutual discovery bears an unmistakable resemblance to that of a male and female albatross whom we will call Jack and Jill. Jill, on returning to the land of her birth, is beset by many males, all craving her attention; but she finds herself attracted to Jack. A certain formality of gesture and speech, both awkward and tense with excitement, characterizes their initial introductions: their attachment will be lifelong, but its beginnings must not be rushed. Introductions are followed by gentle caressing, then a dance—formal, predictable, yet reaching a feverish ecstasy before subsiding into the contentment of the mutual knowledge that they are a pair. Still, Jack and Jill separate for a season without mating. Their reunion is marked again by both excitement and formality, though now, at the end of their courtship dance, they mate, then prepare to take up the shared responsibilities of parenting.
We leave them to their duties and return to Barb and Bob. Their new relationship has transformed their lives. Their pursuit of work and education is now purposeful, focused on making possible their life together. The tritest of occasions has taken on meaning—provided they can share it with each other. Even separation from one another differs from times they used to spend on their own: absence is not the same as aloneness. Nor would we be mistaken in thinking Barb and Bob more beautiful human beings than they were before: more happy, certainly, but also more generous, more patient, more considerate. That love is blind, attributing spectacular virtues to spectacularly ordinary people, is not, after all, the whole truth. Love may also summon virtue into being.
So much for the parable. In view of the pluralism—the multiculturalism—of our society, you would not, of course, permit that the story be given but a single interpretation. Will … two do?"
Westerholm, S. (2004). Understanding Paul: The Early Christian Worldview of the Letter to the Romans (2nd ed., pp. 25–27). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.
I finally decided to as well. The Canadian connection put me over [;)].
This should be helpful in applying Romans and that's a big positive.
