Logos March Madness—Round 1

DAL said:

I think that for next year, Logos should do a March Madness on "Commentary Sets" to see which set could go for 75% off.  My picks would be NIVAC OT & NT bundle; Pillar's NTC, BECNT all volumes, Kent Hughes Preaching the Word, etc.

DAL

[Y]  Bump. Bump.....We can always dream.

I would be inclined, according to reason, to think that Cranfield and Bauckham were accidentally transposed when assigned to their groups.

elnwood said:

He's even younger than more than half of the authors on the "modern" list:

That really puts things in perspective. Great job, elnwood.

David Paul said:

Is Cranfield the only ICC author still living?

No. I. Howard Marshall and Dale C. Allison are still alive. Also, there are some more recent ICC volumes that Logos doesn't have yet with living authors: H. G. M. Williamson on Isaiah 1-5, Robert B. Salters on Lamentations, and John Goldingay and David Payne on Isaiah 40-55, as well as Allison on James.

I'm not a huge fan of Comfort... I do like how he forces people to come to grips with their sin, before he presents the Gospel. 

My level of exposure to his writings is VERY peripheral. That said, there are division within the catholic church? I wonder if he could have come across a revisionist congregation (diocese?). There have been a few bad eggs in the catholic church throughout history (and in protestant history), this could be an example where he came across one such seed, and as a result came to believe the words of the one man, were representative of the denomination. 

I'm not catholic. Maybe its more monolithic than I perceive it to be. But I think not. 

Super Tramp said:

David Carter said:

There is more chance of Joel Osteen being the next Pope than there is of Logos offering an entire author's works.

Then get ready for Osteen to fly to Rome. Logos did indeed have a sale on one author that included everything he has written. That was Charles Stanley.  I know because I nabbed everything. I think it was just last year.

I don't believe it was part of March Madness though which is the context of my statement [;)] The point is if people think Logos are going to offer all the titles of all the authors featured in March Madness at a discount, they are going to be sadly disappointed.

elnwood said:

Jack Caviness said:

Mathew Haferkamp said:

   I like Ray Comfort, and he has done some good books

You might take a look at my review of God Doesn't Believe in Atheists for a different perspective on this author

God Doesn’t Believe in Atheists: Proof That the Atheist Doesn’t Exist

Jack, Ray Comfort is correct. the Roman Catholic list of the Ten Commandments omits the part about graven images, although Catholic Bibles of course still have those verses in them. Look at any Roman Catholic list of the Ten Commandments.

For example, this one from the Vatican which lists the Ten Commandments in parallel with Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/command.htm

As for the reason why that verse is omitted from the list, I cannot verify whether Comfort is correct that it has to do with graven images used in Roman Catholic worship.

One perspective, based on a Vatican website that has the heading "Catechism of the Catholic Church", which is missing the phrase in question...

fgh said:

elnwood said:

the Roman Catholic list of the Ten Commandments omits the part about graven images

No, it doesn't. They see it as part of the first commandment, just as Lutherans and Jews do (though Jews call it the second word instead).

elnwood said:

Look at any Roman Catholic list of the Ten Commandments.

"Article 1

The First Commandment

I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them or serve them.
It is written: “You shall worship the Lord your God and him only shall you serve.”"   (italics mine)

Catholic Church: Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd Ed. Washington, DC : United States Catholic Conference, 2000. #2083.

It's hard to find a more authoritative list than the CCC...

On the other hand, as a Swedish Lutheran I can testify that I virtually never see those words included in our lists... They're not in the list in the Small Catechism, and not in the list in the Large Catechism. I guess you (and Comfort) are beating the wrong horse... 

As for why, the CCC's explanation can be found in #2129-32 (logosres:catcathchrch;ref=CCC.CCC_2129 for those who have it in Logos), #1159-62 (logosres:catcathchrch;ref=CCC.CCC_1159), and 476-77 (logosres:catcathchrch;ref=CCC.CCC_476).

...and another perspective that disagrees with the first and refers to something call the "Catechism of the Catholic Church".

Hmmmm. Well, I find it hard to be very critical of someone who gets their info from a Vatican website--it should be an accurate ennunciation (no pun intended) of the Vatican view. If it's wrong, okay...but who's to blame for that? The quote fgh provides includes the verses the website doesn't. Fine, I can accept that. But I don't think Catholics should get hot under the collar (again, no pun intended...really, I'm just finding these as I go along [:P] ) if an inaccurate statement is made based on inaccurate Catholic (Vatican, no less!) information. I was under the impression that some "tampering" with the Ten Words had taken place too, at one time. The reason can't be labelled bigotry or the like when the documented source of the confusion is the Catholic church itself.

That said, I'm all for accuracy. That even includes accurate representations of inaccurate viewpoints.

Fwiw, I think the three "you shall..." statements (prior to the "Remember..." that nearly everyone ignores) are the most logical demarcations of the "words" YHWH had in mind.

MJ. Smith said:

abondservant said:

There have been a few bad eggs in the catholic church throughout history (and in protestant history), this could be an example where he came across one such seed, and as a result came to believe the words of the one man, were representative of the denomination. 

Please reassure me that neither the readers or the authors of products in Logos are really that stupid, sloppy, ignorant, willfully uninformed ... Unfortunately, experience tells me that incredible as it sounds, it is possible. However, I've not seen this particular issue as one of much internal debate, although Catholics would not particularly get hung up on which of the common division into 10 someone chose to use.

One would hope. However as a business, the business has to provide what sells. I'm choosing to give Comfort the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this issue - that he's miss-understanding vs. being malicious. Even if that makes him a sloppy "scholar" (a term I hesitate to use as scholarly works provide sources, something I don't believe he does, we just have to trust his word on things).

People make millions of dollars every day selling books that misrepresent different groups in egregious ways. Any book published by an American company on the topic of Islam is a good example. Seemingly without exception (I can think of two authors off the top of my head) their books try to sell fear, rather than Gospel.

I'm also not aware of their being common divisions of the 10? Can you enlighten me on that subject?

I had hoped this discussion would die down, but since not:

David Paul said:

I don't think Catholics should get hot under the collar

I'm too lazy to check, but if I remember correctly there were no Catholics in this discussion until MJ just turned up. The defense of Catholicism came from one Baptist and two Lutherans. 

David Paul said:

Hmmmm. Well, I find it hard to be very critical of someone who gets their info from a Vatican website--it should be an accurate ennunciation (no pun intended) of the Vatican view. If it's wrong, okay...but who's to blame for that?

There's nothing wrong with the link as such. It's in the Catechism all right. It just isn't the 'Catholic list of the ten commandments', so to speak. It's an introductory comparison chart between Exodus and Deuteronomy, with the 'short version' of the commandments that has often been used in catechetical tradition next to it. It's actually positioned between two sections -- before "SECTION TWO - THE TEN COMMANDMENTS" 'officially' starts -- and doesn't even have a paragraph number of its own. The list of the full version of the commandments -- with long expositions -- only starts several pages later. You know what they say about using a text without checking the context...

Let me also point out again that while Catholics and Lutherans don't make this a separate command, neither do Jews. And while Reformed do make it a separate command, so do the Orthodox. So you have iconoclasts on both sides, and iconophiles on both sides. 

EDIT: I guess I missed a few posts while I wrote...

D. L. Moody was once criticized by fellow ministers for not attacking what these ministers considered "the false teaching" of certain groups. 

Moody answered, "I am determined not to talk up anything but Jesus, and not to talk down anything but sin."

I have not always followed Mr. Moody's advice, but I have always regretted when I did not follow it.  That includes some comments I made on this forum very recently about one of the authors in Logos March Madness.  What I said was inappropriate.

MJ. Smith said:

elnwood said:

So to summarize, it's omitted from the Traditional Catechism Formula

elnwood said:

, there is an article on the First Commandment, which includes a section marked "You Shall Not Make For Yourself a Graven Image . . ."

i.e. it is omitted from the didactic version but included doctrinally.

MJ Smith, not trying to start an argument, but I do want to clarify. In what sense is it included doctrinally? In other words, according to Roman Catholicism, what is forbidden by "You Shall Not Make For Yourself a Graven Image . . ." that isn't already forbidden in the First Commandment?

MJ. Smith said:

elnwood said:

it says that this prohibition was changed because of Christ's incarnation.

refer to the iconoclastic contravention of the 8th and 9th centuries to put this statement into context as the paraphrase is not an accurate representation of the intended meaning. Think more along the lines of "because Jesus took on a fleshly body, it is lawful to create human images of Jesus".

Yes, that is the reasoning ... but not just of Jesus, but "also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints" according to the Catholic Catechism.

I thought this thread was about Logos March Madness - Round 1. [^o)]

MJ. Smith said:

Evidence that we need mind mapping in Logos?

Swindoll, Kempis, and Pink.

I'm not super familiar with Swindoll's work, but I know people who've been deeply impacted by his ministry. Kempis I had to read as an undergrad at my bible college and loved it. Pink is another I like to read. None of the three of them have a significant presence in my library.

I wish I could remember specifics, but I had a professor (Wheaton grad (BA theology), then princeton (MA rhetorical science), then USF(PHD communications) who taught sys theo 1, and 2. He had a relatively cautious view of Bock. I can't remember why.

Ben said:

I'd like to see John Walton's books go far.

http://www.logosmarchmadness.com/2013/round-1-deals/#walton

What? No Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary? [:(]