Top Ten Books Which Have Impacted My Life

A friend of mine has passed on a challenge he received to list 10 books that have had the biggest impact on your life (besides the Bible. Too obvious.) In no particular order (because I’d be up all night agonizing over how to rank them):

Gordon H. Clark

A Christian Philosophy of Education, by Gordon Haddon Clark. My first Clark book, this one taught me the impossibility of a “neutral” worldview.

Faith and Saving Faith, by Gordon Haddon Clark. Cuts through centuries of religious tradition and modern psychology to get to the biblical truth about what faith is and how we’re justified through it. A must-read.

God and Evil: The Problem Solved, by Gordon Haddon Clark. Originally published as the fifth chapter of one of Clark’s most significant works, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, you will find no clearer and straightforward presentation of the sovereignty of God in all things. The logical argumentation is beautiful and inescapable. Another must-read.

The Trinity, by Gordon Haddon Clark. While not an exhaustive work by any stretch, Clark’s treatment of the foundational doctrine of the Christian faith (over the course of three back-to-back readings) was very helpful in aiding my understanding of how it is that three Persons can be one God, and vice versa. It also lays the necessary groundwork for the next one on the list:

The Incarnation, by Gordon Haddon Clark. Clark’s controversial, unfinished final book has been rejected by “unfriendly critics” who can’t see past an admittedly unusual definition of the word “person” employed by the author. It has also, sadly, been the occasion for much maligning of Clark’s orthodoxy. Having read this one three times as well, I can quite strongly affirm that Clark was well within biblical, theological, historical, and creedal orthodoxy, in spite of his rejection of certain traditional English terminology and offering well-defined terms of his own. The subject matter of this book tends to return to my mind every winter, providing a truly marvelous subject upon which to meditate.

Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, by Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen. This volume, published by Reformed Baptist Academic Press, is of inestimable value to those Baptists who find themselves seemingly adrift between the opposite poles of Dispensationalism and paedobaptist covenant theology. The three biggest contributions (in my opinion) of this book are the establishment that the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of works was and is embraced by the Confessional Baptists from the 17th century til today, Coxe’s masterful treatment of Abraham and the covenants made and revealed to him, and Owen’s thorough distinction between the old and new covenants. Along with Clark’s ‘God and Evil’ and ‘Faith and Saving Faith,’ this book ranks in my top three most influential books.

The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace: More than a Memory, by Richard Barcellos. This book, in its pre-manuscript, series-of-lectures stage, completely altered my understanding of not just the Lord’s Supper, but God’s means of grace in general. Weekly Lord’s Days, especially those on which the Supper is observed, become exponentially more valuable in one’s worldview when these truths are understood.

Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, Richard Barcellos, ed. A collection of essays that address key subjects, passages, and points of Baptist history, in an attempt to demonstrate the strengths of the historical Baptist view of covenant theology. Dispensationalists, Landmarkists, and Anabaptists will be challenged by its history, while Paedobaptists will be challenged by its exegesis and robust systematic approach to biblical history. The last chapter, by Sam & Micah Renihan, is worth the price of the book, as it provides the clearest and most concise description of what has come to be called “1689 Federalism.”

Each for the Other: Marriage as it’s Meant to Be, by Bryan Chapell. This book was given to me just before my wife and I were married, and we both found it to be a valuable contribution to our understanding and preparation for marriage and family-building. It has become a common wedding gift from me as a result.

The Time is At Hand, by Jay E. Adams. Another far-from-exhaustive work, this book consists of a concise overview of the book of Revelation and the events, both past and future, it foretells. It does not answer every question, and some of the author’s conclusions may be debatable, but the basic structure it outlines of John’s apocolypse has been tremendously helpful in my grasp and embrace of biblical eschatology.

Now for some Honorable Mentions (because it’s my blog, and I say so). Note that some of these would actually rank higher than some in the list above if I were recommending them for reading, but the list was supposed to be those books which have had the biggest impact, which I interpret to mean those books which have been the catalyst for a significant shift, modification, or clarification in my thinking. Many of the following books have been absolutely invaluable to me as well, and while there are some with which I have certain differences, they remain important works in my life as a theological reader:

• The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, by Pascal Denault
• The Law is Not of Faith: Essays on Works and Grace in the Mosaic Covenant, Estelle, Fesko, and VanDrunen, eds.
• The Lord’s Day, by Joseph Pipa
• Celebrating the Sabbath, by Bruce A. Ray
• From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism, by W. Gary Crampton
• Last Things First: Unlocking Genesis with the Christ of Eschatology, by J.V. Fesko
• Joseph and the Gospel of Many Colors, by Voddie Baucham
• Essays on Ethics and Politics, by Gordon H. Clark
• The Atonement, by Gordon H. Clark
• Exposition of the Entire Bible, by John Gill
• Calvin’s Commentaries
• Blame it on the Brain, by Ed Welch
• Knowing God, by J.I. Packer
• Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof
• Principles of Biblical Interpretation, by Louis Berkhof
• Animal Farm, by George Orwell
• God in our Midst: The Tabernacle and our Relationship with God, by Daniel Hyde
• Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, by Zacharias Ursinus
• The Marrow of True Justification, by Benjamin Keach

Advertisement

Berkhof: “The Implied Sense of Scripture”

Louis Berkhof

Towards the end of Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Louis Berkhof includes a section on “The Implied Sense of Scripture” in which he discusses the nature of logical deduction when applied to the Bible and man’s writings. On the whole, I found this section to be helpful, although perhaps in need of some clarification and slight revision.

“The Bible as the Word of God contains a fulness and wealth of thought that is unfathomable. This is evident not only from its types and symbols and prophecies, but also from what it contains implicitly rather than by express assertion. Even in the case of human compositions we distinguish between what is expressed and what is implied. In writings of a superior order, it is often found that the language suggests and involves important truths that are embodied in words. Great minds contain a wealth of knowledge, and whatever they communicate of it is related to and suggestive of that vast store, so that it becomes quite possible to read between the lines. And if this is true of the literary productions of men, it applies much more to the infallible Word of God.

There is an important distinction, however. Man only knows in part, and is not always conscious of what he knows. Moreover, he often fails to see the implications of what he says or writes. It is quite possible that his words contain implications which he did not see and to which he would not subscribe. It may very well be that what can fairly be deduced from his explicit assertions, by means of logical inference or comparison, lies entirely outside his range of though and is, in fact, the very opposite of what he means. Hence the rule, so often forgotten in practice, but yet essential to all fair controversy, that “it is not allowable to charge upon an author the consequences of his statements when not expressly avowed or adopted, even although these consequences may be necessarily involved in the statements.” He may not have contemplated nor even seen them, so that he is not responsible for them, but only for the employment of language which unintentionally implies them. For the same reason it is not permissible to infer a writer’s opinion on a certain matter from incidental expressions, used by him when the matter in question was not under consideration. As a rule it is an unwarranted procedure, to ascribe to an author thoughts or sentiments which he did not expressly utter in connection with the matter to which they pertain. He who does this is guilty of consequensmacherei.

While Berkhof’s main point is certainly true, and evidences the need for charity in theological discussions, I disagree with his statement (which I have emphasized in bold above) that men are not responsible for errors in logic which result in doctrinal error. In I Corinthians 3:10-15, Paul writes,

¹⁰ According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. ¹¹ For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. ¹² Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, ¹³ each one’s work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one’s work, of what sort it is. ¹⁴ If anyone’s work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward. ¹⁵ If anyone’s work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

While this passage is commonly understood to refer to one’s works, it must necessarily first be applied to one’s teaching or doctrine. The foundation of Scriptural doctrine has been laid. How one interprets Scripture, and constructs systematic theology, constitutes the “building” on the foundation. In the end, the truth will be revealed, and all error abolished. This is not only referring to fatal heresy, but to any theological error – Note that the one whose work is burned is still saved. In the Last Day, every man’s beliefs will be put to the test. My own errors, small and large, will be burned away, leaving only Truth standing.

It must also be noted that sinful man is capable of lying, even when under oath, and especially when under scrutiny. Thus, in instances of trials in church courts attempting to ascertain a man’s beliefs, it may not always be as simple as getting the accused to verbally confirm a list of affirmations and denials. Certainly, one may knowingly speak with a forked tongue. Thus it is necessary to closely examine the past words of the accused, to see if he is being honest about his own beliefs.

It is possible that Berkhof would have perfectly agreed with what I have just said. I am merely attempting to offer clarification concerning man’s responsibilities.

Berkhof continues:

But in the case of the Word of God, these restrictions do not apply. The knowledge of God is all-comprehending and is always conscious knowledge. In giving man his Word, He was not only perfectly aware of all that was said, but also all that this implied. He knew the inferences that are deduced from His written Word. Says Bannerman: “The consequences that are deduced from Scripture by unavoidable inference, and more largely still the consequences that are deduced from a comparison of the various Scripture statements among themselves, were foreseen by infinite wisdom in the very act of supernaturally inspiring the record from which they are inferred: and the Revealer not only knew that men would deduce such consequences, but designed that they should do so” (Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 585). Therefore not only the express statements of Scripture, but its implications as well, must be regarded as the Word of God.

Jesus himself warrants this position. When the Sadducees came to him with a question which, in their estimation, clearly proved the untenableness of the doctrine of the resurrection, he referred them to the self-designation of Jehovah at the bush: “I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”; and deduced from it by good and necessary inference, the doctrine which they denied. Moreover, he reproved their failure to see the implication of that self-designation by saying, “Ye do err, not knowing Scripture” (Matt. 22:29-32; Mark 12:24-27; Luke 20:37, 38). For other examples, cf. Rom. 4:5-12; I Cor. 9:8-10; I Tim. 5:17, 18; Heb. 4:5-9.

We feel warranted, therefore, in laying down the following rule: “The deductions of doctrine made from its (the Bible’s) statements on a comparison between them, if truly drawn, are as much a part of God’s meaning and of His revelation — being indeed virtually contained in it, — as these statements themselves” (Bannerman, Inspiration of the Scriptures, p. 587). It goes without saying that great care must be exercised in drawing such inferences from the written word. The deductions must be good, i.e., truly contained in the inspired statements from which they are ostensibly derived; and also necessary, or such as force themselves upon the mind that honestly applies itself to the interpretation of Scripture. Cf. Westminster Catechism, Art. VI [pp. 158-160].

Berkhof: “The Prophetic Perspective”

In his Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Louis Berkhof writes,

 Prophecy has its own peculiar perspective. The element of time is a rather negligible quantity in the prophets. While designations of time are not altogether wanting, their number is exceptionally small. The prophets compressed great events into a brief space of time, brought momentous movements close together in a temporal sense, and took them in at a single glance. This is called “the prophetic perspective,” or, as Delitzsch calls it, “the foreshortening of the prophet’s horizon.” They looked upon the future as the traveler does upon a mountain range in the distance. He fancies that one mountain-top rises up right behind the other, when in reality they are miles apart. Cf. the prophecies respecting the Day of the Lord, and the twofold coming of Christ (p.150).

Berkhof on “The Mystical Sense of Scripture”

Louis Berkhof

 

“The study of the mystical sense of Scripture has not always been characterized by the necessary caution. Some expositors have defended the untenable position that every part of the Bible has besides its literal, also a mystical sense. Others recoiled from that unwarranted position, and went to the extreme of denying outright the existence of any mystical sense. More careful scholars, however, preferred to take the middle ground that certain parts of Scripture have a mystical sense which, in such cases, does not constitute a second, but the real sense of the Word of God. The necessity of recognizing the mystical sense is quite evident from the way in which the New Testament often interprets the Old.

…

“Scripture itself contains indications of a mystical sense. For example, it is well known that the New Testament interprets several passages of the Old Testament messianically, and in so doing, not only points to the presence of the mystical sense, in those particular passages, but also intimates that whole categories of related passages should be interpreted in a similar manner” (Principles of Biblical Interpretation, pp. 140-141).

Berkhof on God’s Dealings with Israel

Louis Berkhof

“The true Israelites in the Old Testament, as well as in the New, are not the natural descendants of Abraham as such, but only they who share his faith. In the election of Israel, God did not, in the last analysis, aim at the separation of Israel as a nation, but at the formation of a spiritual people, primarily gathered out of the chosen race, but also in part out of the surrounding nations. From the earliest times, proselytes were incorporated into Israel. Solomon, in his dedicatory prayer, did not forget the stranger who might come to worship in the temple (I Kings 8:41 ff.); and the prophets looked forward with joyful expectancy to the time when the Gentiles, too, would bring their treasures into the temple of the Lord.

…

“[The law] was not purely an external rule; the pious Israelite had it written on the tablets of his heart (Ps. 37:31; 40:8). They were not saved in any other way than New Testament believers. They needed the same Mediator and the same Holy Spirit, and received the same blessings of the covenant of grace, though not so abundantly, nor in exactly the same manner” (Principles of Biblical Interpretation, pp. 135-136).

Berkhof on the Unity of Scripture

 

Louis Berkhof

“In view of the present-day tendency to emphasize the diversity of the contents of the Bible, it is not superfluous to call particular attention to the fact that it should be interpreted as a unity. And the first question that confronts the interpreter is that of the relation in which the Old and New Testaments stand to each other.

…

“Both the Old and the New Testament form essential parts of God’s special revelation. God is the Author of both, and in both has the same purpose in mind. They both contain the same doctrine of redemption, preach the same Christ, and impose upon men the same moral… duties. At the same time, the revelation they contain is progressive, and gradually increases in definiteness, clearness, and spiritual conception. As the New Testament is implicit in the Old, so the Old is explicit in the New. Therefore we say that… [t]he Old and New Testament [sic] constitute a unit.

…

The Word of God is an organic production, and consequently the separate books that constitute it are organically related to one another. The Holy Spirit so directed the human authors in writing the books of the Bible that their productions are mutually complementary. They are one in recording the work which God, in the execution of his divine plan, wrought in Christ for the redemption of a people that would glorify him eternally. The Old Testament reveals this work, first of all, historically in the formation and guidance of Israel as a nation. The poetical books and the wisdom literature disclose its fruit in the spiritual experiences and the practical life of God’s people. And the prophets view it in the light of God’s eternal council, emphasizing the failure of the people to live up to the divine requirements, and directing the hopes of the pious to the future. A similar line of development runs through the New Testament. The Gospels and Acts contain the history of the work of redemption in Christ. The Epistles reveal the effect of this work in the life and experience of the churches. And the Apocalypse discloses its final issue in rays of heavenly light” (Principles of Biblical Interpretation, pp. 134-135, 138-139).

 

Berkhof on Theological Interpretation

Louis Berkhof

After spending a chapter each on the Grammatical and Historical Interpretation of Scripture, Louis Berkhof, in his Principles of Biblical Interpretation, begins his chapter on what he calls the “Theological Interpretation.” Berkhof claims that the strict grammatico-historical method of interpreting Scripture fails to take into account the unique God-breathed character of the Bible. He writes,

 Many writers on Hermeneutics are of the opinion that the grammatical and historical interpretation meet all the requirements for the proper interpretation of the Bible. They have no eye for the special theological character of this discipline. There are others, however, who are conscious of the necessity of recognizing a third element in the interpretation of Scripture.

…

Scripture contains a great deal that does not find its explanation in history, nor in the secondary authors, but only in God as the Auctor primarius.Purely historical and psychological considerations will not account for the following facts: (1) that the Bible is the Word of God; (2) that it constitutes an organic whole, of which each individual book is an integral part; (3) that the Old and New Testament [sic] are related to each other as type and antitype, prophecy and fulfillment, germ and perfect development; and (4) that not only the explicit statements of the Bible, but also what may be deduced from it by good and necessary consequence, constitutes the Word of God. In view of all this, it is not only perfectly warranted, but absolutely necessary, to complement the usual grammatical and historical interpretation with a third.

The name “Theological Interpretation” deserves the preference, as expressive, at once, of the fact that its necessity follows from the divine authorship of the Bible, and of the equally important consideration that, in the last analysis, God is the proper Interpreter of His Word (pp.133-134).

Readers familiar with the Scripturalism of Gordon H. Clark may find that the portions I have emphasized in bold font have a familiar ring to them. Berkhof is writing about Hermeneutics, not Apologetics, but his attitude is clearly presuppositional in nature. It must be assumed that the Bible (alone) is the Word of God – the Christian Axiom. This is of paramount importance for the proper interpretation of Scripture. If one does not, at the beginning, axiomatically approach the Bible as God’s Word, no amount of historical or coincidental external evidence will prove it to be so.