A few interesting items from around the blogosphere:

Tim Keller from Redeemer PCA in New York City has written some helpful books.  For instance, I really appreciated Prodigal God.  Unfortunately, Keller does hold some erroneous views.  For one thing, he seems to either hold to or at least be open to theistic evolution.  There’s a helpful response to him on this over here.  Keller is also less than consistently Reformed in his apologetical methodology.  His The Reason for God is very popular, but needs to be read with discernment.  OPC pastor Brett McNeill wrote a helpful review some time ago for New Horizons.  TRG is not a book that I would recommend if you’re trying to understand how to go about apologetics in a biblically faithful manner.


There’s a new festschrift just out for Dr. Bob Godfrey of Westminster Seminary California, Always Reformed.  I had the privilege of reading a pre-publication copy this past summer.  I can tell you that it’s worthwhile.  I especially enjoyed Hart’s essay on Machen’s “warrior children,” Muller’s essay on seventeenth-century language about God, and Venema’s essay on the (brief) history of the United Reformed Churches.  You can order a copy here.


I recently uploaded my review of James K. A. Smith’s Desiring the Kingdom.  You can find it over to the right under “Articles” or follow this link to get it direct.


There’s a helpful post here by Dr. John Byl on Science, Neutrality and the Antithesis.  He’s responding to Reformed Academic contributor Dr. Jitse Vandermeer’s critique of Dr. Cornelis Van Dam.

About Wes Bredenhof

Pastor of the Free Reformed Church, Launceston, Tasmania. View all posts by Wes Bredenhof

8 responses to “Varia

  • Bill DeJong


    Could you spell out how, in your mind, Keller is not consistently reformed in his apologetic methodology? And is it possible for you to post your review of Jamie Smith’s book? For whatever reason, my filter blocks

    Lastly, Darryl Hart of _Secular Faith_ fame is probably responding to John Frame’s superb article found here:

    Kind regards in Christ,

    • Wes Bredenhof

      Hi Bill,

      1. I could, but it would take a long review. Perhaps some time I will write one. In the meantime, I think the New Horizons review touches on some of the main points of critique that I would have.

      2. There was a problem with the original link. I fixed it and it should work now.

      3. Hart does mention Frame. But his essay is broader, “a historical exploration of Machen’s legacy, specifically how a second generation of conservative Presbyterians became uncomfortable with polemicism and how a subsequent generation recovered Machen’s contention for a Reformed witness in a disciplined church.” Good stuff.

  • Bill DeJong

    Thanks for the response, Wes.

    1. I’d be very interested in your critique of Keller; personally, I like his approach a lot. I think Doug Wilson, in his debate with Hitchens, exposed the best and worst of the traditional presuppositionalist approach, i.e., you talk a lot about why someone should believe what she does without ever talking about what she might believe and specifically what about it might be problematic.

    2. is still blocked by my filter; don’t know why, but don’t worry about it.

    3. Hart’s essay looks interesting. I would guess he regards Frame as a second generation conservative Presbyterian and today’s theology police (e.g., those who allege John Murray was heterodox) as the third. BTW, what’s your take on two-kingdom theology? Have you read Hart’s _A Secular Faith_? Van Til must be turning in his grave!!!

  • Tom Skerritt

    I share Bill’s thoughts about reading what you have to say about Keller’s apologetics.

%d bloggers like this: