2) As a homiletician, I am uneasy with Old's definition of expository preaching as only being lectio continua (preaching through the Scripture in order, text by text). True exposition is seeking to preach the big idea of a natural thought unit, allowing the text to shape the sermon. This is not to deny the value of an appropriate topical sermon, textual‑topical sermon or the textual sermon (on a verse or two).

I am pleased that Old has finally found the uniqueness of the Puritan sermon (328), which is not expository in the Broadus‑Phelps‑Robinson definition. Exposure of such minute amounts of text subordinates the text to doctrine, as when Thomas Shepard preached four years on the parable of the 10 virgins. Martyn Lloyd‑Jones was a Puritan—in all of the fascination that the Puritan preachers have for us—but his textual‑topical sermons are hardly the model for most. I read every sermon he preached with relish, but to speak of him as leading in "a recovery of expository preaching" is just not right (946). His was textual‑topical preaching, and he did it not only on Friday nights at Westminster Chapel (Romans) but also Sunday mornings (Ephesians). Such series were exceedingly rich, but should we take eight years in Ephesians? Few of us today are advised to emulate this.

3) Olds continues to use “extemporaneous” as a synonym for impromptu speech. Finney (whose belief in man's moral ability makes him semi‑Pelagian, not Arminian) was impromptu—that is, he did not prepare. Extempore form involves thorough preparation and possibly memorization of the introduction and some transitions but preaching without notes, sacrificing some precision for a sense of spontaneity. Paper is a poor conductor of heat.

4) I regret that Olds is so hostile to the altar call and "decisional regeneration." Although of the "old school"—hostile to revivals and the evangelism of D.L. Moody (he is not sure Moody was a biblical preacher, 504)—he has some ambivalence because of Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening. Hello! He likes R.W. Dale in part because "he was not centered on the conversion experience" (402) although Dale became an ardent backer of D.L. Moody. This steady hostile staccato in Old is painful.

Old likes "eastern mysticism" (226), which gives me the chills. I wish somewhere there was at least tacit recognition that holiness preachers and our Pentecostal friends are part of the Body of Christ.

5) I do miss the eschatological in this treatment. There is much apocalyptic in Scripture, and preaching itself is an eschatological event. Granted, the Reformed have not been drawn much to it (Calvin did no commentary on Revelation); but other than a few swipes at the pessimism of premillennialism (which is pessimistic only about man and his prospects but is basically optimistic because of divine interposition), the cupboard is bare. There is today too much attention to eschatology for a comprehensive treatment of preaching to avoid this.

Old's achievement is prodigous from every standpoint. I would like to talk to him about his love‑affair with Origen's hermeneutic, his giving a pass to Karl Barth, and his addiction to higher critical views, along with some other questions.

Nevertheless, by any criterion, Old continues to give us epochal work in his amazing history of preaching. He cheers us and thrills us and saddens us and puzzles us. This book is nearly 1,000 pages long; but if you love preaching, you can hardly put it down. I will guarantee that.