<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: The Good, the Okay, and the Unorthodox
Review: Once in a while you stumble upon a theological book that enlightens you, edifies you, and confuses you all at the same time. This book is one of those books that does that to the reader. I will first say the positive things about the book before discussing the negatives. The book is divided into four sections dealing with the OT, the NT, the unity of the Bible, and the prospect of biblical theology in that order (so the reader will get a clear idea what the writer is discussing about).Positives:
This book does contain some pretty good essays. OT essays by John Sailhamer and William Dumbrell were well written (Richard Schultz essay on the various modern OT theology methods might be valuable to those doing research on the OT). James M. Scott, Andreas Kostenberger, and G. K. Beale also wrote good essays from a NT perspective. Paul House's essay will make many people rethink their methods on how to do biblical theology. Graeme Goldsworthy's short essay is a nice way to top it all off by linking the importance of (correct) biblical theology with theological formation, education, and ministry. Negatives:
Unfortunately, there are a couple of essays that are sour disappointments. The first one is Daniel Fuller's essay "Progressive Dispensationalism and the Law/Gospel Contrast" (pp. 237-48). Fuller has found another theological paradigm to attack to further his anti-sola fide agenda. Like his previous critique on Reformed covenant theology and classical dispensationalism, he argues that progressive dispensationalism also dichotimizes the law and Gospel (you could also say he has no fondness for Lutheranism and New Covenant Theology). He refutes the law/gospel dichotomy of PD by examining six "corners" of the debate. In fact, he says some things that might make traditional Protestants wearisome: "Commandments that bring mercy to those obeying them--these are laws of faith" (p. 245). Is Fuller suggesting that grace-driven law-keeping is a means of obtaining God's salvific mercy? If so, Fuller's traditionalist critics are correct when they say that he has departed from justification by faith alone (those who don't recognize this are being dishonest and inconsistent). Another essay that should cause many to worry is Ted Dorman's "The Future of Biblical Theology" (pp. 250-63). Dorman's goal of ecumenical dialogue has made him slip outside the boundaries of orthodox Protestantism. His advocacy of the "works of the Law" as "legalism" is not supported by most commentators. Also, he likes the idea of fusing justification with sanctification (p. 262). He even candidly admits that "the Reformers introduced a 'notional distinction' between justification (imputed righteousness) and sanctification (infused righteousness) where none had previously existed" (Ibid). Dorman can claim to be semi-Catholic or semi-Protestant (more accurately, he follows the view of righteousness advocated by the German school), but he definitely does not fit the bill of an orthodox Protestant. Overall, a good work. Scott Hafemann's inclusion of the essays by Fuller and Dorman pretty much reveals where he lies on the soteriological spectrum (Hafemann follows closely with Fuller's view of the Law). Having said that, the book should be read by those interested in learning more about biblical theology and how it relates to ministry and personal sanctification.
<< 1 >>
| 
