My Take on Chapter 3 of ‘The Gospel as Center’

I thought I would put this up here as I put a little effort into it and I need to post 

Some of the men in our Church are reading through the new book edited by D. A. Carson & T. Keller, The Gospel as Center.  I was given the chapters on Scripture and Creation to write about.  Here is what I wrote about chapter 3, “The Gospel and Scripture: How to Read the Bible.”

“Hello,

Pastor asked me to write something on chapters 3 and 4 of our book.  Here are my thoughts on chapter 3:

Chapter 3 is by M. Bullmore on “The Gospel and Scripture.”  Because I am rather pressed for time I shall have to record some problems with the chapter in with its good points.  It is a rather simplistic chapter written with broad strokes, but it is clear that it is written from a point of view decidedly biased toward covenant theology (Hereafter CT).  CT basically teaches that salvation in the Church is the main theme of Scripture.  All the elect are under a “covenant of grace” which means all the elect from Adam’s time to the second coming are in the Church.  Since neither I nor many evangelicals who believe the Gospel hold to CT it is quite wrong for it to be given preference like this in a book purporting to be written for a broad evangelicalism.

On his beginning page (41) the writer declares that by the Gospel he means “God’s eternal purpose to redeem a people for himself (1 Pet. 2:9) and to restore his fallen creation (Rom. 8:19-21),” though later he will define it as “the message of Christ.” (44).  1 Pet. 2:9 does not say what Bullmore states in that first clause.  It simply refers to those to whom Peter is writing (probably the whole Church but some say the Jewish Church), as “a royal priesthood, a holy nation” etc.  But CT teaches that all the saved in both Testaments are in the Church (thus “a people”).  Then he says, “God’s purposes in revelation can never be separated from His purposes in redemption.” (42).  In an important sense he is right.  But since very many are not saved and since the Bible presents to man the right way of looking and thinking about the world, this is too reductionistic.

He goes on to quote from Isa. 55 twice: first the famous verses about the efficacy of the Word of God, and then some slightly earlier verses which refer to the “everlasting covenant” God made with David and Israel.  Now, if God’s Word will “accomplish everything that God purposes it to do” then surely it will accomplish the promises in the Davidic covenant to Israel? (e.g. “He has glorified you”).  I say this in passing but it is worth filing away.

Is it correct to say that the Gospel is the cause of biblical revelation?  Actually, only in a secondary, though important sense.  You see Biblical revelation (Scripture) is necessitated because of the Fall.  Hence, the primary cause of biblical revelation is the separation that exists between the Creator and the creature – not all of whom will be saved.

What about the Gospel being the effect of revelation?  Yes.  The Bible exists for the Gospel, although it exists for more than the Gospel.  For example, the Gospel cannot be found in the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount.  These may help clarify aspects of the Gospel (e.g. justification by faith not law and sanctification after faith), but they are not the Gospel itself.  I’m sorry, but critical thinking is needed.

Pages 44-47 outline the attributes of Scripture and is very good, although I was surprised there was no clear statement about inerrancy there.  These pages are the best part of the essay.  Also, the section on our need of humility is well done.  But then we come a-cropper.  The section on “Hermeneutics” (i.e. interpretation) is pretty awful.  This may seem like a harsh statement because it reads so piously.  But therein lies the danger.  Let us examine a few things.

First, using Lk. 24:25-26, 44-45 and Jn. 5:39 Bullmore makes the common claim that “if we are going to read the Bible rightly. we must see it in all its parts as it relates to Christ.” (49).  What does “in all its parts” mean?  Well, he had just quoted Bryan Chapell’s claim that Jesus can be seen in every text of Scripture in some way.  Then he says, “Jesus’ words presuppose that every passage does indeed point to him.”  That sounds pious!  But which words of Jesus presuppose this?  Are we really to believe that on the two or three hour trek to Emmaus Jesus went through EVERY OT verse and showed Christ was there?  Do you know how long that would have taken, even if it were possible?  Conservatively, it would have taken several days!  No, this is NOT what Jesus’ words presuppose!  All Jesus was doing was going to every OT Book and showing predictions and illustrations of His person and work within them.  He is in Gen. 3:15 and 18:17 and 49:9-10 and Num 14 and 24 and Job 19:25-26 and Isa. 7:14, 9:6, 61:1f. and Mic. 5:2 and Zech. 9:9 etc.  But when Satan causes the deaths of Job’s children we don’t find the Gospel there!  When Doeg the Edomite shows his true colors Jesus isn’t seen.  Yes, like Spurgeon we ought to be able to get to Christ from any passage.  But not before rightly expounding the passage and THEN relating it to Christ.  But that is not what Bullmore is saying.  He wants us to read all the Bible through the lens of Christ.  That is, he is recommending we read Christ into every passage!  That’s typical CT and it leads to gross spiritualizing of Scripture.

Not surprisingly, he writes about “spiritual interpretation of Scripture” next.  This is not the same as spiritualizing but it often ends up in the same court.  This can be seen in the opening remark under that head on page 49: “The Bible is qualitatively different from every other book and requires that we read it in keeping with its nature.”   I entirely agree with the first part of that statement.  The Bible is the Word of God so it is qualitatively different than non-inspired books.  My problem is with what lurks behind the second part.  You see, he goes on to say (in a rather confused outline of “Illumination”) that not only does the Spirit help us to know the Bible is true.  he also states that one cannot understand the Bible without the Spirit (50).  That is not what Paul is saying in the 1 Corinthians passage and it is obviously untrue – otherwise Bullmore has undermined one of his earlier proof-texts (Jn.5:39) where Jesus exhorts unbelievers to search the Scriptures.  How could they unless they had the Spirit?  And how can any unsaved person read the Bible unless the Spirit helps him interpret it?  This is not the doctrine of Illumination!  Scripture addresses the lost in many places.  It even addresses Satan here and there!  Furthermore, the underlying assumption is that the Bible is only written to believers.  If that is true then an unsaved person cannot logically be condemned for ignoring it.  I hope you see this.

The illustration using Matt. 12:1-8 is poor and unenlightening.  Bullmore is right to say that Jesus was focusing the narrative on Himself.  But He did so because He was “Lord of the Sabbath.”  David was not above the Law – no king was (53?).  But Jesus should be followed by the religious leaders for who He is.  Will they join the disciples instead of condemning them?  That is the crux of the passage.

The last page is also the worst (sorry!).  the “plan of salvation” is not “what scriptural revelation is all about.”  It is a large part of it.  But only a covenant theologian would say such a thing.  And only a CT would be so bold as to announce “The good news is the singular and majestic theme of Scripture” which “should inform and control our “handling” of God’s Word.”  Sounds good doesn’t it?  For one thing, there seems to be more than one usage of “gospel” in the Gospels (e.g. how much of the death and resurrection of Jesus did the disciples understand at first? (Mk. 9:32).  Did Jesus preach it in Mk. 1:13 or Matt.4:23?).  But it is plain rubbish!  What he is recommending is that we come to every verse of Scripture with our mind already made up that we will find Christ in it.  That is not how we do exegesis.

Further, that is not how he got an understanding of the Gospel in the first place.  He did what we all should do: he read what the good news is to us in John 3 and Romans 3-5 and Gal. 1-3 and Eph. 1-3 and he believed what it said.  As all Scripture is equally God’s Word should it not be treated with the same respect?

Your brother,

Paul H.”

Postscript: I wanted to say something here about chapter 4 on “Creation” by Andrew M. Davis because I’m out of town till Tuesday night and may not get a chance to review it.  It is simply outstanding!  Without a doubt it is the best introductory presentation of the subject I have read.  His use of Scripture is superb, and as a piece of composition it is a marvel.   

Review of Greg Forster, “The Joy of Calvinism”

Review of Greg Forster, The Joy of Calvinism, Wheaton: Crossway, 2012, pbk, 205 pages

This new book by Greg Forster is written to set the record straight as regards what Calvinism is.  The author feels that Calvinism is often misrepresented by non-Calvinists, so he writes to help them understand this theology.  Forster’s book joins the shelves of books along the same lines that have been written by Calvinists.  That said, what he has produced is to be commended for its frankness.  Even if, like me, one finds it hard to accept that Calvinism broadly conceived can be easily misunderstood, The Joy of Calvinism presents it (again), often in plain terms, for the uninitiated.

One of the things of note is that Forster puts aside the TULIP acronym in favor of a presentation more in keeping with older formulations of Calvinism; although by “Calvinism” he is speaking in particular of soteriology (15).    He observes that “many Calvinist writers seem to agree that the five points are a lousy way to describe Calvinism!” (16).  So, much of the reason for the misunderstanding comes from the source.  As Forster says,

There are a million books out there claiming that “everything you know about” some subject “is wrong.”  This is another one.  But in this case it’s really justified.  The absence of affirmative and spontaneously devotional expression of Calvinistic theology has left a gaping hole in the public understanding of what Calvinism is.  Put simply, the rest of the world has no idea of what it’s like to be a Calvinist.  It’s like trying to describe Italian food by making a list of all the things it doesn’t taste like. (19).

Towards the close of his introduction the author issues an urgent warning relating to his use of the pronoun “you.”

Throughout this book I speak of the promises of salvation with reference to “you” – as in, “when Jesus died and rose again, he saved you” – on the assumption that you, the reader, possess these promises.  If you have genuinely repented from sin, trusted Christ alone as your Savior and Lord, and embarked upon a life of active discipleship through obedience and service to others, you do.  If not, you don’t. (27)

He underlines the discipleship aspect in assurance by declaring that the “biblical basis of assurance is to test the fruits of your faith in your life by God’s standards,” which he says is taught by 2 Peter 1:1-11 and 1 John.  

The next chapter; entitled “Detour,” repeats the claim that Calvinism has been “radically misunderstood” and presents the author’s own “5 Points” aimed at dispelling some of these major misunderstandings.  One such misunderstanding is over the issue of free will.  Forster says the Reformers were concerned, not with voluntary choices but in captivity of the will to Satan (31-32).  But even with this qualifier, what needs clarifying is how modern Calvinists use the word.  Forster reasons that even though the Holy Spirit “does not ask our permission” before regenerating us, this should not be understood as a violation of our freewill because this change “makes us more free, not less.” (34).  

On the issue of whether or not God loves the non-elect the writer admits that Calvinists have not come to a consensus about it, and admits that the Westminster Confession takes no position on it (39).  He stresses the Trinitarian aspect of salvation (43), and declares that the Calvinistic view of predestination “encourages reverence and meekness” (44).

There then follows four chapters on definite atonement, unconditional election, effective calling, and perseverance, and a Conclusion.  After that is a long Appendix dealing with questions and answers. 

Chapter one proper brings us right up against the doctrine of “limited atonement” or “definite atonement” (also called “particular redemption”).  This might seem like a surprising move, especially for any four-point Calvinist readers.  To be confronted with what many believe is the most uncomfortable, not to say debatable tenet of Calvinism like this might be thought of as unwise.  This reviewer believes it is very commendable.  As one who has studied this form of theology for many years I find myself in full agreement with those who locate the very logic of Calvinistic soteriology in this doctrine.  A Calvinism which denies limited atonement makes no sense to me, and I was glad that Forster nailed his colors to the mast like he did.

Forster wants to get across that Jesus died for each of us (the elect) personally and specifically (49-50).  He believes that “Whatever work God sets his hand to do must be effective” (51), which means all other options end up depersonalizing God’s love by universalizing it.  Hence, this is the watershed doctrine for Forster; “the most fundamental dividing line between Calvinism and all other theological traditions.”  In fact, he is clear that “everything else in this book hangs on it.” (52).  

Short Review: Robert Gundry’s ‘Commentary on the New Testament’

A brief review of Robert H. Gundry, Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-verse explanations with a Literal Translation, Peabody, Massachussetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2010, hdbk, 1072 pages. 

There is not much of Robert Gundry’s literary output that I would recommend.  Up till now the one exception has been his excellent little book, Jesus the Word According to John the Sectarian, which is a very stimulating and edifying study of the Logos theme which runs throughout John.  So when I saw that Gundry had published a large one-volume Commentary on the entire New Testament I had to ask myself some discerning questions.

The first question that popped into my mind was, “how much of Gundry’s exegesis will be tainted with form-critical analysis and mishnaic diversion?” (or something like that).  Gundry’s big commentaries on Mark and Matthew are considered as departures from usual evangelical practice.  I would not recommend them, although, in fairness, the way evangelical scholarship has drifted closer in sympathy with historical criticism of late, Gundry isn’t quite so radical as he used to be.

I consider Gundry’s position on inerrancy far easier to deal with than someone like K. Vanhoozer, who rejects propositional revelation (although he tends to caricature it).  It’s just easier for me to pinpoint Gundry and his tendencies.

Anyway, I purchased the Commentary and have read a good bit of it and I have come away with a favorable impression of it.  Gundry is not concerned at all with introductory matters.  This work is exactly what it says it is; a commentary on the text of the New Testament.  And taken this way it is a successful project, regardless of one’s disagreements with some of the author’s interpretations.

This big book is arranged in helpful double-column format, which makes it easy to use.  The biblical text is in bold type to offset it from his comments.  Gundry provides his own nuanced translation, plenty of relevant background material, and clear and usually helpful comments on each passage.  He is concerned with the logical flow of thought and the way he sees Scripture interpreting Scripture.  He is premillennial (the “resurrection” of Jn. 5:25 and Rev. 20 is “bodily resurrection,” not the spiritual – read “spiritualized” – resurrection of the amillennials).  His soteriology is definitely Calvinistic, and although he identifies the Israel of Rom. 11:23-28 as “biological Israelites, he believes the end time salvation of Israelites brings them into the Church and not into covenanted promises to Israel as a distinct new covenant community as per the OT.  Yes, there are many places where I would disagree.  Another would be his equating the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel in Rev. 7 with the worldwide throng later in the chapter.  Still another his belief that the “temple” in 2 Thess. 2 is the Church.

But having disagreements with commentators is fine, so long as they have fairly set out their views so as not to mislead readers into thinking there is only one way to view certain passages.  Gundry sets out his views, but he usually does so in a way where one can get his point while not feeling compelled to agree with him.  That, to my mind, is a strength and not a weakness.

I have been impressed by the evident amount of mature reflection on the text which Gundry serves up.  For instance, in commenting on Jn. 21:15-17 he says: “So long as John is concerned,…forget the popular treatment of agape-love as superior to phileo-love.”  And in identifying the “Israel of God” in Gal. 6:16 his reasoning that Paul is referring to actual Israel and not Gentiles is very clear.  Similarly, with the Warning Passages of Hebrews the author does not let theology overwhelm the plain threat in the verses.

What I want in a commentary is solid reflection grounded in solid exegesis.  I want to think through the text, even while taking leave of the commentators opinions when I feel compelled to do so.  Gundry has provided an impressive tool for readers of the NT to do just that.  On that basis it constitutes a good acquisition.

Review: “The Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective”

Review of The Return of Christ: A Premillennial Perspective, edited by David L. Allen & Steve W. Lemke, Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2011, pbk, 285 pp.

Following on the heels of their generally excellent Whosoever Will (reviewed here), Messrs Allen and Lemke have produced another collaborative effort for Southern Baptists and beyond.  Although the previous book suffered a bit from two or three below par essays, it made up for its poor start with a number of quality contributions.  When I purchased this book I expected the same sort of thing.  I have to say that overall I was disappointed.

The editors tell us in their Introduction that, “The speakers at the Acts 1:11 Conference and the contributors to this volume all support a premillennial position with a pretribulational rapture.”  They then express their hope “to present a scholarly version of that perspective for your prayerful consideration.” (6).  If that was the writers’ intention then, despite a few exceptions, from this reviewer’s vantage point the book fails on both counts.  It is not particularly scholarly and it does not present a coherent pretribulational premillennial perspective.  There is no clear discussion of the rapture, and several of the writers seem unclear on what that position entails.  Also, there are some strange omissions from the material.  The most glaring one being no stand-alone chapter on “The Eschatology of the General Epistles and Revelation.”  But we’ll get back to that.  Let’s survey the twelve chapters:

Chapter One is a sermon by Jerry Vines.  As per my opinion of his chapter in the previous book, these sorts of sermons do little for me.  There’s not much solid meat to be found here, sad to say.

Ergun Caner kicks things off in earnest with his chapter entitled “The Patience of Hope,” subtitled, “Premillennialism and the Soon-Coming King.”  The text given under this heading is 1 Thessalonians 1:1-10, but the essay does not stick to that passage.  I think “idiosyncratic” is the best word I could use to describe this chapter.  In outlining “Six Millennial Options” the author differentiates pretrib premillennialism (32. Cf. 35, where he calls it “regular premillennialism,” in contrast with the “Historic” variety), which he wrongly equates with “chiliasm,” from dispensationalism, saying that “both premillennialists and dispensationalists have an identical event outline for the future, [but] they differ in history and hermeneutic.” (32).  He does not explain this statement and I for one do not know why he thinks the two approaches – as defined by him – are separate.

At the top of the next page he claims that “Dispensationalism has become a fully orbed worldview.”  Again there is nothing to back this rather extraordinary claim up.  If there is such a thing as a “fully orbed” dispensational worldview I must have missed it.  One of the main reasons for my being a “reluctant dispensationalist” is because of the dearth of worldview thinking among its major exponents.

Postmillennialists might have to take a second look at themselves as one half of them are supposedly looking “for the reestablishment of the [OT] monarchy as a result of worldwide revival” (34), and evidently all amillennialism is synonymous with “covenant theology.” (35).  The article picks up a bit with five reasons for the imminent return, but it is not a quality piece of eschatological writing.

Danny Akin’s chapter covers the Rapture, the Bema Seat and the Marriage Feast, and is a fine contribution, even if it does not address alternative views.  It is enhanced by good charts.  Then Paige Patterson addresses the subject of “Israel and the Great Tribulation.”  Unusually for pretribulationists he places the casting down of Satan to earth in Rev. 12 at the time of Christ’s ascension (64-65).  An editorial blip makes the 69 Weeks of Daniel 9 total 490 years (69), and he seems to favor lunar years rather than solar years, which Gleason Archer thought problematic.

David Allen’s topic is “The Millennial Reign of Christ” and is a decent presentation of some of the biblical data, but is not very enlightening.  He thinks the sacrifices in Ezekiel’s Millennial Temple are only memorial (83), and does not care to interact with what in my view are the better alternatives of Hullinger and Whitcomb.  To my way of thinking, the “memorial” option is a train that won’t run on a G-H hermeneutical track.  The chapter on the final judgment by Richard Land is at about the same level but is annoyingly preachy to boot.  It cannot be called “scholarly” by anyone’s book.

Junior Hill perpetuates the sermonic tone in a short but stirring piece on what the Church should be doing in anticipation of the Lord’s return.  Then we enter Part Two of the book, which contains some additional studies on the eschatology.  The lead-off is a sort of overview of “The Doctrine of Eschatology” by R. Stanton Norman.  His understanding of the End Times is difficult to follow.  If the editors had not assured us that all the contributors were pretribulational I would never have guessed that was Norman’s position, and I still have my doubts.  Influenced by G. E. Ladd (110 n.1; 123 n.17) Norman does not quote a single pretribulationist in his exposition of eschatology.  The majority of his points come from historic or covenant premillennialists (Ladd, Grudem, Erickson, Moore).  The essay suffers from all the inexactitude most dispensationalists associate with Ladd’s position.  Norman’s paraphrase of Acts 1:6 as “Lord, when will You finish what you (sic) started” (122) about sums up the whole chapter.  It is a rather poor effort.

How nice it was, then, to finally come across the substantive and transparent presentation of “The Kingdom that Comes with Jesus” by Craig Blaising.  It is with this article that the standard reaches what one would hope to encounter from the book after reading the Introduction.  This is one of the three really good articles in the book.

Review: “Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism” (2)

The first part of this review is here.

As Lemke continues his seven theological concerns with the doctrine of irresistible grace he criticizes the usual Reformed belief that regeneration precedes faith.  Even though many Calvinists insist that this is a logical order only, the quotations Lemke adduces from Sproul, Piper and Boettner are subject to a little more probing, which, in brief, Lemke does (139-140).  In particular Loraine Boettner’s quote is assessed.  Boettner wrote,

“A man is not saved because he believes in Christ, he believes in Christ because he is saved.” (cited on 138 and 140)

While I am aware that men like Bob Ross adamantly challenge this teaching while remaining Calvinists (and Lemke, as Ross, cites Spurgeon against this view), it remains true that for the majority it is a foundational tenet of their Calvinism (indeed, I cannot see how limited atonement can be maintained without it).  Lemke shows that the NT witnesses against regeneration coming before faith (138-139).  It might have helped if he would have spent a little time dealing with the “preparationism” of Hooker, Edwards, Packer, etc., since (to me at least) this shows up the absurdity of adopting this position on the new birth.  

Lemke’s next objection is that teaching irresistible grace weakens the significance of preaching and evangelism.  This has been a stock objection to TULIP for centuries, and Lemke does a reasonable job of pointing out some of the problems.  Unfortunately, by honing in on the hyper-Calvinist Protestant Reformed Churches and Presbyterians he sidetracks the issue somewhat.  Also, his use of Terrance Tiessen’s work isn’t helpful since he is not representative of most Calvinists on this issue.

The next objection focuses on the character of God and the problem of evil.  In arguing against the former Lemke asks how the Calvinist teaching of,

the two callings of God (the outward and inward, effectual and ineffectual, serious and not serious callings) correspond to two apparently contradictory wills within God (the revealed and secret wills of God).

He answers,

If He has extended a general call to all persons to be saved, but has given the effectual call irresistibly to just a few, the general call seems rather misleading.  This conflict between the wills of God portrays Him as having a divided mind. (145)

After giving space to David Engelsma’s criticism of the notion of two wills he concludes,

Obviously, portraying God as having a divided mind and will is not the way we want to go.  It seems disingenuous for God to offer a definitive serious calling to some but not at all offer a serious calling to others. (147)

Lemke proceeds to enquire about whether the Calvinist version of exhaustive sovereignty leaves any room for anyone other than God to be responsible for evil.  This is the subject of another essay in the book so will be passed over here.

The next two objections question human freedom (Lemke offering a limited soft libertarianism in place of compatibilism), and predestination (see remarks on Land’s article in Pt 1 of this review).  His last problem with irresistible grace is born out of the previous two.  That is, a God who “exhibits His sovereignty by essentially micromanaging creation through meticulous providence” (154), and who “controls all persons and events equally” 155, citing P. Helm), is really the only Player involved in the game.  This surely detracts from God’s glory since He would be more glorified by the free choices of other agents rather than essentially choosing for a limited few.  Lemke’s lengthy remarks offer legitimate concerns, although I wish he had not been content with speaking of the decision of faith as mere “assent” (160). 

Review: “Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five-Point Calvinism” (1)

Review of Whosoever Will: A Biblical-Theological Critique of Five Point Calvinism, edited by David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, Nashville: B & H Publishing, 2010, xiv + 306 pp, pbk.

In choosing to review a book such as this I realize that some readers who are Calvinists would wish me to critique the critique.  I am not disposed to do so.  Although many of my favorite authors and preachers have been Calvinists, as a theology of salvation I do not believe the Five Points as they are usually understood correctly reflect the statements of Scripture (link).  I do not think Arminianism fairs any better for that matter.  I am willing to live with that, though I understand other good men are not.  Still, I hope the review helps anyone thinking of buying this book.      

Back in November 2008 some Southern Baptists who were “neither Calvinist nor Arminian” held a conference (the John 3:16 Conference) aimed at expressing some of the concerns, theological and otherwise, with the resurgence of high Calvinism (i.e. 5 Point Calvinism) in the SBC.  This book is the result.

The work contains an Introduction and eleven chapters.  As with all such edited works, the chapters are of differing quality.  Three or four chapters are excellent.  Another couple are of high caliber.  One or two are at the opposite end of the spectrum.

I know that some people think that any criticism of their adopted theology is akin to a personal attack upon God Himself, but I hope most Calvinists will welcome this book’s critique, with all its hits and misses.  A theology which insulates itself against criticism will not be as robust as one which listens to dissenting voices and tries to see things from another’s perspective.  This is true of Arminianism, Calvinism, Dispensationalism, Reformed Covenantalism or any other ism.  None of us know it all and everyone can be shown cracks in their theological pipes.  It is in that spirit that this book has been published.

The editors, David L. Allen and Steve W. Lemke, are both able thinkers and writers, so one familiar with their work might expect a solid contribution.  All in all, I would say this book is a job well done, although not as well done as it might have been.

The editors note in their Introduction that there are “many Calvinisms” and so some Calvinists “may object that these arguments do not address the beliefs of their particular stripe of Calvinism” (6-8).  As they go on to say, “The contributors are not ‘anti-Calvinist’ and therefore are interested in dialogue, not diatribe.” (9).  Very well.  What do they have to say?

The first chapter is a sermon on John 3:16 from Jerry Vines.  I pass over it as such sermons are not my cup of tea.  I shall only say I was less than impressed with Vines’ word studies of the various Greek words for “love.”  He should have known that, especially in John, the words phileo and agape are viewed as interchangeable by most NT scholars.  Instead Vines sees the former as a “social love of mutual friendship and affection,” while defining the latter as “spiritual love.”  No, not my cup of tea at all!

The second chapter is by Paige Patterson and is on Total Depravity.  Both Calvinists and Arminians hold to this teaching so one of the first things needed is to show any different understandings of the term which may be lurking behind the surface.  Patterson does say something about the notion of regeneration preceding faith, but it isn’t enough and he offers little by way of actual argument against the view.  In fact, the whole essay is too anecdotal and preachy to hold up against any decent Reformed formulations of the ordo salutis and Total Depravity.  It is a disappointing piece.  Thus, with the first two chapters gone the book is off to a rather poor start.

Next up is Richard Land’s chapter entitled ‘Congruent Election: Understanding Salvation from an “Eternal Now” Perspective.’  The chapter starts off with a useful survey of the use of the moderate (“neither Calvinist nor Arminian”, 51) New Hampshire Confession by the influential Sandy Creek Southern Baptists.  Then he enters into his argument for a “congruent” rather than an “unconditional” doctrine of election.

Quite rightly Land distinguishes between the election of Israel, which he calls “Abrahamic election,” and election of individuals to salvation (53).  I don’t like how he draws a strong parallel between OT saints who “looked forward to Christ’s substitutionary atonement on the cross” and Christian believers who look back.  This language is a bit slack and might be construed as saying that people in OT times knew Christ would die on a cross.  But he gets back on point by positing (I think rightly) that the ecclesiology of the early Reformers had a lot to do with their formulation of election.  He also handles the issue of indexical reference as related to God and time clearly and well considering his space constraints.  God knows all things before they occur, but He experiences them when they happen.  This allows him room to include soteriological election within God’s “in-time” experience with individuals (57-59).  Land offers a brief but helpful alternative to what might be called the standard Calvinist approach to unconditional election with the “solicitous call” replacing the “irresistible call,” and the “sufficient call” subbing for the always dodgy (because rather disingenuous) “general call.”  Thus, it is easier for Land to agree with those texts which speak of the sinner’s acceptance or rejection of the Gospel as a response of the sinner rather than of the newly regenerate (as in regeneration before faith).

Then come the three best chapters in the book.  David Allen’s 48 page treatment of Limited Atonement (better, “Particular Atonement”) drives another nail into the coffin of this unpalatable doctrine†.  Not only does Allen show that many esteemed Calvinists, including the Magisterial Reformers themselves, held to universal atonement, but he provides quotations which show that Jonathan Edwards, the darling of the New Calvinists, did not hold to limited atonement “in the Owenic sense” (77).  As Allen is quick to acknowledge, this in itself does not mean the usual Owenic view recommended by most classical Calvinists today is automatically wrong.  But it is worth noting all the same.

In turning to exegetical matters Allen first handles the meaning of the word kosmos (79-83).  As ought to be clear from the New Testament and then from every standard lexicon and theological dictionary out there, the word does not mean “elect”!  It only ever means that via circular reasoning.

Owen’s “double payment argument” is tackled next.  Allen shows that this argument, which says that since Christ already paid the debt of the elect sinner, therefore they cannot be condemned, is, one, not scriptural; two, makes a category mistake: confusing “a pecuniary (commercial) debt and penal satisfaction for sin”; three, does not leave the elect under God’s wrath until they believe; and four, makes the elect owed the merits of the atonement (83f.).

The double payment argument entails that the non-elect cannot, with any consistency, receive genuine offers of salvation by God through the preaching of the gospel.  It also entails that the unbelieving elect (those who will be saved but are yet unsaved) are not receiving sincere threats from God… (85). 

Allen effectively employs well known Calvinists through the centuries to argue against John Owen.  In fact, it should be noted that his use of sources throughout is most impressive.

Review: Craig S. Keener’s ‘The Historical Jesus of the Gospels’

Review of Craig S. Keener, The Historical Jesus of the Gospels, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009, xxxviii + 831 pages, hardback.

Like many of Craig Keener’s books, this one is thick and generously notated.  It is academic though accessible.  Keener writes very clearly and with commendable charity to those with whom he disagrees.  He always keeps the reader’s interest.  In fact, even his many endnotes, all 210 pages of them (!), are often interesting.

I had wanted to give this work a longer treatment, but time will not allow it.  But I hope these remarks will service readers with a good representation of what they will find in the work.

The book is divided as follows:

Introduction

I. Disparate Views about Jesus

II. The Character of the Gospels

III. What We Learn about Jesus from the Best Sources

Nine Appendices

Notes

Bibliography and Indices

1. Overall Impressions

This is undoubtedly one of the best, if not the best book on the subject of the Historical Jesus that I have read.  Keener’s knowledge of the ancient Mediterranean world enhances (rather than obscures) his interaction with the Gospels themselves.  He presents a full, compelling portrait of Jesus as a real Jewish eschatological figure, while civilly dialoging with a spectrum of Jesus scholarship.

2. Survey of Contents

In the first section, “Disparate View about Jesus,” the writer rehearses many of the varied “Jesus” Books that have appeared over the years.  He believes J. D. Crossan’s “Jesus as Cynic Peasant” never existed (22).  And he has even less time for the “Cynic Jesus” of  Burton Mack’s imagination.  Declaring that it was the “doggish” lifestyle of the Cynic which as much as anything else identified one (24), the author notes that if Jesus was a Jewish cynic Sage, “he is the only one we know about.” (19).

In chapter 3 on “Jesus and Judaism” he interacts with three chosen theses of M. Borg, G. Vermes, and E. P. Sanders (his former mentor), before moving on in the next chapter to discuss “Other Gospels.”  Keener shows why these alternative “gospels” are late inventions which never competed at the same level as the four canonical Gospels (e.g. 50).

Keener starts off Section II, “The Character of the Gospels,” by agreeing with the likes of R. Burridge and L. Hurtado that the Gospels ought to be viewed as ancient biographies, though with certain unique features (Ch. 5), and he provides an enlightening discussion of ancient and modern biography.

The historical credibility of Luke-Acts is treated next, alongside ancient historiography (e.g. Polybius).  Keener continues this theme in chapter 7, “Ancient Historiography as History,” and shows how the better historians were very concerned with accuracy; for example, by seeking out eyewitness accounts (Cf. the work of Richard Bauckham).  Although the historian saw himself as more than a mere reporter of bare facts (Ch. 8), this did not mean they deliberately wrote down historical falsehoods.  True, “Rhetoricians were permitted to “adjust stories” to provide cohesiveness to their narrative” (111 – especially where speeches were concerned, [110]), but Luke avoids the standard rhetorical embellishments of those who wrote for cultured audiences.  His purposes were different.  Yes, he had an agenda.  But, as Keener says, admitting to an agenda does not automatically make someone an unreliable witness.

From there he turns to examine source materials.  His [fairly cautious] acceptance of ‘Q’ forces him to see the Sermon on the Mount as not being one actual speech (134).  However, an illuminating chapter (Ch. 10) on oral transmission and memory retention gets things back on track.  There is much helpful background material here, including some informative data on the practice of ancient “Note-Taking” (148-149).

It might be of interest to note just here that by the close of Section II the careful reader will have poured over 88 pages of endnotes!  These notes should not be skipped, as they often supplement the matter in the body of the book.

Review: “Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites” by Bradley Wright

Review of Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites…and Other Lies You’ve Been Told, by Bradley R. E. Wright, PhD, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010, 249 pages, pbk

I am not one to read many books written by sociologists.  The occasional work by Os Guinness and the obligatory few by Peter Berger are about it.  I recall breezing through one of Barna’s books about ten years back.  Quite honestly, though such reading has been profitable, I have come away wondering just how much I could trust the work I had just read.

So when a friend gave me Bradley Wright’s book to read, I wondered whether I would ever get around to it.  Well, a gap in my schedule opened up and I cracked it open.  And I have to say, I’m glad I did.  I found the book at once diverting, encouraging and informative. Wright writes about statistics, but it’s not a big yawn.  There are a few good reasons for this.  Firstly, the author has a sense of humor.  This winsomeness is enhanced with many examples of self-deprecation, such as the inclusion of an 80′s photograph of himself with the comment: “There I am on the right, with a scowl, longish hair, and a disco-print shirt.  Now look closely at that picture – do you think the adults of that generation had any faith in the future based on teens like us?” (59-60).

The book is an agreeable conversation all the way through.  Yet it is more than that.  It is also a serious bit of scholarship by an expert in the field based upon the best sources.  No wonder it carries some impressive endorsements by Rodney Stark, Philip Jenkins and others.  Wright tells his readers something about good and bad statistics, and lets them know where he’s getting his information from.  He has some words of criticism for popular pollsters and certain Christian writers who paint a dreary outlook for evangelical Christianity based on less than stellar research.  His own research gives the lie to many of the common myths about Christian declension that have been doing the rounds.  He writes,

Essentially, people who associate themselves with Christianity, as compared to the religiously unaffiliated, are more likely to have faithful marriages, commit less crime, interact honestly with others, and get into as much trouble with drugs or alcohol.  What’s more, the more committed Christians are to their faith, as measured by church attendance, the greater the impact the church’s teachings seem to have on their lives. (152).

The chapters in the book address topics of interest and importance to believers.  They bear such titles as, “Is American Christianity on the Brink of Extinction?”; “Are Evangelicals All Poor, Uneducated, Southern Whites?”; and “What Do Non-Christians Think of Us?”  These questions are answered with historical and demographic data, which make it extremely helpful for pastors.  Add to this the fact that Wright sees no good reason, if his statistics mean anything, to sound the death-knell of evangelicalism, and the book may be a bit of a tonic for those in ministry who are feeling increasingly embattled by the onset of secularism and relativism.  The news is not as grim as we have been told.  

Another commendable thing about this author is that  he doesn’t go in for extrapolation.  He just repeats his findings.  But on the whole he believes the church is not doing too badly at all.  Indeed, even when it comes to the worrying question about the youth in the church, Wright gives evangelicalism a B- and not an F.  

An interesting factoid which emerged from Wright’s research is that the name “Evangelical” conjures up more negative vibe among unbelievers than, say, the word “Baptist.”  I’m not sure what one would do with a fact like that, but it might give some Christians pause if they are thinking of following the trend of taking the word “Baptist” out of their church name.

I shall not report on the author’s specific findings because I want you to buy the book and read it for yourself.  Perhaps it will encourage you as it did me.  I only wish I had picked the book up before giving some talks recently in which I dispensed some of the bad news about the demise of the church in America and the defection of our young people from their Christian upbringings!  We live and learn.

What he does confirm is that the most likely place to come across intolerance and animus against evangelical Christianity is among college and university faculty.  No surprise there, but it’s nice to have the feeling confirmed by the evidence.

This book will not stop me from bewailing the state of our churches and its shepherds: social science does not present us with the whole picture.  And Wright himself does not say that the picture is very rosy in some important areas such as our tolerance of others, and the  issue of race.  But at least I shall not feel as free to “prove” the general declension via poorly gathered research.  And I take comfort in Wright’s reportage of an evangelicalism that is not quite the imploding phenomenon I have been believing it was!

Review Article: “The Meaning of the Pentateuch” by John H. Sailhamer (Pt.3)

This is the third and final part of this review article.  Here are the links to Parts One and Two.

I have not bothered to write out a list of errata as they can be found in other people’s reviews and I wanted to get this review done today.  At several places I thought I had read the same material before.  This feeling of deja vu has the author to blame for it.  Suffice it to say, the editing could have been more thorough!

Part Three: Interpreting the Theology of the Pentateuch (419-612)

This final section of the book is, for me, the most impressive part of Sailhamer’s study.  It is comprised of four chapters and a brief conclusion.  Chapter 8 is on, “The Nature of Covenant and Blessing in the Pentateuch”; chapter 9 asks, “Is There a “Biblical Jesus” of the Pentateuch?”; chapter 10 revisits “The Purpose of the Mosaic Law in the Pentateuch”; and chapter 11 is about “The Theme of Salvation in the Pentateuch.”  Every one of these chapters contains great insights into their subjects.

To my mind chapters 8 and 9, which make up one hundred and seventeen pages of text, are a tour de force of evangelical scholarship.  As my students know well, I am convinced of the centrality of the covenants found within the pages of Scripture for an accurate understanding of God’s program in history.  Sadly, most works on the covenants fail either to address the covenants as revelation, or else minimize their influence, often because other theological agendas would be threatened.  One recent work of biblical theology hardly pays any attention to the covenants at all (the works of C.H.H. Scobie and Eugene Merrill are an exception).

The chapter begins by reviewing types of “Promise” theology; namely those of Gerhaardus Vos and Walter Kaiser.  This approach emphasizes the “promise – fulfillment” motif as a way to unify the Testaments.  Although usually not stated in Kaiser’s explicit terms, this way of looking at things is common in evangelical theology.   Sailhamer demonstrates that attempts to forge a promise and fulfillment theology between the Testaments is unworkable, chiefly because the NT concept of “promise” has no counterpart in the OT (421-423).

In Vos’s theology the NT promise themes are read back into the OT, with the OT texts succumbing to the dictates of an inappropriate mold resulting in Vos’s opinion that the lack of literal fulfillment of the OT in the NT ought to lead readers to expect “something more” than “objective fulfillment.”  In short, “Vos spiritualizes the OT’s lack of [objective] fulfillment.” (425).

A fuller, appreciative (430f.) treatment of Kaiser’s work follows in which the discontinuity of “promise” terminology and themes is highlighted.  Thus, where snatches of such continuance are glimpsed, these are stressed only at the cost of more glaringly prominent terms like “blessing” and “covenant.”  What results is a prescriptive eschatology sustained by reading the Bible backwards (see 605) from New Testament to Old.  Hence,

“the promise that Kaiser has read from the NT back into the OT and of which he has found traces in the OT is one the leads to (NT) fulfillment – a sort of time bomb set to go off at a particular time.  Kaiser does not consider, as Baumgartel does, the possibility of other kinds of biblical promises.  Hence, he, unlike Baumgartel, finds none.” (430).

So the author gives a quick survey of the pertinent parts of Friedrich Baumgartel’s view that “promise” in the OT context involves covenant relationship, rather like marriage vows (431-432).  This presses the oft repeated formula “I will be your God, and you will be my people” into “the covenantal notion of “actualization.”‘ (433).   The center of OT theology is not “promise” but rather “covenant and blessing.”   The NT conception of promise and fulfillment fits within this broad framework without overrunning it.  What Sailhamer sees is this more personal and relational covenantal motif.  

Then the author carries out a lengthy exploration of the key covenantal passage in Genesis 15.  This entails an interaction with Galatians 3:16.  Albertus Pieters is the chosen foil in this discussion, and Sailhamer criticizes him (and those like him) for trying to make the “seed” of Galatians 3 into the Church (442), when Paul says it is Christ, although both singular and collective senses of “seed” are important to Paul (cf. 480).  Within his study of Genesis 15 Sailhamer notices the unique verbal similarities between chapters 14 and 15, which serve, he contends, “to widen the thematic structure of Genesis 15 in the direction of Genesis 1-11.” (451).  This links the promises of Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 15:1-3 together (Sailhamer repeatedly stresses the connection between creation and salvation in the Pentateuch).  I cannot imagine a replacement theologian, if he/she is reading with attention, having an easy time of it in this chapter.  

Review Article: “The Meaning of the Pentateuch” by John H. Sailhamer (Pt.2)

This continues my review of John Sailhamer’s important book.  Time restraints mean I shall need at least one further post to finish the full review.  Please bear with me.  Part One of the review is here: link

Part Two continued…

Sailhamer sees the four main poems of the Pentateuch as strong indicators of the fact that the author has not abandoned the messianic hope of Genesis 3:15 or the covenant with Abraham.  He teases out several examples of constructive uses of these to signify “the prophetic hope of the new covenant” (as he says on 603).  Thus, he insists that while the law fills the greater part of the Pentateuch, there are clues which lead us to see the wider expectation of God’s faithfulness more congruous with the Abrahamic promises than the Mosaic codes.

He is also sure that rather than reading the OT in light of the NT it is wiser to study how the OT itself, as the Bible of the Apostles, uses the OT.  So he is insistent that, “The Old Testament has its own messianic light” (238).  And in the interplay between the Testaments, he goes so far as to assert;

Not only does the NT casts its messianic light back on to the OT, but also the light of the OT also shines onto the NT. (247)

What this logically entails is a hermeneutical continuity between both Testaments; the sort of continuity which can only be insured if neither Testament is granted interpretive priority over the other.  He continues,

The books of the OT were written as the embodiment of a real, messianic hope – a hope in a future redemption and a promised redeemer.  This was not an afterthought in the HB.  It was not the work of final redactors.  The central purpose of the books of the HB from the outset was to serve as the expression of the deep-seated messianic hope of a small group of faithful prophets and their biblically alert followers.” (Ibid).

Therefore the authors were theologically; we could say messianically driven.  They recorded real happenings, but they did so with an eye upon the greater theological purpose.  As the OT Canon came to a close, this messianic purpose was made more explicit (246).  Also, priests like Ezra may well have had a hand in the “final form” of the Pentateuch (292-297).

The rest of Part Two details the “compositional strategy” of the Pentateuch.  One major topic treated in this section is his understanding of the aggregation of the Law codes in the Pentateuch.  He refers to Cocceius’ view (353-354 – Though these pages have been duplicated from 41f) that the more detailed ceremonial cultus and restrictions were introduced after the episode with the golden calf (361-362).  Thus,

The author wants…to show that Israel’s relationship with God, established in no uncertain terms at Sinai, almost immediately began to undergo important changes, due principally to Israel’s repeated failure to obey God.  What began as a covenant between God and Israel, fashioned after that of the Patriarchs (the Decalogue and the Covenant Code), had quickly become an increasingly complex set of restrictions and laws primarily aimed at the priesthood (the Priestly Code). (363)

This is then linked with composition patterns that the author finds in the rest of the Pentateuch (see esp. Sailhamer’s summary on 414-415!).  Of special interest is the discussion of the deliberate shaping of the direction of the Decalogue section (386ff.).  Sailhamer thinks the failure of the people to come up the mountain when they heard the sound of the horn after three days was of great significance (393).  In working through the text of Exodus 18 through 20 he raises and addresses many questions. I cannot mention them all in this review, but this excerpt from his short “Excursus on  the Interpretation of Jeremiah 11:6-8″ will illustrate the kind of fascinating avenues Sailhamer goes down:

As suggested already in Exodus 19:1-9, originally there were no stipulations or collections of laws associated with the covenant.  It was cast as a continuation of the Abrahamic covenant, which also had no laws, but rather was based on the call to faith, as Exodus 19:9 (ya aminu) clearly states.  Then the people disobeyed God, and God brought stipulations/laws upon them to govern their relationship within the covenant.  Law was given not as a punishment, but as a way to curb Israel’s disobedience and lead them in following God’s will.” (409-410).

Sailhamer spends many pages proving this and trying to tie it all together, and the discussion demands a high order of concentration from the reader.  Does he read too much into the text?  Some readers may think so.  But he does not waste our time, and his conclusions are quite compelling.  I for one will be re-reading (again) this argument with Bible in hand in the near future.

This does not mean that all will be comfortable with Sailhamer’s correction of the MT with the LXX version(s) to make this point (e.g. 244-245).  But he notes further on how the MSS laying behind the LXX (Vorlage) and those of the Masoretic Texts show the influence of both preservation and interpretation within respective communities.

Part Three here!