Five Views on Law and Gospel

by Walter C. Kaiser Jr.

Book Overview

An introduction to a complex theological issue that impacts our daily lives as believers in Christ: What is the relevance of the Old Testament Law to our understanding of the Gospel and how it should be lived?

This book explores five major approaches to this important biblical topic as they've developed in Protestant circles:

Non-Theonomic Reformed View - the law is the perfection of righteousness in Jesus Christ.Theonomic...

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0310212715
• ISBN13: 9780310212713
• Release Date: October 1996
• Publisher: Zondervan Academic
• Length: 416 Pages
• Weight: 1.00 lbs.
• Dimensions: 1.1" x 5.3" x 7.9"
• Age Range: 18 years and up

Customer Reviews

Great Introductory Work

This treatment of the doctrine of sanctification is an excellent introduction to the different perspectives in evangelical theology. The authors chosen are highly respected in their traditions and each give solid essays to digest. Certainly, each position is not 'The' consensus position within that tradition on every point, but the major benchmarks of each tradition are highlighted well by the authors. Each author should be commended for clarity, though some more than others. Melvin Dieter (Wesleyan) gives an excellent treatment of how Wesley viewed 'The Law of Love' as the thread which brought together his entire theology. He explains how the 'moral image' of man was fully repaired in regeneration (an Arminian perspective) and that the believer should seek the 'second work of grace' so that he may love God 'perfectly' through this 'Entire Sanctification'. However, the words 'perfect', 'sin', and 'entire' are essentially redefined in Wesley's view and careful discernment is needed to fully understand what they mean by each. Sin is defined only as 'willful' or 'voluntary' and 'perfect love' is the ability for every believer who has experienced 'Entire Sanctification' to live without willfully sinning. This is a great article, though the author at times is not clear enough when defining each of these uniquely Wesleyan terms. Essentially, Wesley's view in sanctification is seen in a `process-crisis-process' format. Others in later Holiness history (Phoebe Palmer, etc.) drifted from Wesley's emphasis on process in sanctification and only emphasized crisis, which Wesley would not agree with. Each author gives solid critiques of Dieter's essay. Anthony Hoekema (Reformed) gives a classic overview of the traditional position. Against the authors within the Wesley-Holiness models, Hoekema more clearly emphasizes the progressiveness of present/experiential sanctification. This is not to say the other authors do not see progressiveness there, but they normally see decisive moments as the key more than Hoekema does. Hoekema gives us so much to benefit from in his treatment, though there are areas many will not agree with. Though Hoekema sees the regenerate person now as a single unified recreation, he never answers what happens to the sin nature/capacity. His muteness on the subject implies that the sin nature/flesh/old man is now simply a residue left in the 'new man'. Some will take issue with this, though this is a common Reformed view. He also views Romans 7 as describing the person in view (some would say a "hypothetical person", not Paul) as unregenerate, though still common within Reformed circles. John Walvoord (Augustinian-Dispensational) probably gives the weakest treatment in the book. It's not because of his lack of credibility or scholarship, but because he never defines the essential and foundational differences between the Dispensational thread and the Reformed thread. In even naming his view what he does, he seems to try to make his view s

Counterpoint Series

I'm going to apply this commentary for the entire Counterpoint Series published by Zondervan Publishing Company. My compliments to that company for creating this series. I initially purchased "Four Views on the Book of Revelation" but soon realized it was only one in a series. I got so much out of that volume, that I decided to purchase the entire set to study and keep for reference. My spiritual growth has been remarkable as a result. Seminary students and professionals would probably enjoy this series, which seems geared for them. But this series is also excellent for those college-educated laypeople who feel inclined to enhance their understanding of Christian theology. That is, with one caveat: Buy a decent theological dictionary to refer to at first. It probably won't get used much after about the third book you choose to read, but initially you will be need it to be confident of some of the terms used among advanced theologians. Then, the Counterpoint series will give you a full understanding of many different concepts and concerns of the Christian faith which have been applicable from early on until the present. I've learned a lot, and the only way I think I could do better is if I were enrolled in Seminary. A list of all the titles I am aware of from this series is: Are Miraculous Gifts for Today? Five Views on Law and Gospel Five Views on Sanctification Four Views on Hell Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World Four Views on the Book of Revelation Three Views on Creation and Evolution Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond Three Views on the Rapture Two Views on Women in Ministry

Very Good Overview of Major Evangelical Views

Anyone interested in the various views on the Law and Gospel should definitely consult this book. Ever since the groundbreaking book by E. P. Sanders in the late 1970s the issue of the Law's role in the Christian life has exploded in biblical-theological circles. This book will give you five predominant evangelical views on the Law and Gospel. This review will give a concise evaluation of the five views.The first essay is by William VanGemeren and he expouses the standard Reformed perspective. His approach is very similar to Vos' redemptive-historical approach, and thus, many traditional Reformed people (especially those who are seeped in the WCF) will find some points of disagreement. However, in essential agreement with standard Reformed theology, VanGemeren argues that no person can be justified by the Law and that the Law (the moral aspect) is a rule for the regenerate. This essay was the weakest by far, since VanGemeren argued mostly using logic than exegesis. The second essay by Greg Bahnsen argues for the Reformed theonomic approach. I found Bahnsen using logic and "God's nature" a lot rather than exegesis to argue for his position. It is no surprise then that most Christians reject this view because it fails to take into account the redemptive-historical shift after the Cross. Also, those who do accept this position do so because of social-cultural-political distate of our secular world than biblical exegesis.The third essay is by Walter Kaiser. Though his essay is the shortest of all (only 22 pp.) he argues most effectively for the continuous position than VanGemeren and Bahnsen. Kaiser argues that the moral aspect of the Law continues to have relevance for the new covenant Christian for sanctification. For Kaiser the Law was a gift given by God because of His grace (not a legalistic enactment). However, doing the Law does not confer salvation, but is an expression of faith by the redeemed.The fourth essay is by Wayne Strickland. This is another weak essay and does not represent all dispensationalists (especially progressive dispensationalists). Strickland argues for a strict discontinuous view where the "law of Moses" is replaced with the "law of Christ" (his dispensational view comes out quite obviously in his essay). However, his argument that "telos" in Romans 10:4 means "termination" is quite well-argued and his exposition of Galatians 3:10-12 is very well presented too.The fifth essay is by Douglas Moo and advocates a "modified Lutheran" view. I found this to be the most convincing and well-written essay. Moo argues that the distinction between Law and Gospel is a "salvation-historical" issue. The Mosaic Law is abrogated because no person can obey ALL its requirements to inherit eternal life. Thus, Christ is the only possible way sinners can receive justification and salvation. However, believers are still bound to live with the moral requirements of the new covenant. Moo's exegesis is quite persuasive. Hopefully there will be an u

Helpful

While this collaborative counterpoint effort has a number of negative aspects to it, I still found this book to be very helpful in assessing the relationship between the OT Mosaic law and the NT Gospel message.First, the positives. Five contributors are asked to provide their views on this question. Of the 5, I found Kaiser to be the most persuasive, followed by Bahnsen and then Moo. All of the contributors do a good job of sufficiently nuancing the issue to reveal the many points upon which scholars depart from each other. I felt that each scholar made a solid attempt to deal with the whole counsel of Scripture as it relates to this question, which is a definite plus since this is not a given. Given this, the reader might well conclude that each view presented has strengths and weaknesses in light of Scripture.I felt that Kaiser's main essay was the most persuasive, as well as his rebuttals to the other essays. I thought that Bahnsen, while regretably employing a rather harsh tone here that pervades many of his writings, was nonetheless accurate in many of his critiques of the other views. I also felt that Bahnsen did a very good job of arguing for a theonomic position that is widely rejected because of the discomfort such a position tends to create on our modern sensitivities. But in many ways, Bahnsen made a good case for this view. Both Kaiser and Bahnsen argued in favor of continuity between law and gospel and applicability of portions of the law on the believer today, although they disagreed with each other mainly over how much of the law is applicable today. Moo offered the antithetical approach, and while I don't agree with him, I thought his essay was well done, although not without its problems. Strickland offered the dispensational view, which I found unpersuasive and mostly incoherent. VanGemeren offered a continuity proposal that was not well written, nor were his critiques of the other views persuasive. In my view, his efforts here were the weakest of the five scholars.There are a number of negatives that need to be pointed out. First, the book often gets very technical, and while this will be profitable for a more advanced reader familiar with theological terms, the beginner may have some trouble with this because many non-common theological words which are heavily used throughout each essay go undefined. Second, the diversity of views is overstated here. Ostensibly, this book is supposed to present five different views on this question. But really, VanGemeren, Bahnsen, and Kaiser are very close to each other in arguing the continuity position and disagreeing only in the details, while Strickland and Moo are very close to each other in arguing for discontinuity. So the diversity in approaches is not as diverse as it might seem on the surface. Lastly, there were a number of typos, particularly in Moo's essay, that should have been caught in the editing process. This negative is quite minor though.Overall, this bo

Limited Theological Circle: Only Reformed View Defended

Not all the parties have weighed in on this subject. Especially my own confession, the Lutherans were not given a fair hearing. As one reviewer of the book said: "The Lutheran insights regarding Law and Gospel are caricatured, sometimes distorted, often ignored, but never truly given a fair hearing."How can this be a fair and accurate representation, when the Lutheran position has this quick disclaimer "modified Lutheran" from a non-Lutheran? How can one then proceed to represent even a modified-Lutheran presentation and only cite Luther three times out of 129, and none from Walther? Three from Calvin? This is like a Lutheran dominated book which has all Lutheran authors, then letting a Lutheran present the Calvinist position, but with the disclaimer "modifed Calvinist position."For the Lutheran view, see C.F.W. Walther's, Law and Gospel. For a faith body that majors in distinguishing and not intermingling law and gospel, this interaction would have been interesting. Unfortunately, this is an interesting but nonetheless impoverished view.