TGC Review of Evangelical Theology

Last updated on: January 13, 2014 at 5:35 pm by Michael F. Bird

TGC Review of Evangelical Theology 2014-01-13T17:35:06-04:00 Michael F. Bird

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Over at TGC is a review of Evangelical Theology by Matthew Barrett (California Baptist Uni). Barrett commends a few aspects of the book like it’s gospel focus, its use of historical theology, trying to bridge biblical and systematic theology, and attempting to incorporate redemptive history into a doctrine of salvation. However, he does have a number of critical things to say, which is fair enough, but I would like to respond to a couple of them.

On theological method: I understand Barrett’s defense of Grudem in light of my critique. Like I’ve always said, Grudem’s book is robustly biblical, which is its strength, but if you read Grudem’s own account of his method it is quite literally theology derived from a concordance … and you just shouldn’t do that. That is why I tend to say that Grudem’s work is a great preface to a Systematic Theology and if you use Grudem as a Systematic Theology text then you should definitely have Greg Allison’s book on Historical Theology right next to it.

On Imputation: Barrett takes issue with my rejection of a covenant works and the imputation of Jesus’ active obedience. These things apparently disqualify me from being a bonafide Reformed theologian. Well, I guess “yes,” and by “yes,” what I really mean is “no.” (1) On the covenant of works, my view is heavily influenced by John Murray, who also rejected a covenant of works, which is why I prefer to speak of a probationary period in the garden rather than a formal covenant. On the covenant of of works as implying a pelagian theology, well, listen here to the words of R.C. Sproul: “Man’s relationship to God in creation was based on works. What Adam failed to achieve, Christ, the second Adam, succeeded in achieving. Ultimately the only way one can be justified is by works” (Getting the Gospel Right, p. 160). Now that is what I’m talking about! This kind of pop Reformed theology is pervasive and unimpressive when scrutinized. (2) On Jesus’ active obedience, well, the fact is that the NT always emphasizes the passive obedience of Jesus. Jesus’ active obedience is only necessary if you adopt the idea of a covenant of works where we still need an exemplary pelagian to acquire works for us. The active obedience is only needed if you think of justification consists of the forgiveness of sins (to clean the slate) and the imputation to active obedience (to make us positively righteous). But that is not how justification works, since justification can be seen as simply another way of referring to the forgiveness of sins (Romans 4) or even to reconciliation (Romans 5), albeit by using a forensic metaphor to show believers have a status of righteousness, legally and covenantally, by virtue of our union with Christ. That said, Jesus’ obedience to his messianic task is necessary for salvation, and it is counted as ours when we are counted within his own vindication. I don’t deny imputation, but like others – from Leon Morris to Brian Vickers – I’ve argued that imputation is a corollary of union with Christ. As such I’ve spoken about an “incorporated righteousness,” a concept that has met with wide approval from folks as diverse as Kevin Vanhoozer, Con Campbell, and Scot McKnight. In fact, I’m pretty sure that Pauline scholars like Tom Schreiner and Doug Moo would be supportive or highly sympathetic to the description of justification that I give in relation to imputation, obedience, and union with Christ. (3) On the atonement, I would say that Amyraldianism is a version of Reformed theology, and it is embodied in the 39 Articles, which is a Reformed Confession. (4) On atonement, yes, I do certainly affirm penal substitution, but like the first 1500 years of Christian theology, I also affirm that the Christus Victor concept is probably a more dominant motif, with good biblical, historical, and theological justification given in EvTh.

Any way, I’m grateful for Matthew Barrett taking the time to read and review the book, his affirmation of my main goal (as gospel driven theology), and his willingness to push back on a few areas which, I entirely admit, are contestable.

Uncategorized

Previous Post

January 13, 2014

Epiphany Prayer

Next Post

January 14, 2014 The Virtues of Romans 5:3-4 - Part 3: Hope

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Bible Lands Blogosphere Book Review Calvinism Colleges & Universities Ecclesiology Emerging Adulthood Evangelicalism Foreign Affairs Gospel of John Greco-Roman World Humor Just War N. T. Wright Old Testament Resurrection Terrorism Theological Education Travel Uncategorized Writing

Select a Month September 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 January 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

How did God protect Daniel in the lion’s den?

Select your answer to see how you score.

He sent an angel to shut the lions’ mouths He made Daniel invisible He made the lions fall asleep He blinded the guards

Books by This Author Books by Mike Bird

See All Titles »