The book Five Views on Law and Gospel “explores five major approaches to the relationship between the law and the Gospel, each author presenting his particular perspective on the issue and responding to the other four.”
The contributors and their respective positions are as follows:
- Wayne G. Strickland: Dispensational
- Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: ‘Evangelical’
- Douglas J. Moo: ‘Modified Lutheran’
- Willem A. Van Gemeren: Reformed
- Greg Bahnsen: Theonomic
Because of the book’s length (416 pages of heavy material), I have decided to break up my review into 6 sections: this introduction post and 5 posts examining each position and their counter-points. This way there will be room for me (and you) to examine the claims and counter-claims.
Introduction
I have found the book fairly easy to read, but somewhat redundant. 400 pages is just too short of a space to present 5 different views. So because of the short space, there is not as much interaction as one would hope for. Basically, the author’s present their position based upon a number of proof texts, and the other authors don’t have the space to do much more than state broad counter-arguments and deal with one or two texts in depth. But as an broad overview of the respective positions, this book is a good introduction.
In reviewing this book, please note that I come at this discussion from a particular position, a Reformed Baptist position, you might say. You can cross-reference my confession for its statement on this issue if you like. Thus, my objective is not to present each position equally per se, but to simply cherry-pick a few statements where I agree or disagree, sharing a few thoughts of my own along the way. No matter where you come down on this issue, there are going to be stronger and weaker points of your position –and I hope to highlight some of these for each position, including my own.
Other important thing to remember about this book is that there are obviously strengths and weaknesses of each author and their ability to communicate and debate. This is unfortunate, in a way, because it can sway the reader in the direction of a particular position simply because the argument is better (rather than the truthfulness of scripture).
For example, I found the Reformed view, written by Willem A. Van Gemeren, to be the weakest in the book. Now on paper I agree with his view on just about every point, but he clearly did not write his essay from an apologetic or debate-like standpoint, and he is much less convincing than any of the other authors.
Another example with be Greg Bahnsen’s essay. I’m probably futher away from Bahnsen theologically, but he is a brilliant debator and I found his paper much more convincing than I anticipated.
So keep these things in mind, including the fact that we all approach this subject with presuppositions, when trying to be fair and objective in examining this book.
General Observations
When we get to where the rubber meets the road, I found that the authors had much more agreement than disagreement. Basically, from my perspective, they all agree with some continuity of Law between Old Testament and New Testament, thus they end up spending their time arguing over how much, and what theological perspective we use in determining this.
Bahnsen, Van Gemeren, and Kaiser are in almost 100% agreement, with Bahnsen’s theonomy being the only significant point of disagreement.
On the other side of the ring, Moo and Strickland are in almost 100% agreement, though they differ on how they each get there.
Thus, the book really ends up being 3 against 2, with Bahnsen kind of being the odd man in the middle (all disagree with him on theonomy).
Furthermore, I found Kaiser to be the most exegetical (which isn’t surprising), with Bahnsen and Moo close behind. Van Gemeren was clearly the most dogmatic and theological.
Note the length of each essay:
- Wayne G. Strickland: 50 pages
- Dr. Walter C. Kaiser Jr.: 22 pages
- Douglas J. Moo: 57 pages
- Willem A. Van Gemeren: 45 pages
- Greg Bahnsen: 50 pages
From a personal standpoint, I found myself aligning most with Kaiser’s view (his essay was the strongest, IMO, even though it was by far the shortest), followed by Van Germeren, then Bahnsen, Moo, and least of all, with Strickand. I certainly wish that some of the key texts were isolated and all 5 guys presented their own exegesis for us to review, but there is enough here to form some very clear opinions.
Conclusion
A good introduction to the Law/Gospel issue, though there are some pretty big theological words used throughout. I would recommend it to the semi-advanced student of theology and layman.
Next post: I will examine the introductory essay, the Reformed view, by Willem A. Van Gemeren, and the counter-arguments from the other men.
Yeah, I agree–style often does play a part in the persuasiveness factor. Bahnsen happens to be extremely pointed, terse, and,succinct, and therefore comes across more plausible than say, Van Gemeren. Also, Moo happens to site a massive bibliography, (showing that he is extremely well read), but that does not mean at all that he’s right either.
I think it takes true spirit-filled discernment and wisdom to take our eyes of the style, and focus on the substance of what is being said. That in itself is very hard work. I’m looking forward to your posts, though.
Davide-
Another thing: I think it’s really important to read all the essays and the responses in order to get a full understanding of each author. Ironically, I think Van Gemeren’s and Bahnen’s essay and responses were the least helpful in getting down to the real disagreements. At the same time, personally, I think Strickland’s essay and response was probably the best in the book at showing the contrasts –and that besides that fact that few that read this book will hold to his form of dispensationalism.
In other words, I think that most people will either align (generally) with Moo or Kaiser, but that the other essays are just as -if not more- important in seeing exactly what each author is saying. It has taken me the entire book to really understand just where the rubber meets the road with the different positions. Sometimes, the men are just too subtle or hard to properly understand what they’re trying to say.
I’m honestly not trying to be funny, but how could Bahnsen write responses? I thought he was dead.
Yes, Bahnsen is now deceased. The book was published in 1996, and from what I can tell, some of the essays may have been written as early as 1990 or 1991.
Astute observation there, Andrew
[...] am still putting the final touches on my ‘Five Views on Law and Gospel’ review, which will be in 5 more installments. I look forward to the discussion this will generate, and I [...]
[...] it’s been a few months since I posted some initial thoughts and review of the book, Five Views on Law and Gospel, I’d like to pick the topic back up and, in time, [...]