Newbigin and I failed to see eye to eye on some fundamentals regarding the topic of sin and salvation, namely because Newbigin began upon grounds of an Arminian philosophy, and then proceeded to try approaching Calvinist conclusions, which logically one cannot do. Part and parcel with this process, Newbigin laid God's love as his essential aspect, by which he then worked to define God's image in man, whereas I argue that God's essential aspect is his holiness, of which his love is but a part of the summation of his perfection. However, one comes to very different conclusion when one lays either love or holiness as the fundamentals of our relationship with God and his with us, and this also set me at odds with Newbigin throughout the treatise. I respect Newbigin's arguments in favour of man's return to a loving, obedient nature toward God (are we not told that the greatest commandments are to love the Lord our God, and to love our neighbour, who is also made in God's image?), but I also hold that God's revelation of himself has been foremostly one of holiness, and that is the yard-stick by which all things will be measured when they come before him.
As far as the possibility of our becoming a fallen creation and our possibility of being redeemed, I feel Newbigin would have been better served to introduce the law of federal headship (covered by Paul at length in his letter to the Romans), which states that God's construction of the race of man dictated that in Adam all would be represented (subsequently fallen, by Adam's choice to disobey), and then again represented in Jesus Christ (subsequently redeemed, by Jesus's obedience to the Father). This amply explains how the first sin became our own and damned the whole human race, and how the sacrifice of one man for the sins of his people would then result in the redemption of that people. If that had been covered in the text as it is represented in the Scriptures, a great deal of beating around the bush might have been avoided.