Many helpful insights brought to light here. The biggest critique can be summed up simply: it's far too ecumenical. When you try to include everyone in a hermeneutic, you end up including no one. Nearly all of the principles advocated for in this volume can be identical in form (i.e., the language used to describe the principles) but must necessarily differ in actual meaning depending on where one comes from. Terms like "gospel," "canon," and "revelation" must carry different meanings for the different contributors in this volume. This produced a kind of schizophrenia in the tone; at times I felt like I was reading Barth, at others von Balthasaar, and at other times I could hear Schaefer or even Van Til. This volume struck me not as a unified "manifesto," but rather, a hodgepodge of positions--some glorious, others extremely problematic--which all use the same language. I plan to write a more thorough review in due time.