Five Views on Law and Gospel

Counterpoints

by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Douglas J. Moo, Stanley N. Gundry (Series Editor)

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 Reformed View – the goodness of the law is dependent on how it's used and does not offer a way to salvation. Heavily focused on Paul's discussion of the Law.
Law as "Gracious Guidance" View – emphasizes the contrasts between the Mosaic law and the Gospel of grace, while still asserting the Law's value.
Dispensational View – approaches the Law from a historical perspective to help us understand its presentation, treatment, and recipients.
Modified Lutheran View – the Law of Christ as the fulfillment of the Law of Moses.
This book allows each contributor to not only present the case for his view, but also to critique and respond to the critiques of the other contributors, allowing you to compare their beliefs in an open forum setting to see where they overlap and where they differ.

The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

 

Genres: Theology, Law, Christian, Biblical Studies, Christianity, Religion, Nonfiction

416 pages, Paperback

First published April 1, 1987

Reviews

[Adam T. Calvert · Rating 4 out of 5]

While I was not greatly impressed with a previous "Counterpoint Series" book I read (Five Views on Apologetics), this book was a great surprise and a welcomed read.

While there are "five" views, there are basically two main viewpoints: (1) continuity between OT and NT unless otherwise stated (first three articles); or (2) discontinuity between OT and NT unless otherwise repeated (last two articles).

The presentations were laid out as follows:

Non-Theonomic Reformed View - William A. VanGemeren
Theonomic Reformed View - Greg L. Bahnsen
Evangelical View - Walter C. Kaiser Jr.
Dispensationalist View - Wayne G. Strickland
Modified Lutheran View - Douglas J. Moo

Overall, every writer was very considerate and kind to the other writers, yet appropriately critical in an academic context while evaluating their differing views. With that being the case, the reader will learn a lot about how different perspectives of the Law and Gospel are understood within the large umbrella of orthodox Protestant Christianity.

However, after reading through the book, here is a summary of my findings with each author and their corresponding view:

-Non-Theonomic Reformed View - William A VanGemeren
VanGemeren presented "basic" reformed doctrine but not with the best writing of it. He was a little confusing and hard to follow sometimes, kind of "eh" on the hermeneutics, and not very clear in his presentation. He definitely did not make any clear case why non-theonomic reformed view should be adopted over against the theonomic reformed view. And he had little to offer when critiquing other views.

-Theonomic Reformed View - Greg L. Bahnsen
Bahnsen gave a solid presentation of the Theonomic View. His article here might actually be one of his best summaries of the how and why of theonomic doctrine (while for a full view - I highly recommend his By This Standard or better yet, his even more comprehensive work Theonomy in Christian Ethics).

As always, Bahnsen was very sharp in critiquing other views, and did so graciously. It is interesting to note though that probably the more powerful arguments in critiquing the other non-theonomic views came from Walter Kaiser. Bahnsen did a good job, but Kaiser did even better in the critiques.

-Evangelical View - Walter C. Kaiser Jr.
This was really an amazing presentation. Kaiser used up the least amount of space, wrote very clearly, and got his point across very persuasively. There a few minor problems I have with his proposal: (1) And this might have more to do with the publisher/editor: I have no idea what differentiates "Evangelical View" from a Reformed Non-Theonomic view (especially since it seems most "evangelicals" today have more of an arminian/dispensational slant whereas Kaiser seems to be clearly a five point Calvinist non-dispensationalist); and (2) Kaiser seems very much like a closet theonomist who just doesn't want to be called a theonomist.

In his presentation he would consistently try to show that both the ceremonial and civil laws have passed away, while the moral law abides (OT continuity). But every time he proposed that idea, the Scriptures he referenced only pertained to the ceremonial laws. So…he really never gave Biblical credence to the idea that the civil law is now non-binding.

With the exception of the theonomic position, in his critiques it would be difficult to say with certainty that he is not a theonomist. Kaiser demonstrated a high regard for the Old Testament Law and a confident view in its continuing abiding character. His critiques of other views were probably the most powerful, succinct, and persuasive of all the other writers.

-Dispensational View - Wayne G. Strickland
While it was an interesting read, I was quite unimpressed with Strickland's presentation of dispensationalism. Throughout his article he contradicts himself (e.g. saying at one point that one cannot divide the law into moral, ceremonial, and civil - and then later on ends up (presumably unintentionally) doing just that), makes otherwise basic concepts of sin, righteousness, and sanctification into complex puzzles (which lead to further contradictions), and often just demonstrates very sloppy hermeneutics. [Don't get me wrong. I love the man as a brother in Christ. But this was just not a great representation of what "Dispensationalism" teaches. His presentation seemed very confused; and I think there are much more able scholars out there who could have better represented it - Charles Ryrie, Stanley Toussaint, etc.] He did have some interesting points when critiquing other positions. But other than that, there wasn't a whole lot he brought to the discussion.

-Modified Lutheran View - Douglas J. Moo
While Moo is unarguably an amazing Biblical scholar, his presentation here of non-continuity between the testaments was not able to stand up against the continuity positions posed by Bahnsen and Kaiser. He wrote well, but his arguments were just not persuasive enough in light of the rest of the book. The same would go for his counter-arguments.


Overall, I really enjoyed the book. It's a great reference to different understandings on how protestants view the relationship between law and gospel and a great display of academic interchange among protestant brothers.

[Logan · Rating 3 out of 5]

One of the very helpful aspects of this book was that each of the five views presented in Law and the Gospel had responses and critiques from the other four authors. That was very useful in getting a well-rounded view of where they each agreed and where they differed, although it required close attention.

One of the downsides (for me at least) is while the three Reformed(ish) views were helpful in drawing distinctions, the two more dispensational views were not at all. And I suspect the same would be true of someone coming from a dispensational point of view: the other critiques just wouldn't be altogether useful. Nevertheless, I wish there were more books like this that tried to present the various positive and negative aspects of any given view, rather than present a one-sided view.

I have to say that I personally think Bahnsen came through the strongest in the volume. I appreciated a lot of what Kaiser had to say and VanGemeren was irenic but not very focused. Moo and Strickland tended toward the dispensational end of the spectrum and I found I had little in common with them.

I admit I was mostly interested in the book because I wanted to see a good critique of Bahnsen from a Reformed perspective. Unfortunately I felt like many of the responses to Bahnsen didn't really understand him because they took for granted that the church is completely separate from the state, the state is godless and not under Christ's rule, and therefore anything Bahnsen said had to apply to the church and they disagreed that the church should be say, punishing certain sins. I do believe Bahnsen had a much more historically reformed view of the Church and State both under submission to Christ and separate but having complementary roles and therefore the state has an obligation to enforce the moral law of God. I'm still wrestling with this but Bahnsen does make many very compelling points and I appreciate his point of view and efforts to get this conversation back on track from the significant departure American Reformed have made in the last 100 or 200 years.

[Nate Bate · Rating 4 out of 5]

I value what the Counterpoints series does. It really helps you hash things out. One unavoidable limitation is that the individual authors have space limitations which prevents them from fully developing things and overcoming foreseen objections. So, for what they do accomplish in such a short space is noteworthy and spectacular to observe. However, you know that the responses will lampoon one another over aspects that are not worth poking at because of the limitations they all faced.

I found this particular book in the series to be a blend of helpful responses and ones that were unnecessarily aggressive. Beyond that, by the time you get to the end, you get a clear idea of which biblical texts are the battle ground ones.

I had to read this book under a time crunch. Therefore, I don't feel like I got as many questions answered as I wanted to. I think that is partially my fault, partially due to the complexity of the issues, and partially because the various views digress too much.

[Neil Kruger · Rating 5 out of 5]

An in-depth introduction to the role of the Mosaic Law in the life of the New Covenant believer.

The contributors have done a good job to defend their various perspective. All argue passionately and with conviction for their views using a range of biblical data and systematic considerations - the attempt to take the biblical record seriously is one of the primary reasons why this book was so engaging.

Even if the reader (like me) will not fully come to agreement with any of the views proposed, these essays contain a wealth of exegetical notes and theological reflections that should aid personal contemplation of this issue when reading and studying the biblical text.

Bahnsen's essay arguing for a theonomistic approach is very thought-provoking even if the thesis is unconvincing.

Both Kaiser and Moo argue their cases compellingly, their respective strengths as Old Testament and New Testament scholars come to the fore. Though ultimately their approaches (Kaiser - primary continuity with some important discontinuity & Moo - primary discontinuity with some important continuity) are antithetical.

If Zondervan would ever consider updating this volume then a New Perspective contributor could add value, especially as the law's boundary markers were either downplayed or just completely dismissed in much of this volume.

Personally I think that a synthesis between the strong aspects of both Kaiser and Moo combined with relevant insights from the New Perspective will probably get us close to a system that rightly orders what Scripture teaches about the Mosaic Law's role in the life of the New Covenant believer.

[Samuel Eastlund · Rating 3 out of 5]

I'm not sure what I can add here that isn't covered by the other reviews. Most of the reviews seem to be Reformed leaning; I would consider myself open to all perspectives when reading this book. I've been trying to figure out the Law in the New Testament for a few months and so was genuinely looking for answers among the different proponents.

The views can be split into basically those who believe there is fundamental continuity, and those who think there is fundamental discontinuity. I was most convinced by Kaiser's essay for the continuity side, and Moo on the discontinuity side. I think that I was, in the end, most convinced by Moo. This is despite the fact that I have often thought that the Lutheran view clearly misses some of the continuation of the Law in the New Testament! I think that most of the criticisms (especially by Bahnsen) of Moo's essay come down to nit-picking Moo's language on a topic which is so subtle and nuanced that it really isn't the place for such strictly 'logical' approaches. I think it's better to look at the big picture, and I think that in the end Moo's attempt to maintain tension between the Law as abrogated and yet still indirectly useful for believers is the most successful when looking at the Biblical data.

It would be good to get a New Perspective writer into this, as has already been said.

[Felipe Sabino · Rating 5 out of 5]

5 estrelas pela participação do Bahnsen e do Kaiser. Não somente o artigo de ambos, mas as réplicas deles às outras posições são muito superiores aos demais. Os artigos de Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G. Strickland e mesmo do reformado Willem A. VanGemeren são terrivelmente ruins.

[Jonathan Ammon · Rating 4 out of 5]

A valuable presentation of the spectrum of views on the Law and Paul (as well as the Gospel). This may be the least accessible volume of the Counterpoints series that I have read, but I am sure I will be revisiting it. The book opens with perhaps the most poorly presented view, the traditional reformed view, but quickly improves. The reader would be served to stop and read the relevant passages cited as they are sundry and much of the debate swirls around contesting the use of the term "law" in each of these passages. The best debater and perhaps the best writer among the authors is Bahnsen, who also holds the view I agree with the least (theonomy). His critiques were well written and often incisive. They were also at times uncharitable and at times ridiculous. Douglas Moo, whose view I most agree with, proffered excellent responses to others, but his own essay suffers from his constant need to qualify and equivocate (a point Bahnsen pounces upon). Kaiser held his own with confidence articulating a clear presentation of a popular view. This volume is immensely valuable to me, and I hope Moo further develops his view into a larger treatment that he can present with clarity and confidence.

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book strikes at the heart of the continuity/discontinuity debate that still surges throughout evangelicalism today, because ones' decision on this issue is the key to the entire issue in the mind of this reviewer. Overall, I found the book a much needed book as non-evangelical positions in regard to the Law and Gospel are being formed and propounded heavily now. The occasion seems proper now for an understanding of the evangelical positions on the issue.

In the book, five overarching views are presented and then debated. The five positions are: a Non-Theonomic Reformed View (VanGemeren), a Theonomic Reformed View (Bahnsen), Kaiser's View (which is, in essence, a repackaging of VanGemeren's view), a Dispensational View (Strickland), and a Modified Lutheran View (Moo). In this first point in regard to the work seems to be the greatest weakness of the book. Although 5 views are presented, really only two major viewpoints are being espoused (viz., continuity (VanGemeren, Bhansen, and Kaiser) and discontinuity (Strickland and Moo). This is not a substantial problem, but it seems that within the two categories, only slight variations exist. For example, within the continuity side of the spectrum, Bahnsen adds application of the Civil Law and Kaiser subtracts the Covenant of Works. No real earth-shattering differences seem to this reviewer to exist between the three views besides these points. On the discontinuity side of the spectrum, the differences seem less clear. On some levels, Moo seems to attempt to differentiate himself from Strickland, but on the whole seems to promote a theology that identifies with the dispensational model (with only nuanced differences). The display of the flavors of the positions in the book was helpful, but, to some degree, the debate seemed to only swirl around either the nuanced differences (by those on the same side of the spectrum) or the broader implications of their continuity/discontinuity decision (by those on the opposite side of the spectrum).

All of the writers were knowledgeable of their topics and wrote quite well, and the debate was also well done. Overall perception of the writers is as follows:

VanGemeren presents more of a Systematic approach rather than Dogmatic. He is criticized by his colleagues on this. Although such an approach is to be commended it did not fit well in this work. He should have focused more on laying our a defense for his system of theology rather than trying to give a comprehensive outline for the doctrine.

Bahnsen seems very assertive. Overall his approach adds life to the debates as he fires strong attacks against his colleagues' positions (e.g., the accusation of VanGemeren "gerrymandering the historical evidence"). His position seems to be helpful, but overall it seems to be a slightly less potent position on civil law than some of his Theonomic brothers (as is also stated by the other writers in the work).

Kaiser is ever the OT theologian's theologian. His writing brings much to the book, but, unfortunately, gets lost in the mix. The reader will struggle to discern clear differences between Kaiser's position and the Non-Theonomic view. In reality, only nuances seem to exist, with the only major exception of Kaiser's implicit denial of the Covenant of Works. This reality is driven home by the titling of Kaiser's position ("The Law as God's Gracious Guidance for the Promotion of Holiness"). The description of the position is practically useless as all 4 other views would agree with the statement. Kaiser's position needs to be set up much better if it is to speak clearer to the reader.

Strickland presents an adequate perspective on the dispensational view. It would seem that his perspective is more progressive and allows more flexibility as he interacts with the Reformed perspectives. The positions and arguments were well-written, but still simply returned to the ongoing continuity/discontinuity debate. Strickland is unable to provide definitive proof for his position.

Moo presents a fascinating Lutheran/dispensational view. The position he takes is of interest because it has historical roots and approaches the issue from the standpoint of discontinuity (rare outside the dispensation camp). Although he seems to chase gnats to differentiate himself from dispensationalists, he adds much to the depth of the book by reviving another tradition within evangelicalism. It did seem that Moo was overly defensive as he oft proclaims "I am no Marcionite." The defense should have been unnecessary given an appropriate presentation of his position.

Overall, the pros and cons with each writer balance out and a helpful debate on the critical subject emerges. Thus far the major critique that other reviewers have brought up has been that the view does not include the "New Perspective" on the Law and Gospel; however, this does not seem to be a substantial problem for this reviewer. The new views on the Law and Gospel call for a fresh articulation of the mainstream evangelical view(s) of the Law and Gospel. Only then can comparisons and contrasts be drawn. Further, such a position would skew the entire framework of the debate. In other words, the current work is really a debate over the continuity and discontinuity of soteriology between the OT and NT, whereas the the New Perspective focuses more on the sociology between the OT and NT. For these reasons, the addition of the New Perspective would not have been as helpful in the mind of this reviewer.

If a reader is seeking a broader understanding of the continuity/discontinuity debate, or the differences of writers even on their own side of the spectrum, this book is an excellent read. If a reader is looking for a deeper understanding of the spectrum of established evangelical positions on the Law and Gospel, this is a work well worth picking up. If the reader is looking for a work that is directed towards the New Perspective position, then this book is not that book. Much is presented in the work, but much more remains to be done.

[Adam Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

What's the place of the Mosaic Law in the lives of believers today? This book gives five different perspectives on this answer, three emphasising continuity from Old to New Testament, and two emphasising discontinuity. This follows the usual Counterpoints format, with each author making their case, and then each of the other writers offering a response. The main weakness of this book is that the brief is quite vague, so the authors go in quite different directions and discuss very different passages. This makes it hard to easily compare and contrast the positions. But there is some very good scholarship here. Kaiser and Moo present the strongest chapters, and Bahnsen offers a good summary of a Theonomic position (although he's quite acerbic in his responses).

[Lindsey]

Oct 2019:
The reading in which I decide I'm not a Reformed Confessional leaner . . . I definitely found myself agreeing most with Douglas Moo, though I wasn't always sure on the exact differences between his Modified Lutheran position and Dispensationalism.

May 2016
I really like the setup of this book where one author presents a position and then another author responds. It's much "easier" to see what differences they themselves see with their terminology, etc. This is a difficult subject for me, though, and this was not an easy read. I think I have it narrowed down to what I don't believe but then it gets a little fuzzy with the rest. I will definitely revisit this with a little more careful study when I have some time.

[JR Snow · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great look at the law from various views. This series is always meaty, which can cause indigestion if not carefully chewed. :-)

It's sometimes frustrating because one view can seem SO convincing until it is torn apart by the other authors in the response sections. I think Dr. Moo's position escapes this the most and remains the most persuasive overall. His writing is also the easiest to follow (perhaps they are connected! :-))


Would recommend to anyone with some theological literacy to read, albeit slowly and with much underlining and gnashing of pencils.

[Lindsey · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really like the setup of this book where one author presents a position and then another author responds. It's much "easier" to see what differences they themselves see with their terminology, etc. This is a difficult subject for me, though, and this was not an easy read. I think I have it narrowed down to what I don't believe but then it gets a little fuzzy with the rest. I will definitely revisit this with a little more careful study when I have some time.

[Zachary · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was an edifying book on the distinctions and similarities between the Law and the Gospel. I found myself agreeing most with non-theonomic Reformed view. I also enjoyed the Dispensational view. There are clearly continuities and discontinuities between the two subjects, yet each tradition emphasizes these points in different ways.

[Nick · Rating 2 out of 5]

This is pretty tedious. Five authors basically saying the same thing with slight variations.

Good thing Christians present a unified front to the world and don't squabble over unnecessary reasons to obey God's moral code.

[Josh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Moo's article was the clear winner.

[Alexander Ruvalcaba · Rating 5 out of 5]

recommended

Great read. Very informational. This book comes with five different views and each view is critiqued by the other 4 contributors. Very good.

[Mike Viccary · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was pleasantly surprised by this work. I cannot say I fully agree with any contributor fir it seems as though they all had very good points to make!

[Micah Douglas · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting explanation and interaction between those with different views of God's Law.

[Jonathan Washburn · Rating 4 out of 5]

“If God and morality are absolute, and if the nature of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ surpasses space, time, and existence, then why are some things a sin in the Old Testament but not a sin in the New Testament?” Such is the question that caused the daughter of a famous Christian apologist to leave her childhood faith. Yet, she is not alone; Christians have struggled with reconciling the Old and New Testaments since the time of Paul. Indeed, “the New Testament itself contains statements that appear to support opposite conclusions.” Even Christians that properly understand the nature of progressive revelation often struggle to apply the Old Testament to their lives. However, a proper understanding of “salvation history” will satisfactorily elucidate the enigma, and enable today’s Christian to properly comprehend the Old Testament’s purpose.

This is a must read for all Christians, especially Christians that have struggled with with understanding how they are to relate to and follow the Old Testament. I personally most agree with Douglas Moo's "Modified Lutheran" view on the issue, and thought he presented the most compelling case. Bahnsen was perhaps the most enjoyable writer, and his biting critiques of his opponents often made me smirk.

Moo's view can be summarized thus: Jesus came to fulfill the Law, not to abrogate it.

The Mosaic Law, as a whole, was a “particular expression of the will of God for His people for a certain period of their history.” The Decalogue, despite its obvious overlap with the Law of Christ, must be viewed in the same light. In his Sermon on the Mount, Christ did not differentiate between moral, civil, and ceremonial laws. Rather, he argued that the Mosaic Law – in its entirety – pointed forward to himself. These distinctions were developed in the post-apostolic period, and contradict the New Testament authors’ attitudes toward the law – an “interplay between continuity and discontinuity” through Christ’s fulfillment. This fulfillment was completed through Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection, the critical juncture in salvation history.

[Danny Bennett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Another great addition to the counterpoints series. The controversy centers around the question of continuity verses discontinuity between the law and gospel, the old covenant and the new covenant. The best writers were Kaiser and Strickland; although being the best writer or articulator doesn't necessarly make you right and I was able to track with Strickland a lot easier I think because I went to a dispensational school. I usually read counterpoint books when I have uncertainity about a biblical or theological topic. It was helpful to hear how people smarter than I thought about this isssue and how they interacted with each other. I haven't come to a complete consensus on what I think, I am further along than where I was before I read this book and I think that is what makes reading theology books worthwhile.

[Kessia Reyne · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book gave me a lot to think about, although I found no single system completely sound. I favor Walter Kaiser and his deep love for the Hebrew Bible, but I was stretched by all five essays and their accompanying responses.

What is missing?
1) An appreciation for the ways (in the text itself!) that the Decalogue is set apart as different from (ie., more foundational) than other laws in the Book of the Covenant or the entire Pentateuch;
2) the place of so-called Mosaic law in salvation history, particularly pre-Sinai;
3) acknowledgement of the ways that the NT appropriates and uses OT laws as authoritative and useful for the church;
4) Consideration of OT law as not abrogated, not discarded, not nullified, but transformed through Christ and continuing in relevance and effect;
5) any look whatsoever at the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15).

[John Davis · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this looking for help answering the question, "How does the OT law apply to New Covenant Christians today?" That's always been a tricky question. Which laws apply still? Which laws no longer apply? Why do we follow some OT laws but not others? I take Doug Moo's position (the 5th and final view presented in the book) and I also think he does an exceptional job explaining it. His essay alone is worth the price of the book. I think it's clear, biblical, and makes the most sense. There's bits and pieces from the other 4 that helped me. Books like these are also extremely helpful because after each essay, the other 4 authors get a chance for a rebuttal response to what was just presented. Good stuff.

[Chuck Bonadies · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book on the relationship of Gospel versus Law. Like most of the books in the Counterpoint series, the strength of this work is the interaction that takes place between the authors.

Some consider the book to be dated since it was published before the so-called "Sanders Revolution" (New Perspective on Paul) really got off the ground. Therefore, although a few of the authors acknowledge "works of the law" as boundary markers, most don't even consider this a viable option. I, however, found it refreshing to read a book about the Law that is not dominated by authors such as N.T. Wright and James Dunn. In my estimation, the date of this book is actually a blessing in disguise.

CB

[Jacob O'connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

What is the place of the Old Testament law in the life of the believer?


I was steeped in good-ol' Baptist dispensationalism.  Truth be told, I've lived out most of my Christianity bordering on antinomianism.  Calvin's Institutes challenged my position, but  I'm still most sympathetic to the non-theonomic perspectives on the law  (a highfalutin way of saying that the Old Testament Law doesn't apply to Christians.).

Law and Gospel is 5 essays from various authors, all whom I respect and know from other works.   I've come away more aware of the intramural debate, more equipped to participate, and with a humility that each position has merit. 

[G Walker · Rating 3 out of 5]

Not bad... not great... one of the few in this series worth hanging on to. Bahnsen and Kaiser are especially helpful. Again... short simple snapshots like the rest of the series... but still not bad. As with earlier books in this series, it deals with too narrow a spectrum of American Christianity - but still, the "general equity" of their arguments carries over into various contexts and the core drive behind their arguments is "universal"... so for that reason, I think this is still a good solid book.

[Mike Grober · Rating 3 out of 5]

nothing easy about this read. however, the different views of the relationship between law and gospel helped me understand the issues surrounding this topic. this book was one more reminder of the complexities of many biblical positions and of the importance of careful study when attempting to frame a position.

[Chris Armer · Rating 4 out of 5]

The issue of continuity or discontinuity between law and gospel is filled with great scholars on both sides. This book does a good job at presenting the reader with at least five of the major views and how they agree and disagree with one another. But I don't think the book alone will settle the issue for you. It is more of a springboard for further study.

[Jay D · Rating 4 out of 5]

So so.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Kaiser is a disaster in his work on this book, sadly. The only two who really defined their terms well were Strickland and Moo. They came out very similarly. Bahnsen's arguments were weak.

[Jordan Aho · Rating 5 out of 5]

VanGemeren and Moo were particularly helpful!