What do you think?
Rate this book
Counterpoints
Four Views on Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology
Learn to identify, evaluate, and refine your approach to forming theological conclusions based on the biblical text. The Bible has long served as the standard for Christian practice, yet believers still disagree on how biblical passages should be interpreted and applied. Only when readers fully understand the constructs that inform their process of moving from Scripture to theology--and those of others--can Christians fully evaluate teachings that claim to be "biblical." In this book--part of the Counterpoints series--scholars who affirm an inspired Bible, relevant and authoritative for every era, present models they consider most faithful to Scripture Each position receives critiques from the proponents of the other views. Moreover, due to the far-reaching implications this topic holds for biblical studies, theology, and church teaching, this book includes three additional reflections by Christopher J. H. Wright, Mark L. Strauss, and Al Wolters on the theological and practical interpretation of biblical texts. 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.
384 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2009
60 people are currently reading
318 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews
October 10, 2024
Each view has strengths and can be fit together. I was mainly reading it to see how people interacted with William Webb’s Redemptive Movement Hermeneutic.
While Vanhoozer’s criticism did raise challenging points, I think these objections have more to do with Webb’s articulation of the hermeneutic and less to do with the model itself. In all, I find Webb’s proposal to make a ton of sense. If one can accept that God taught his people incrementally and that the NT is not the final articulation of God’s ethics (though it is the final canonical revelation), then Webb’s model is a super principled and measured approach to the bible. I definitely don’t think the ‘wax nose’ concern is warranted.
Some constructive points to add to the RMH:
- The Bible’s divine authorship is what warrants a movement reading
- Contrast becomes movement when one compares the contrast to Christ and other revelations of God (in scripture or nature)
- Tying the spirit of the text to the Holy Spirit in some way
The upshot to Webb’s proposal is that it gives resources to apply the Bible in fresh and meaningful ways. It doesn’t guarantee uniformity in interpretation, however. I’m not saying the particularities of Webb’s application of his hermeneutic are always right, but boy oh boy does his model as a whole make sense!
While Vanhoozer’s criticism did raise challenging points, I think these objections have more to do with Webb’s articulation of the hermeneutic and less to do with the model itself. In all, I find Webb’s proposal to make a ton of sense. If one can accept that God taught his people incrementally and that the NT is not the final articulation of God’s ethics (though it is the final canonical revelation), then Webb’s model is a super principled and measured approach to the bible. I definitely don’t think the ‘wax nose’ concern is warranted.
Some constructive points to add to the RMH:
- The Bible’s divine authorship is what warrants a movement reading
- Contrast becomes movement when one compares the contrast to Christ and other revelations of God (in scripture or nature)
- Tying the spirit of the text to the Holy Spirit in some way
The upshot to Webb’s proposal is that it gives resources to apply the Bible in fresh and meaningful ways. It doesn’t guarantee uniformity in interpretation, however. I’m not saying the particularities of Webb’s application of his hermeneutic are always right, but boy oh boy does his model as a whole make sense!
September 23, 2011
Multiple views books are by definition a mixed bag. The hermeneutical issues addressed in this book are significant, but in each of the main contributors' essays, they focused on different things and therefore talked past each other a bit. There were strengths and weaknesses with each of the main views: Kaiser's principlizing is intuitive and solid, though it tends to flatten genre, is limited to ethics, and turns intepretation into a quest to find the proposition in each passage (biblical interp is at least this, but it is much more). Doriani's redemptive historical model is closer to where I am at (with much influence from Vanhoozer). He offered some helpful hints in relating the hermeneutical task to growing in Christlikeness, and therefore, wisdom. But his essay was short on actual hermeneutical tools. Vanhoozer's essay (his drama-of-redemption model) was inspiring and helpful, but even less helpful in offering something concrete. I continue to be unsupportive of Webb's proposal as a hermeneutical model. It ironically disregards the critical shifts in redemptive history (that is, where he observes changes in the biblical teaching and finds an ongoing trajectory over time, I suspect that those changes are due largely to the seismic shifts due to God's actions in redemptive history). His model has no regard whatsoever for literary genre, and I am not sure how we are supposed to take a proposal seriously as a hermeneutical model which does not account for genre in the least.
The most valuable part of the book were the responses to each of the essays, by the both the main contributors and by guest essayists Wright, Strauss, and Wolters. Those responses make the book worth reading.
The most valuable part of the book were the responses to each of the essays, by the both the main contributors and by guest essayists Wright, Strauss, and Wolters. Those responses make the book worth reading.
March 15, 2021
Like many books of the "__ Views on __" genre, this volume was a mixed bag. Some of the primary essays were very helpful, others less so. As a reader, the most frustrating part was that the authors were constantly talking past each other. This was largely due to the lack of structure and guidelines for each essay, and so each contributor simply emphasized their own areas of research or interest. It was also disappointing that the emphasis seemed to fall primarily on ethics, rather than doctrine (as Vanhoozer rightly pointed out). I think the most beneficial essays were actually the invited responses by Strauss, Wolters, and Wright. They did a great job of summarizing and defining the primary views, while also offering their own perspective.
August 23, 2019
This book is a useful summary of how a respected group of straight, married, White, male academics see the state of hermeneutical debate about the Bible in North American Evangelicalism.
I was absolutely disappointed by the shallowness of their engagement with biblical, ethical, theological, and pastoral issues surrounding queer people. Though the statements were clear, they were also distressingly full of unexplained assumptions and poor, even harmful, judgmental language.
I am also surprised that none of these authors (save perhaps Webb) might be able to admit that Christians can disagree with Scripture on the basis of the models that they present.
I was absolutely disappointed by the shallowness of their engagement with biblical, ethical, theological, and pastoral issues surrounding queer people. Though the statements were clear, they were also distressingly full of unexplained assumptions and poor, even harmful, judgmental language.
I am also surprised that none of these authors (save perhaps Webb) might be able to admit that Christians can disagree with Scripture on the basis of the models that they present.
May 16, 2019
I agree with some other reviewers that this was a mixed bag. The introduction opened with a series of great questions, and I was excited to read the authors' answers: What is the nature of scripture? When is a biblical statement normative for all time? Can good exegesis really answer all of our questions? How do we justify our judgments? How is the Bible relevant?
Unfortunately, none of the authors came close to actually answering these questions. Rather, they simply shared their individual models for extracting culturally relevant statements from Scripture. For example, Kaiser, in the first essay, stated the "Principlizing Model" and then demonstrated its use. According to Kaiser, all you do to answer a question from Scripture is to abstract away from the text to produce the underlying "principle" being taught. Then, since the principle is by nature abstract and disconnected from its original context, it's easy to plop it down in our culture and see how it operates. But nowhere does Kaiser actually dive into the nitty gritty of the questions posed in the introduction. This is unfortunate because Kaiser's method is, the end result of a series of (unexplained) logical constructs based on assumptions about the nature of the Bible. The other three views have the same issue as Kaiser's and fail to address the underlying principles (!) upon which their models depend.
To further complicate matters, none of the four views were articulated clearly. In fact, in at least one case, the authors couldn't even understand each other---the views were so poorly explained. In the case of Vanhoozer's essay, Kaiser responded: "After reading and rereading Kevin's chapter many times over, I cannot for the life of me explain to anyone else, much less myself, how [Vanhoozer's view] works" [p. 283]. It's unfortunate that the essays were not held to a higher standard and were published in such a form.
However, I was relieved to read the excellent reflection by Mark L. Strauss, who took some space to CLEARLY summarize each view and explain how each view works and comment on their strengths and weaknesses. Strauss also steps away from the discussion, making perhaps the most level-headed observations of any of the authors, beginning with the question "What is the Bible?" Strauss points out that "all of the contributors in this volume unequivocally affirm the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible. Yet if it were that simple, we would not be having this discussion" [p. 272]. WHY ON EARTH did none of the authors recognize this fact and discuss WHY there is so much confusion and disagreement between highly educated individuals who have apparently spent their life trying to interpret Scripture? This is an immediately obvious question based on reading the essays. For example, Strauss points out: "It is noteworthy that [Doriani] and Kaiser utilize the same exegetical tools to reach diametrically opposed conclusions on gender roles" [p. 280]. Yet, none of the authors even acknowledge the "discussion behind the discussion." In the end, I came to not care about the particulars of each view or the differences between them since these differences seem to arise from underlying principles or arguments that were not expressed.
In the end, I give the main content of the book (the four essays and responses) 2 stars. I give Strauss' reflections a 4 for practically redeeming the book singlehandedly.
Unfortunately, none of the authors came close to actually answering these questions. Rather, they simply shared their individual models for extracting culturally relevant statements from Scripture. For example, Kaiser, in the first essay, stated the "Principlizing Model" and then demonstrated its use. According to Kaiser, all you do to answer a question from Scripture is to abstract away from the text to produce the underlying "principle" being taught. Then, since the principle is by nature abstract and disconnected from its original context, it's easy to plop it down in our culture and see how it operates. But nowhere does Kaiser actually dive into the nitty gritty of the questions posed in the introduction. This is unfortunate because Kaiser's method is, the end result of a series of (unexplained) logical constructs based on assumptions about the nature of the Bible. The other three views have the same issue as Kaiser's and fail to address the underlying principles (!) upon which their models depend.
To further complicate matters, none of the four views were articulated clearly. In fact, in at least one case, the authors couldn't even understand each other---the views were so poorly explained. In the case of Vanhoozer's essay, Kaiser responded: "After reading and rereading Kevin's chapter many times over, I cannot for the life of me explain to anyone else, much less myself, how [Vanhoozer's view] works" [p. 283]. It's unfortunate that the essays were not held to a higher standard and were published in such a form.
However, I was relieved to read the excellent reflection by Mark L. Strauss, who took some space to CLEARLY summarize each view and explain how each view works and comment on their strengths and weaknesses. Strauss also steps away from the discussion, making perhaps the most level-headed observations of any of the authors, beginning with the question "What is the Bible?" Strauss points out that "all of the contributors in this volume unequivocally affirm the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible. Yet if it were that simple, we would not be having this discussion" [p. 272]. WHY ON EARTH did none of the authors recognize this fact and discuss WHY there is so much confusion and disagreement between highly educated individuals who have apparently spent their life trying to interpret Scripture? This is an immediately obvious question based on reading the essays. For example, Strauss points out: "It is noteworthy that [Doriani] and Kaiser utilize the same exegetical tools to reach diametrically opposed conclusions on gender roles" [p. 280]. Yet, none of the authors even acknowledge the "discussion behind the discussion." In the end, I came to not care about the particulars of each view or the differences between them since these differences seem to arise from underlying principles or arguments that were not expressed.
In the end, I give the main content of the book (the four essays and responses) 2 stars. I give Strauss' reflections a 4 for practically redeeming the book singlehandedly.
March 21, 2018
The purpose of this book is to provide four views on “Moving Beyond the Bible to Theology.” The problem is none of the views are clearly articulated. It isn’t until an added response by a different author (Strauss) at the end defined the four views that you actually get a clear definition for each. But, even with that: these four options borrow from one another so much that the savvy reader will soon realize these are not four views, but rather four levels of doing one thing.
I still give the book two stars because it presents a valid point of discussion: how do we address topics biblically that are not spoken to in the Bible itself?
The book is worth reading, but there are much better options out there.
I still give the book two stars because it presents a valid point of discussion: how do we address topics biblically that are not spoken to in the Bible itself?
The book is worth reading, but there are much better options out there.
May 30, 2019
A very good book on different approaches to interpreting the Bible (hermeneutics). Each approach brings something to appreciate about the Bible. I would not say I would endorse only one approach, as none seems comprehensive. I also think the text may demand one approach more than another. For instance, Walter Kaiser's principlizing is appropriate to exhortation, like Paul's letters, or Proverbs. But it can be lacking when it comes to narratives, for which Kevin Vanhoozer's dramatic theology seems more appropriate. Of course to judge this means having a standard to judge by, and that is what hermeneutics is still pursuing.
May 22, 2017
Excellent read. This book provides a balanced, if challenging series of views on how to move beyond simply reading the bible towards applying it to challenging issues of today.
My only disappointment is that the various essays do not address the same issues. Had the authors all tacked the same issues, walking us through their hermeneutical models, the reader would have been better able to compare them.
My only disappointment is that the various essays do not address the same issues. Had the authors all tacked the same issues, walking us through their hermeneutical models, the reader would have been better able to compare them.
June 24, 2017
These four essays give short summaries of a variety of hermeneutical options in the evangelical world. While two of the concluding reflections are worthwhile, I don't think this book really helps one to "move beyond the Bible" or interpret it. I've read a number of the authors books and they are better than this volume. My takeaway is that evangelicals, a tribe I consider myself a part of, need to get better at hermeneutics, interpretation, and the great tradition.
April 14, 2021
This book provides a fair overview of the major approaches to biblical interpretation and application. Because of the nature of this book and what it hopes to accomplish, this would probably not be the first book a student would want to pick up if he was wanting to learn the basics of interpretation.
November 21, 2018
I'd have given it 5 stars if Doriani's chapter were better! Great book, though, for a tough subject.
April 25, 2024
Good, would have preferred giving each contributor the opportunity to lay out their view more, and respond to the other contributors’ criticisms of their view.
October 17, 2024
This book was a helpful introduction to hermeneutics, but it was mostly difficult to understand and I did not agree with most of the views expressed.
May 25, 2016
This is one of the better books I have read in the Counterpoints series. Each of the four main contributors present their cases well and give substantive feedback and criticism to each other in their responses. Additionally, the inclusion of reflections by Strauss, Wolters, and Wright are an excellent addition to provide further reflection from various perspectives that are not "defending their own view". The most significant weakness of the book as a whole is stated by Wolters when he points out that at least four distinct categories of moving beyond the Bible to theology are presented by the contributors, but not every author addresses every category. In fact, he shows how Webb deals exclusively in category 2 (ethically troubling injunctions), Vanhoozer alone deals in category 3 (forging theological categories), and Doriani is the only one to deal in category 4 (reception history of a theme). Consequently we get only 3 voices in categories 1 and 2 and only one voice in categories 3 and 4. This leaves the dialogue tangentially related and overlapping, but rarely exactly on the same page. It would be a better approach for the series editors to assign one issue in each category so that each contributor deals with the same issues. Addressing the same issues would help in demonstrating the unique differences of the various approaches. Nevertheless, the book is thought-provoking and helpful.
September 30, 2015
The average Christian may not think that books like this are very important but contrary to what most think; they are very important. This book deals with the subject of hermeneutics. Even that sounds foreboding to many but hermeneutics is the way we interpret; in this case, the Bible. How we interpret the Bible impacts the way we live and the way we live impacts our world.
It is a four view book and it starts right where most of us start when we first become Christians. This is what I would call the default position. We know we should read and study the Bible and when we become saved we begin to really want to and the first thing we do is look for principles to live by. This approach is represented by Walter Kaiser, a well respected Biblical scholar that at one point headed the seminary that I attended; Gordon Conwell. This approach is called the Principalizing Model(PM).
The other views are: A Redemptive Historical Model, A Drama of Redemption Model, and A Redemptive Movement Model.
Frankly, this book gets better and better as it goes along. The third view; A Drama of Redemption Model(DOR)by Kevin Vanhoozer was the best read so far until I got to the Redemptive Movement (RM) by William Webb! Now I feel like I'm moving beyond myself and really learning to be a better interpreter of God's Holy Word!
It is a four view book and it starts right where most of us start when we first become Christians. This is what I would call the default position. We know we should read and study the Bible and when we become saved we begin to really want to and the first thing we do is look for principles to live by. This approach is represented by Walter Kaiser, a well respected Biblical scholar that at one point headed the seminary that I attended; Gordon Conwell. This approach is called the Principalizing Model(PM).
The other views are: A Redemptive Historical Model, A Drama of Redemption Model, and A Redemptive Movement Model.
Frankly, this book gets better and better as it goes along. The third view; A Drama of Redemption Model(DOR)by Kevin Vanhoozer was the best read so far until I got to the Redemptive Movement (RM) by William Webb! Now I feel like I'm moving beyond myself and really learning to be a better interpreter of God's Holy Word!
December 17, 2013
This resource is very helpful and extremely prevalent today with the rise of Biblical Theology and resources on the topic. It is crucial to understand how we interpret the Scriptures and "move beyond" them to practical theology and doctrinal theology. This book gives plenty of argumentation and help in understanding several views of how theologians have done this. The reflections in the back are also very helpful.
This is a great resource to start with then you are considering which hermeneutic you hold to. I will say that you may end up adopting a variation of a few of them, or even see value with all of them and form your own view.
I read this book amongst friends in a book discussion which was incredibly helpful as we all were able to discuss and work through confusing matters. I would recommend this highly.
This is a great book and it will definitely help you in your hermeneutical study.
This is a great resource to start with then you are considering which hermeneutic you hold to. I will say that you may end up adopting a variation of a few of them, or even see value with all of them and form your own view.
I read this book amongst friends in a book discussion which was incredibly helpful as we all were able to discuss and work through confusing matters. I would recommend this highly.
This is a great book and it will definitely help you in your hermeneutical study.
December 16, 2015
As always, these multiple views books can be a bit disjointed, especially when the editors fail to ensure that all the contributors are the same page (which they often do; come on, editors!). This book is probably a little guilty of some of that, because, as Al Wolters demonstrates on his essay, the contributors seem to mean different things by "moving beyond the Bible." Thus, at times, the work is less of a presentation on competing views--although there is certainly some of that--and more of a collection of generally complementary essays addressing a range of related issues.
Overall, though, I felt like this book was one of the better multiple views books I've read. The essays were overall well written, provocative, and stimulating.
Overall, though, I felt like this book was one of the better multiple views books I've read. The essays were overall well written, provocative, and stimulating.
December 24, 2016
A fantastic book! I have been struggling through how to to go about studying the Bible and what sort of hermeneutics to use. This book was quite helpful in giving me four great approaches to interpreting Scripture. While I am still not sure which approach I would use, I appreciate these 4 approaches, especially the critiques of each approach which allowed me to see the strengths and weaknesses of each.
I am especially grateful for the additional reflections at the end by different authors who further discussed the approaches and their own ideas. Like Christopher Wright, I probably see myself using a blend of the four approaches since each is useful for different texts.
I am especially grateful for the additional reflections at the end by different authors who further discussed the approaches and their own ideas. Like Christopher Wright, I probably see myself using a blend of the four approaches since each is useful for different texts.
January 23, 2017
Like all the Four Views books I have read, this is a helpful resource for comparing various views on a particular subject. Unlike books where you hear about views, you hear the views from people who genuinely believe them.
The subject of moving beyond the Bible to theology is an important one. How does one interpret and apply the entire canon of the Bible to their lives today? Rather we realize it or not we have a framework for applying scriptures to our lives. As one of the authors points out, every time we do not greet one another with a holy kiss, we are moving beyond the Bible to theology.
I commend this resource to anyone thinking about how to apply scripture.
The subject of moving beyond the Bible to theology is an important one. How does one interpret and apply the entire canon of the Bible to their lives today? Rather we realize it or not we have a framework for applying scriptures to our lives. As one of the authors points out, every time we do not greet one another with a holy kiss, we are moving beyond the Bible to theology.
I commend this resource to anyone thinking about how to apply scripture.
December 16, 2009
I am less and less inclined towards these books anymore. Doriani's contributions were good and Vanhoozer was compelling at times, but it turned into a situational ethic debate, rather than a theological method. It may be worth your time to skim, but I would suggest that you read a thorough review of the book instead of the book itself - Tom Schreiner is writing one to come out in the Spring SBTS Journal 2010.
August 5, 2010
This book is not so much forward looking as archival. In that respect it fits well with those other books which discuss four or five "approaches to..." It shows clearly what have been, and what are the key differences between the predominant approaches within Evangelicalism on this question over the last century or so.
June 4, 2013
This was a very good book. Not because of the counter point format - that was a distraction - but because of the contributions... Every author had something good and helpful to contribute... some more than others of course, but overall I found something helpful from each one. A rare treat in an otherwise very poor series.
October 16, 2013
I'm not a big fan of the four views format. It doesn't seem like any of the authors get adequate time to present their views completely. That being said, I was able to take away several points from each author about the best way to stay faithful to scripture while facing situations not explicitly addressed in scripture.
February 7, 2011
A pretty good book on hermeneutics and biblical application. All four of the authors do a good job presenting their views and interacting with each other. A good read for pastors; most laypeople will find the book rather dull.
CB
CB
April 21, 2013
Some good stuff here, though the title is deceiving, and it might have been helpful to have all contributors apply their paradigm to the same case studies.
Vanhoozer's stuff is worth the price of the book alone. Wolters and Wright are also valuable to read.
Vanhoozer's stuff is worth the price of the book alone. Wolters and Wright are also valuable to read.
August 27, 2014
It was an interesting reading with real important topics which led me to a good reflection. The cases of slavery and transexuality are profound and requires from us more sympathy. I did not like the title of the book, gives an impression of living beyond the Sola Scriptura.
September 10, 2016
Pretty abstract topic, but helpful to recognize that the shifts from one discipline to another are not always seemless. We often smuggle a lot of presuppositions in.
Displaying 1 - 27 of 27 reviews