To the extent that Fuller’s thesis builds upon a definition of these terms, to that extent Fuller’s argument will not stand.Fuller argues for a novel view of Galatians -12, “Galatians -12 affirms that the law and the gospel are one and the same, and the antithesis stated in Galatians represents the Jewish misinterpretation of the law” (p. Fuller’s exposition of Paul’s discussion of the law in Galatians three completely misunderstands the salvation-historical context of Paul’s remarks. Paul could not be clearer that the law that he is referring to is the Mosaic law.If Fuller is not clear on this point in Gospel & Law, he is very clear in subsequent debates about the book that “good works” are the “instrumental cause” of Justification. How can these statements be regarded as anything less than a renunciation of sola gratia and sola fide?Tags: Essay On StyleApollo 13 Leadership EssayCreative Writing Workshop LondonFrederick Douglass And Harriet Jacobs Comparison EssayBeverage Company Business PlanMarketing Term Paper
Thus The Westminster Confession (1646) states, “Faith. ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love” (Westminster Confession XI.2). One wonders if Fuller really understands the Reformed position on this issue.
Also, Fuller often speaks of Calvin as if he is the representative of Covenant theology.
Summary The purpose of Fuller’s Gospel & Law is to argue against the notion of antithesis between Law and Gospel and to make a case for the fundamental continuity between Gospel and Law.
Even though Fuller’s book has become somewhat dated, his theological positions have gained steam in recent years through the efforts of his students. As Fuller and his controversial ideas continue to make an impact on evangelicalism, a fresh engagement of Gospel & Law is in order.
The law that Paul refers to “came four hundred and thirty years” after the promise to Abraham (Gal ).
So how could law in Galatians 3 be understood as anything but the covenant God made with Israel at Sinai.
However, this book has far more liabilities than strengths.
The scope of the book is too broad for two-hundred and seventeen short pages.
However, this idea is a distorting oversimplification of the historical picture.
As is widely known, “‘Covenant theology’ generally designates the distinctively covenantal theological structure developed by Cocceius, Witsius and others a century after Calvin, and this tradition differed from Calvin’s theology in some significant ways—not least on the relationship of law and gospel.” Does Fuller know that citing Calvin in this way can lead to mischaracterizations of Covenant theology?