Customer Reviews

The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Ben Witherington has taught New Testament at the graduate and postgraduate levels for over 25 years, and he has written widely on matters related to the New Testament. His book on New Testament History is the standard in its field, and his recent commentary on Romans is probably the best contribution by a non-Calvinist in years.

His latest book is an attempt to test the biblical foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism. He notes that evangelical systems of thought often deviate from scripture at their most distinctive points. His book is a challenge to evangelicals of all stripes to re-examine the biblical moorings of their theological perspectives.

The first four chapters deal with Reformed Theology (aka Calvinism). After a close reading of Romans 5, Witherington suggests that while the passage shows how one person (Adam) affected the human race in a negative way, the text cannot be used to teach that Christ died for some and not for all, as Calvinists claim.

In chapter two, he discusses Romans seven, and notes that Romans 7:7-13 is the story of Adam retold in the first person and that 7:14-25, is a description of all those who are in Adam and outside of Christ. Romans 7 is the anatomy of a conversion, climaxing in the person being delivered by Christ in Romans 7:25a. He notes that Calvinists have incorrectly used this text as a description of the Christian life. Of course, it is not only Calvinists who have done this, but other believers in Christ have read Romans 7 in light of their own frailties and foibles. The late contemporary Christian singer Keith Green used to say, "I don't know if Romans 7:14-25 is talking about a believer or an unbeliever, all I know is that it sounds an awful lot like me."

In chapter three, Dr. Witherington points out that contra Luther, Paul is not refuting legalism in the book of Galatians so much as he is saying that we are under the law of Christ rather than the law of Moses. He follows this up in chapter four with a critique of the Calvinist understanding of election, noting that the apostle Paul does not teach that God has predetermined that certain individuals will be saved. Furthermore, he goes on to say that we are not eternally secure until we are securely in eternity. He stresses the three tenses of salvation: I have been saved, I am being saved, and I will be saved, and that until we have gone through all three tenses, our situation is tense. I would say that a believer's standing in Christ can be better than tense, but I agree with Witherington that the warnings against apostasy need to be taken seriously.

The next few chapters discuss dispensationalism. Ben notes that while the early church affirmed the dispensational idea of a premillennial return of Christ, it taught that this would be a public event. Nowhere in early church history can it be found that Christians believed in a two stage second coming, beginning with a secret rapture that would take them to heaven before the beginning of the tribulation period. Ben comments that if the concept of any moment rapture can be dismissed, then dispensationalism crumbles to the ground.

However, he may have overestimated the centrality of the rapture idea in the dispensational schema. According to Charles Ryrie, the three foundational ideas of dispensationalism are 1. We should interpret the Bible in a consistently literal, grammatical-historical way. 2. There is a clear distinction between national Israel and the church, and 3. The main theme of scripture is the glory of God. The doctrine of the any moment rapture grows out of these ideas, but the dispensational system does not fall to the ground if the timing of the rapture is wrong.

Ben also has a chapter about Israel in Romans 9-11, and he maintains that throughout the chapter, "Israel" refers to physical descendants of Abraham (Jewish people) and that the reference to "Israel" in Romans 11:26 is to Jewish people alive at the time of the second coming of Christ. Dispensationalists would heartily agree.

There are also several chapters at the end of the book where Ben critiques his own theological camp (Wesleyanism). He notes that Wesley had too narrow a definition of sin, that it is not just lawless acts, but that it is also what we fail to do and what the condition of our soul is outside of Christ. There is also a criticism of Wesley's doctrine of Christian perfection, where Ben correctly points out that this will happen only when Jesus returns. There are also warnings to the Wesleyan community about an overemphasis on free will rather than God's grace.

I also appreciated the evaluation of Pentecostal theology. Ben reveals that while the movement has rightfully refocused attention on the availability of the gifts of the Spirit, there are some examples of bad Bible interpretation in the movement. For example, there is no exegetical evidence for the concept of a second definitive work of grace which causes a person to experience the baptism of the Spirit subsequent to salvation. Ben correctly shows from 1 Corinthians 12:13 that believers were baptized by the Spirit at the time of salvation, and that it is not something that we have to seek at a later time.

There is a final section where Ben encourages us to `theologize' in terms of the storied world of the New Testament (Jesus the Sage, Paul the Rhetorician and his storied world, John and his apocalyptic imagination) rather than traditional systematic categories such as eschatology, pneumatology and ecclesiology.

I really enjoyed the book. It takes a lot of courage to grapple with other systems of theology. It also takes a lot of courage to look hard at your own theology with an open mind. I appreciated this very much. I also like how Ben always writes well, not in a choppy manner like other academics. In addition, the material on Paul's rhetorical flourishes and Wesley's interaction with Paul was fascinating.

By way of friendly criticism, I would like to see a future edition of the book where Dr. Witherington dialogues more with Calvinistic and dispensational sparring partners. In the section critiquing Calvinism, it was hard to understand why Dr. Witherington chose to dialogue with people not known to hold Calvinist positions (James DG Dunn, EP Sanders, I.H Marshall) when he could have sparred with the great Cornelius Van Til or BB Warfield or RC Sproul or John Piper or John MacArthur, or even Calvin himself! (Ben did dialogue with Greg Beale, not known for his work in dogmatic theology, but a Calvinist nonetheless.) One of the best ways to show deference to a theological camp is to enter into that camp and dialogue with its deepest and most respected thinkers.

The same can be said for the sections on dispensationalism. There was no interaction with C. I Scofield (unless you count the part where Scofield's criminal record was cited - an interesting little tidbit I was not aware of), John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie, Craig Blaising, or Alva J. McClain. In addition, how can there be a discussion of dispensational eschatology without reference to J. Dwight Pentecost's Things to Come, a massive tome which has been the standard dispensational manual on eschatology for almost 50 years! Even today, this mighty work is unparalleled.

It can be argued that some of the above mentioned dispensational theologians are not exegetes, and that they do not have the scholarly pedigree that a tenured New Testament professor has.

In reply, I might say that because these are the very people who have dominated the eschatological landscape for the last century, is this not all the more reason to interact with them? Who better to interact with a theologian than a trained exegete who is more interested in letting the text speak than in teasing theology out of the text?

Because of these omissions, as good as this book is, it feels incomplete. A second edition would be awesome! I would love to see Ben go head to head with MacArthur, Piper, or RC Sproul. How many of you would pay to see that? Yes!!!! Lord, make it happen!

Although imbalanced in many ways because of a lack of direct contact with many of the most important dispensationalist arguments and because he defends Wesleyianism more than critiques it, at least fifty-percent of his work is phenomenal.

Especially important is his detailed exegesis of Romans, which exposes the biases that come into biblical interpretation that leans toward the Calvinistic view of predestination. As a Greek scholar, I was impressed when looking at his analysis of how difficult and ambiguous much of the Greek text is at this point. He truly has a fine grasp of the Greek language (although I did find a wrong statement by him in his analysis of "eph' ho"; see below). For those unconvinced that Calvinism is true - especially in light of the rest of the counsel of scripture - and yet feeling that Romans gives indisputable proof for the Calvinist viewpoint, Ben Witherington III's analysis is bound to be a breath of fresh air. (After all, the reason the passage seems unambiguously to support Calvinism may have something to do with the fact that the most popular early English translation of the Bible for protestants was the Geneva Bible - i.e. translated by and for Calvinists.)

Certainly Dispensationalists and Calvinists will be unhappy with his commentary, but it seems to me that their reaction is normal for anyone who has their convictions being attacked whether even-handedly or belligerently. For the most part, though, Witherington III doesn't show animosity.

** "eph' ho" in 5:12 he says cannot refer to "hamartia", but any good Greek grammar will tell you that it can if it is referring to the natural gender of "hamartia" rather than the grammatical gender; cf. Ephesians 6:17 where "ho" refers back to "makhaira"/"makhaira pneumatos" as a neuter concept not "pneumatos" as a grammatically neuter antecedent - however, it seems unlikely that "ho" refers so far back and more likely that it refers to the nearest word with the same grammatical gender "thanatos", death **

I greatly enjoyed this book and the intellectual challenge it gave me. As others have noted, Witherington challenges the foundational beliefs of Calvinism, Dispensationalism and Weslyan-Arminianism. That's a key point. Witherington does not go over every proof text each system uses to prove their point. He goes after the initial interpretations of scripture that led each group down their respective theological paths. A warning though, this is not standard Christian pulp writing that puts forth ideas that any new Christian can grasp. It's a bit on the technical side with lots of references to greek words and phrases. In most cases he translates their meaning. This is not a bad thing if you enjoy a little work along with your reading. I would recommend this book to anyone with a somewhat open mind and a desire to get at the truth and let the chips fall where they may.

Witherington presents a tough but fair examination of the biblical foundations of some major schools of thought in theology today.

Regardless of your current shifting wind ideals regarding the church, how you read Scripture and therefore what conclusions you arrive at are most likely influenced by either Calvinism, Dispensationalism, or Wesleyanism...whether you know it or not.

If you can handle a tough but fair analysis of the biblical footing of these 3 theological camps, enjoy. If sound exegesis and fair Historical-Critical/Grammatical analysis of certain key conclusions upsets your pastoral theology, run away. Fast. However, if you are willing to engage the text along with Witherington, and argue from the same material with him, you will find this book a very engaging conversation, one which will help you lose some of the Chaff that tends to gather in all of us over time.

I personally would commend the book to American pastors who are much more influenced by Dispensationalism than they often realize, and urge them to take a long, hard look at the wafer-thin foundation for much of Dispensationalism. It may hurt, but like exercise, it will benefit you if you can tough it out. If nothing else, please read chapters 5,6,7, and weigh what the NT is TRULY saying regarding Israel.

5-star reading! Enjoy!

What is the problem in evangelical theology today? Probably more than at any other time in history, there seems to be a deepening chasm between Reformed, Dispensational and Wesleyan theologies. Not that the theologies have changed all that much. In fact, in many ways, they are the same as their founding fathers developed them. But the heels are digging in on all sides to make sure that nothing changes as time goes on.

It is into this battlefield that Ben Witherington III, Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary, drops a bomb. He certainly helps evangelicals to look at where the other theologies may be going beyond Scripture. But more importantly, he also challenges each of these areas of Protestant theology to take long hard looks at themselves to see where their own theology comes up short of Scripture.

One major area of concern for me throughout the book is Witherington's insistence that it is possible to lose our salvation. He does a wonderful job of showing through Romans 8-11 how our covenant in Christ is as secure as the covenant that God made with Israel even though Israel is hardened right now. However, he does not follow that through with an understanding that there are also significant differences between the covenants whereby believers cannot be outside of the new covenant. The typical passages that he uses to describe those who fall away (or shipwrecked their faith, etc.) could just as easily describe the dire circumstances, the fire that God allows us - even causes us - to go through, is intended by God in order to finally purify us for eternity with Him.

If this point can be overlooked, much of the rest of Witherington's material is excellent in discussing how the various strains of Protestant theology can be improved. Perhaps using his material as a starting point, it could help each of these factions in the family of God to mend their relationships with each other and begin preparing for eternity together.

For a longer review, go to the blog listed in my nickname and click on the 'Reading' category.

[...]

Witherington's book analyzes the exegetical shortcomings of Reformed Theology, Dispensationalism and Wesleyanism. The main point of the book is to say that every system of evangelical theology has its blind spots. These exegetical weaknesses can be overcome by a return to commitment to knowing the first century context of the New Testament. In addition, Witherington says there must be a commitment to reject modern thinking which has influenced our theology. Witherington says that the parts of each theological system that make it distinctive are the places of greatest exegetical weakness. I am sure that proponents of the various views would strongly disagree, but this is Witherington's contention. This book caused me to think about my own theological presuppositions and the need to seek the truth in a deeper way.

The Problem With Evangelical Theology: Testing The Exegetical Foundations Of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, And Wesleyanism by Ben Witherington (Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary) is an informative study of the traditions, practices, and writings of the evangelist church. With great depth and scholarly insight, Witherington covers many spectra of the faith with analysis on sin, God's sovereignty, prophesy, grace and the Holy Spirit. The Problem With Evangelical Theology is highly recommended to all students of the Evangelical Christian faith for its inevitably informational content, as well as to readers of general religious information or reference books.

Witherington engages in irrelevant and ad hominem attacks. He has not interacted with, or even significantly referenced, serious dispensational scholarship. The author is entitled to his views but that entitlement does not give him a license to be less than accurate, painting an incomplete and unbalanced picture of dispensationalism. And it certainly does not give him the right to be dismissive, derisive, harsh, or censorious in his unfair criticism of dispensational theology. As one dispensational scholar once wrote: "Normative dispensationalism is a legitimate, worthy, and conservative viewpoint. Other Christians do not have to agree with it, but they should represent it fairly and treat its contributions with respect. This is simply a matter of Christian integrity and courtesy." Unfortunately, Witherington misses the mark completely regarding both integrity and scholarship in this book.

I thought this book was going to interact exegetically with the texts that each system uses to establish itself. At least as far as the central three chapters go, on that score, this is a disappointing book. The author starts his overview of dispensational theology with the same tired arguments (posed and answered many times before) over the origins of dispensationalism along with the (apparently) obligatory derogatory language ridiculing dispensationalism. (In the culture at large, it seems the only people one can deride without fear of being called intollerant are evangelical Christians; simply deriding them/us is somehow a means to establish oneself as superior. Among evangelical scholars this role [mock-able and dismiss-able] is assigned to dispensationalists). (He apparently got some of his material from B. Rossing's really mean, poorly researched and really bad attack piece "Rapture Exposed." Please! can we just leave C. I. Scofield's undocumented past out of the discussion? How is this "testing" the exegetical foundations?) The author demonstrates a serious ignorance of dispensational theology when he claims that Matthew 24: 36-41 (p. 112) is "of course" a "favorite text to prove the rapture." Simply false; that text is about the Second Coming and no reputable dispensationalist I know claims otherwise. He conflates texts that speak of the rapture (1 Thess 4) with texts that speak of the Second Coming without a single reference to the dispensational arguments that keep such texts separate. It boils down to Witherington's assertions as to the meaning of 1 Thess 4, 5 and Matthew 24 set next to inaccurate and inadequate summaries (by Witherington) of what dispensationalists teach (see the summary list on p. 109). His discussion of the nature of prophecy is largely irrelevant to a critique of dispensationalism since many of the points he makes could be and are made by dispensational exegetes.
His overview of Romans 9-11 is not really a critique of dispensationalism, so much as his contribution to the very crowded boat-load of Romans commentators; some more some less amenable to dispensationalism. Yes, there are implications for dispensationalists given the author's take on Romans 9-11 but Witherington's view casts a shadow over many alternate interpretations and is by no means the most sound (see Moo, Romans: NICNT, among others).
If you are a non-dispensationalist looking for a fair overview of the system this book is clearly not it.

On the New (Really, Old) Post-Modern (Really, Arminian) Center
11/11/2005
posted by Rick Phillips

When critiquing Calvinism, he presents what is in fact the Arminian denial of the entire system. But when, to be fair and all, he critiques Arminianism, he picks on a side issue that is not at all essential to the Arminian system (namely, perfectionism) and pokes at it a little. So what he calls for in abandoning all our evangelical theologies and as the newly discovered humble center is ... Arminianism.

This prompts 3 observations from me: 1) every time someone calls out for an end to theological triumphalism, he or she always (and inevitably) argues for a different triumphant position. They could at least admit that they are doing so -- that someone is right and someone is wrong; 2) In the process, they successfully paint others as negative and mean (notice his concern over martyrdom from the Dispensationalists) and themselves as moderate and humble, yet all the while their writings present the most savage attacks on their theological enemies; 3) yet again, we see that postmodernity is far more about rhetoric than reason, and posturing instead of serious theology. If people are going to advocate the post-modern Arminian position, that is fine, but they could at least stop pretending not to have a theological agenda.