Evangelical Theology on Sale
- Thread starter gkterry
- Start date
- Status
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
Me either. Sounds too good to be true, even if it were an e-book.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
I've never heard of Michael Bird. Who is he?
http://www.ridley.edu.au/about-ridley/ridley-people/faculty/mike-bird/
He has difficulty with the doctrine of imputed righteousness, and prefers to speak of incorporated righteousness.
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
A Review of Bird's Evang. Theology may be found here. http://www.credomag.com/2014/01/13/matthew-barrett-reviews-birds-evangelical-theology/. The following is an excerpt:
"Bird places himself in the broad Reformed tradition. At first glance, this appears to be the case given his moderately high view of Scripture, strong emphasis on total depravity and divine monergism in salvation, and affinity for Reformed confessions. But the more one reads the more one begins to wonder whether the Reformed camp will welcome Bird’s peculiarities.
Bird rejects the active obedience of Christ and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness; his treatments of election and atonement are Amyraldian to the core; while he affirms penal substitutionary atonement, Christus victor is Calvary’s central image; he accuses the Reformers of smuggling in anthropocentric philosophy that resulted in the philosophical rationalism and autonomy of modern thought; his high roles for experience, culture, and tradition share more in common with the Wesleyan quadrilateral than the Reformer’s sola scriptura; and he categorizes aspects of covenant theology as Pelagian. All that to say, Bird’s systematic theology may sit comfortably with a broad evangelical audience, but I suspect those evangelicals in the Reformed tradition will cringe and grow frustrated the more they read."
"Bird places himself in the broad Reformed tradition. At first glance, this appears to be the case given his moderately high view of Scripture, strong emphasis on total depravity and divine monergism in salvation, and affinity for Reformed confessions. But the more one reads the more one begins to wonder whether the Reformed camp will welcome Bird’s peculiarities.
Bird rejects the active obedience of Christ and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness; his treatments of election and atonement are Amyraldian to the core; while he affirms penal substitutionary atonement, Christus victor is Calvary’s central image; he accuses the Reformers of smuggling in anthropocentric philosophy that resulted in the philosophical rationalism and autonomy of modern thought; his high roles for experience, culture, and tradition share more in common with the Wesleyan quadrilateral than the Reformer’s sola scriptura; and he categorizes aspects of covenant theology as Pelagian. All that to say, Bird’s systematic theology may sit comfortably with a broad evangelical audience, but I suspect those evangelicals in the Reformed tradition will cringe and grow frustrated the more they read."
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
Now I'm glad I hadn't heard of him before!
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
Per Westminster Seminary California Professor Dr. David VanDrunen in "Covenant, Justification, and Pastoral Ministry," he describes the Finnish School on Luther (which he believes attacks the doctrine of justification by faith alone via Eastern Orthodoxy's theosis) and understands Michael Bird to hold a similar view. He wrote:
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
I read Bird (like many NT scholars venturing into historical debates in which they have no authority) as saying imputation is grounded in union. He acts like he is the first to figure that out though...
Last edited:
He classifies vicarious obedience to the law as "Pelagian." He rejects imputation.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
As much as he seeks to identify with reformed theology in name, I am sorry to say he is nowhere near a reformed understanding of this doctrine. He denies imputation of righteousness is taught in the New Testament, and he allows for the imputation of faith itself as righteousness. This makes the gospel a new law and turns faith into a work of the new law. There is no good news here!
Incorporation, as a part of union, is a blessed doctrine, but it cannot be the "grounds" of justifying a sinner before the righteous Lord. To incorporate a sinner (one still reckoned by law to be a sinner) into Christ would make Christ the minister of sin. There must be a grounding in justice for union and incorporation.
psycheives
Puritan Board Freshman
Noticed Mr. Bird just posted 3 books we should know about in 2015 - concerns me that they are all New Perspectives on Paul (NPP) authors and his descriptions look like endorsements with no warnings. Oh, just noticed he mentions 3 other authors at the end. Maybe NPP too?
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2015/06/forthcoming-books-in-2015-you-should-know-about/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/euangelion/2015/06/forthcoming-books-in-2015-you-should-know-about/
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Doctor
I am unsure about Longenecker, aren't there two of them?? (Bruce and Richard? Maybe I am confusing names.) If I remember right one of them had a similar view of OT citations that Pete Enns had, who Beale also refuted. John Meier and the marginal Jew series is basicslly from his own words, aiming for a consensus on who the historical Jesus was if you put a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. In a room. He is a Roman Catholic scholar. I also know little about Barclay but, I don't think he has an affinity for the NPP even though he is at Durham.
Feel free to check, all this was off the top of my head and I could have messed up names.
- Status
