Post by steve on Jan 21, 2019 20:52:39 GMT
I finished the book Magnitude of the Cross the other day and would like to provide a review of it.
I want, before I become too critical, to commend the writer on a few things. First, I appreciate the intent of the author to Magnify the Cross and the Gospel. With so many books being written in our day that magnify man, evolution, reincarnation or some other nonsense it is refreshing to read a book which seeks to magnify the work of Christ on the Cross. Second, I find it hard anymore with the busyness of life to read a book much less to write one. So although you will find in general this review to be on the negative side the author has done more than me in that at least he has attempted to write a book. Third, the book is very readable. The author has done well in things such as type set, layout, presentation, etc. In addition it is readable in its structure. The argument of the author is pretty easy to follow.
With that being said, i would summarize this book theologically as Dispensationalism taken to the extreme. I am not a dispensationalist and do not find grounds for this system of theology in the Scriptures. So to say that it goes beyond that is to say that the author makes foundational assumptions of dispensationalism and then draws conclusions from those presuppositions. Throughout the text the author makes mention of the dispensational framework as though it is a given. Perhaps, for those who are convinced that dispensationalism is found in the Bible this book would seem more convincing. Instead what I find it doing is radically segmenting and emphasizing radical discontinuity. To understand the Bible is progressive in its revelation is a far different understanding than to articulate that there is little continuity between the covenants. Although I do not have the book in front of me at present my notes indicate that this radical discontinuity is argued on pages (65, 75, 93).
As a result of this concept of radical discontinuity the author demonstrations confusion on several matters. First, at times he argues that faith follows regeneration (9, 178) and at other times he argues faith precedes regeneration or exists without regeneration (44, 144-145, 166, 176). My question to the author is, if man is dead how can a dead man respond in faith unless he is first made alive? If people in the Old Testament exercised faith where they dead men responding in faith or were they born again men doing what born again men do, exercising faith.
Second, he seems confused about what faith the saints of the Old Testament had. He argues they had faith in the revelation given to them at the time but not in the Gospel because the Gospel was not yet revealed plainly. Would this mean that someone in the church who does not fully understand the Gospel has faith in something less and therefore does not have post pentecostal new birth? This is further complicated by the fact that the author argues in at least one place (134) that faith in Christ is not faith in the Gospel.
Third, the author makes too much of the "mystery" idea of the Gospel. He even goes so far as to make arbitrary distinctions between the Mystery of Christ and the Mystery of gentile inclusion (65, 91). I am not sure how such distinctions can be made. The Gospel and the Christ of the Gospel are for all nations and so has at their very core the "mystery" of Gentile inclusions. Further, God's plan from the beginning was to include Gentiles all a long as is evident in the many Gentiles that are included among the people of God from various generations in Biblical revelation.
In summary I believe that the author has incorrectly chopped up the progressive revelation by making radical divisions between the Old Testament believers and the New Testament believers and therefore has arrived at faulty conclusions which actually minimize the cross rather than magnify it.
I want, before I become too critical, to commend the writer on a few things. First, I appreciate the intent of the author to Magnify the Cross and the Gospel. With so many books being written in our day that magnify man, evolution, reincarnation or some other nonsense it is refreshing to read a book which seeks to magnify the work of Christ on the Cross. Second, I find it hard anymore with the busyness of life to read a book much less to write one. So although you will find in general this review to be on the negative side the author has done more than me in that at least he has attempted to write a book. Third, the book is very readable. The author has done well in things such as type set, layout, presentation, etc. In addition it is readable in its structure. The argument of the author is pretty easy to follow.
With that being said, i would summarize this book theologically as Dispensationalism taken to the extreme. I am not a dispensationalist and do not find grounds for this system of theology in the Scriptures. So to say that it goes beyond that is to say that the author makes foundational assumptions of dispensationalism and then draws conclusions from those presuppositions. Throughout the text the author makes mention of the dispensational framework as though it is a given. Perhaps, for those who are convinced that dispensationalism is found in the Bible this book would seem more convincing. Instead what I find it doing is radically segmenting and emphasizing radical discontinuity. To understand the Bible is progressive in its revelation is a far different understanding than to articulate that there is little continuity between the covenants. Although I do not have the book in front of me at present my notes indicate that this radical discontinuity is argued on pages (65, 75, 93).
As a result of this concept of radical discontinuity the author demonstrations confusion on several matters. First, at times he argues that faith follows regeneration (9, 178) and at other times he argues faith precedes regeneration or exists without regeneration (44, 144-145, 166, 176). My question to the author is, if man is dead how can a dead man respond in faith unless he is first made alive? If people in the Old Testament exercised faith where they dead men responding in faith or were they born again men doing what born again men do, exercising faith.
Second, he seems confused about what faith the saints of the Old Testament had. He argues they had faith in the revelation given to them at the time but not in the Gospel because the Gospel was not yet revealed plainly. Would this mean that someone in the church who does not fully understand the Gospel has faith in something less and therefore does not have post pentecostal new birth? This is further complicated by the fact that the author argues in at least one place (134) that faith in Christ is not faith in the Gospel.
Third, the author makes too much of the "mystery" idea of the Gospel. He even goes so far as to make arbitrary distinctions between the Mystery of Christ and the Mystery of gentile inclusion (65, 91). I am not sure how such distinctions can be made. The Gospel and the Christ of the Gospel are for all nations and so has at their very core the "mystery" of Gentile inclusions. Further, God's plan from the beginning was to include Gentiles all a long as is evident in the many Gentiles that are included among the people of God from various generations in Biblical revelation.
In summary I believe that the author has incorrectly chopped up the progressive revelation by making radical divisions between the Old Testament believers and the New Testament believers and therefore has arrived at faulty conclusions which actually minimize the cross rather than magnify it.
