Review
Robert P. Lightner: Evangelical Theology: A Survey and
Review.
Reviewed by John M. Frame. Originally published in Westminster Theological Journal 50:1 (Spring, 1988), 222-226. Used by permission.
In an earlier review I observed that
the Dispensationalists have led the evangelical camp in
popular theological pedagogy, from the Scofield Reference Bible, to
the
The book is a survey of evangelical
theology as it exists at the present time, integrated with a summary
argument for the author's own position. (He is an Amyraldian Baptist as
well as a pretribulational dispensational premillenialist.) It is
a "survey:" the sort of thing one might give to the Roman
Catholic or liberal Protestant religion editor of the local newspaper
who honestly knows nothing about evangelicalism and would like
to have a summary that he could read in a couple days. Or one
might offer this kind of book to a college student who has heard
for the first time about a group called "the evangelicals" and
wants to know in general what they believe. Lightner also recommends
it as a "review" of theology for pastors and seminarians (p.
2). Well, maybe, but I would prefer that my students use
something more substantial for this purpose, like Louis Berkhof's books
or John Murray's Lectures.
The book treats the traditional loci
in turn. Each chapter begins with a "historical perspective,"
then a "positive statement" of the doctrine, and finally an
examination of "the major areas of difference" among
evangelicals. I assumed that controversial matters would be left to the
final section and excluded from the "positive statement," but
that was not always the case. Lightner argues or assumes his own
distinctive position in a number of "positive statements" (see
pp. 84, 85, 217ff). Each chapter is followed by study questions and
bibliography.
I liked Lightner's irenic tone and
overall fairness. He seeks to avoid divisiveness (see especially pp. 25,
258). He often gives accurate accounts of doctrines he disagrees
with, such as the active obedience of Christ, pp. 91ff. His summary
of the arguments for and against the continuation of tongues and prophecy
(pp. 121ff) is excellent. He is aware that "semantic confusion"
often plays a role in theological disagreement (e.g., pp. 180, 212f).
There are some very helpful charts in the book (pp. 71, 91, 111, 259). The
book is not intended to be an original theological treatise, but at points
there are some interesting suggestions that might be followed up. A few of
them: (1) Lightner is the first writer I have read who actually
cites an example of a recent evangelical who holds to a "dictation theory."
The culprit is John R. Rice (p. 15)! (2) Augustine introduced a stronger
emphasis on the Holy Spirit because of his convictions about the
sovereignty of God's saving work (p. 104). (3) Romans 5 supports both
His choice of "major areas of
difference" among evangelicals reflects his own theological
orientation. He includes discussions of all the millennial positions
(including mid-trib and partial rapture) (pp. 270ff), intra-mural debates among
Baptists about church government (pp. 237 ff.). He does not discuss
differences on ethical matters (Sabbath, war and peace, economics,
cultural mandate), methods of evangelism, worship. There is only a brief
mention of theonomy (p. 249) and of church/state issues (p. 223). Most
astonishingly, there is no discussion of infant vs. believers' baptism,
though there is a discussion of the mode of believers' baptism (pp. 242f)!
Despite all the good things that can
be said, both about the idea of the book and about the book itself, in the
final analysis I cannot recommend it for the purposes suggested.
My reason is not the aforementioned dispensational bias, although
I would prefer a book ordered by Reformed covenant theology. The dispensational bias is not terribly
serious in my judgment, for that would not keep the book from being a
useful survey of evangelical thought. Lightner usually (though not always)
does clearly distinguish his own views from the evangelical
consensus, and in any case it may well be argued that dispensationalism
is more popular within American evangelicalism than is any
other single theological movement, so that a dispensational book
like this is more "typically evangelical" than a Reformed
analysis would be.
My reason for disapproving the book,
then, is rather that there are simply too many inaccuracies and
unclarities in it. Some examples: Lightner attributes to neo-orthodoxy the
view that the Bible does not "become the word of God in statements of
fact" (p. 8); but although neo-orthodoxy is opposed to propositional revelation,
that does not prevent on their view the propositions of the Bible from
communicating, even becoming, the non-propositional word of God. On p. 13,
he says that "Infallibility,
like inerrancy, is sometimes used as
a synonym for inspiration."
(Possibly it is, by people who don't know what the words mean; but why
bring that up here?) The relation between the "inspired but
errant" and "partial inspiration" views of Scripture is
left obscure (p. 14). (I assume the phrase "inerrant but inspired"
on p. 28 is a typographical error rather than a compounding of the
above problem.) On p. 27, the distinction between "revelational"
and "nonrevelational" matters needs explanation. I also
think Lightner should have included here a reference to Daniel
Fuller's writings in which these concepts are developed. On p.
25, Lightner recommends the "literal" method of interpretation,
while acknowledging that it can be abused; but the discussion
leaves much unclarity as to how literal an interpretation must be
in order to meet his standards. On p. 58, he notes among
the "differences among evangelicals" that "Some insist that
God cannot be known at all through his revelation in nature.
Others argue that not only can God be known through nature but that
such knowledge of him has redemptive merit." How's that again?
He gives no documentation of these extraordinary evangelical
views, and frankly I doubt that anyone actually holds them.
On p. 59, Lightner describes himself
as a "moderate Calvinist," and in the next paragraph describes
James Arminius' position also as "moderate Calvinism." But it is
clear from what follows that Lightner's own position is quite different
from that of Arminius. On p. 69, he assumes the historically dubious proposition
that Nestorius personally held the heresy which bears his name. On p. 70
he somewhat inaccurately describes the monotheletes as "a monophysite
sect." On p. 80, he identifies the term "son of man"
without qualification as a reference to Jesus' humanity. On p. 82, he
explains the use of "person" in the Chalcedonian Christology,
using categories that were not employed until Boethius. On p. 96, he says
that for the Reformed (in contrast with the Lutherans) "the two
natures are united in the person of Christ without any transfer of
attributes whatever," suggesting wrongly that there is no Reformed
doctrine of the communicatio idiomatum. He appends to this discussion
a quote from Walvoord which
He says on p. 154 that according to
the Greek fathers, Adam was created "morally," but not
"ethically" perfect. The accompanying quote from Berkhof does
not help to relieve the obscurity. On p. 169 we are told that heart in the Bible is the
"seat of the emotions" (dubious) and is also used synonymously
with mind. (How can it be both at
once?) Mind, he says, "describes a function of man's immaterial makeup" (p. 170), but
he doesn't tell us what function it is. The distinction on pp. 174f
between "real" and "judicial" imputation seems
confused to me, not least when Lightner is quoting Chafer. On 176,
Lightner, again quoting Chafer, claims that sin is more than
"transgression of law," but is also "want of conformity
to the character of God," assuming without argument that the
latter is a wider category. (Can any moral standard be wider than
Deut. 6:5 or I Cor. 10:31? Do we know anything about the "character
of God" beyond the divine law of scripture? Lightner does
nothing to alleviate my impression that dispensationalists are thoroughly confused
about the standard of Christian ethics.) In the discussion of dichotomy
vs. trichotomy, p. 180, he says that soul and body are two substances.
On p. 189, he says that "Man's
sin had a great effect on God," a misleading statement at best. He
assumes without argument that the skins supplied to Adam in Gen. 3 were a
form of atonement (p. 190), similarly that "God is never said to
be reconciled in Scripture" (p. 196). He confusingly
places illumination by the spirit and the spirit's work of conviction
in the category of common grace (p. 197). He assumes
the controversial propositions that the believer's "old nature"
is still alive and that Rom. 7 describes the struggle between
old nature and new nature (p. 205ff).
On the question, "Must Christ
be Lord to be Savior?" Lightner answers "no." I confess I find it hard to
understand how anyone can maintain such a position. Can anything be
nearer to the heart of New Testament faith than the confession,
"Jesus Christ is Lord?" Lightner tries to clarify matters by
saying that his position actually intends to deny only that "lordship
is added to faith as a separate condition of salvation" (pp.
212f). But (1) What does this mean? and (2) Who has ever claimed
that lordship was such a "separate condition?" (3) What is
the relation between Lightner's view and the views of people
like Zane C. Hodges and Charles C. Ryrie who clearly want to deny
more than Lightner's formulation suggests?
My list of problems is somewhat
longer than the above, but the reader should see the pattern by now. Every
several pages there is something that just isn't quite right. The
book, therefore, represents a good idea rather poorly executed. I
do hope that God will lead some reformed scholar to take up the challenge
to write a better volume of this kind.