Given Fuller’s definition, one wonders how Fuller would explain the biblical injunction to “obey the Gospel” (2 Thes 1:8; 1 Pet ).
Fuller also fails to distinguish the way Paul uses the term law ( as the Mosaic administration) and the way law is commonly used in theological circles (law as everything that commands and condemns a person). These definitions are precisely what have emerged as major points of dispute in the wider debate.
I then had to accept the very drastic conclusion that the antithesis between law and gospel established by Luther, Calvin, and the covenant theologians could no longer stand up under the scrutiny of biblical theology” (p.
xi). Evaluation & Critique Fuller’s stated purpose goes far beyond what can be accomplished in a single book of such a small size.
When Fuller asserts the “inseparable connection between faith and resulting works,” he speaks as if his view is a new position (p. Yet covenant theology has always maintained an inseparable connection between the two.
The distinction between Law and Gospel in covenant theology is not absolute; the distinction only holds with reference to Justification.
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.
The exegetical weaknesses of Galatians 3 (and other texts not criticized here) undermine his thesis.
His denial of sola fide renders his solution unacceptable.