Enter your mobile number or email address below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.

Kindle Price: £28.02

Save £1.48 (5%)

includes VAT*
* Unlike print books, digital books are subject to VAT.

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Deliver to your Kindle or other device

Deliver to your Kindle or other device

The Problem with Evangelical Theology: Testing the Exegetical Foundations of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and Wesleyanism by [Witherington III, Ben]
Kindle App Ad

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

See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
New from Used from
Kindle Edition
"Please retry"

Length: 325 pages Word Wise: Enabled

Kindle Books from 99p
Load up your Kindle library before your next holiday -- browse over 500 Kindle Books on sale from 99p until 31 August, 2016. Shop now

Product Description

About the Author

Ben Witherington is Professor of New Testament at Asbury Theological Seminary and the author of more than 20 books, including The Problem with Evangelical Theology (Baylor University Press 2005) and Troubled Waters: Rethinking the Theology of Baptism (Baylor University Press 2007).

Product details

  • Format: Kindle Edition
  • File Size: 2602 KB
  • Print Length: 294 pages
  • Publisher: Baylor University Press (1 Oct. 2005)
  • Sold by: Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Language: English
  • ASIN: B001C6J2WI
  • Text-to-Speech: Enabled
  • X-Ray:
  • Word Wise: Enabled
  • Enhanced Typesetting: Not Enabled
  • Average Customer Review: Be the first to review this item
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #1,003,862 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
  •  Would you like to give feedback on images or tell us about a lower price?

Customer Reviews

There are no customer reviews yet on Amazon.co.uk.
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: 3.7 out of 5 stars 15 reviews
150 of 153 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Biblically solid survey of Evangelical Theologies 24 Feb. 2006
By Dr. Marc Axelrod - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
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!
23 of 24 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Good, but incomplete 4 Oct. 2007
By Prometheus - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
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 **
15 of 17 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Moderate Methodism: Much Confident Rhetoric, But Little Grappling with Key Issues 31 Mar. 2014
By J. Brooks - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
I have a good collection of Wesleyan-Arminian literature in my library. Arminius' complete works, Wesley's complete works, Fletcher's Checks, systematic theologies by Miley, Oden, and Forlines, and books by Robert Picirilli are all there. But I cannot recommend this book by Ben Witherington alongside them, for a number of different reasons.

The book tries to cover far too much ground. It makes a claim it cannot possibly fulfil, and so, for all the surface erudition of each individual chapter, if ends up in reality being pretty skimpy. To attempt such a successful project -- an exegetical refutation of Calvinism, Dispensationalism, and contemporary Arminianism, all in one volume -- was far too grandiose a project. Dr. Witherington did not succeed. This is like three little mini-books pressed into one, but none of the mini-books are adequate.

If you read the purely rhetorical elements of this textbook with care, you will find that the book is built squarely on many dogmatic assertions, but they are never proven exegetically. Dr. Witherington spreads long-exploded slogans and cliches -- for example, Augustine based his ideas about sin on Manicheanism, John Nelson Darby got his idea about a rapture from a Pentecostal girl in Scotland, Calvinism and Greek fatalism are the same thing, and a string of other unproven, disparaging claims. The problem i have with the rhetoric is that it is all designed to prejudice you. Arminians will shout, "Yeah, yeah!" by the rhetoric, and Calvinists will be annoyed by the same, but in the end it's just rhetorical red meat being thrown to the crowd.

It is not good that slogans and cliches are used to dress up dogmas left unproven. For instance, Dr. Witherington likes to speak of the human being still have a "measure" -- undefined -- of "authentic" freedom -- undefined. I guess that is in counterpoint ot inauthentic freedom, whatever that may be. But even though freedom of the will is a very important, central issue in the debate between Arminians and Calvinists -- whether or not sinful human beings have any natural ability to desire a positive relationship with God -- Witherington never engages with it. Unlike Luther debating with Erasmus, Dr. Witherington never engages. He makes strong assertions about free-will, or how silly the dispensational doctrine of the rapture is, but he doesn't engage with the best representatives of those views, and offers us few or no proofs of his own opinions. There is a lot more to Arminianism vs Calvinism than the meaning of "eph ho."

In a book that is supposed to be about proofs, he doesn't offer much. He criticizes contemporary pseudo-Arminianism for its flimsy doctrine of sin and its vague doctrine of universal prevenient grace, but does not engage in what was wrong with John Wesley's original doctrine of sin. Yet the latter is what matters, The Calvinists of Wesley's time knew this, and so they engaged Wesley accordingly.

If you are going to write about Calvinism vs. Arminianism, then talking about contemporary semi-Pelagianism posing as Arminianism might be interesting subject, but it is a distraction from the main event.

Dr. Witherington's interpretive approach is seriously flawed, in how we bases biblical conclusions on extra-biblical culture. For example, he states that the apostle Paul's view of predestination and free-will was identical to that of the rabbinical opinions of his times....but he never proves this important claim to be true. He just states it, quoting from extra-biblical literature like Sirach or the Psalms of Solomon as if they were holy scripture.

I do not recommend.
25 of 31 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Weighing the foundations. 25 Feb. 2006
By David Lindblom - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Paperback
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.
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars ... the pastures where the Evangelical theological traditions feed their favorite theological cows 22 Feb. 2015
By Don Bryant - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition
Witherington steps into the pastures where the Evangelical theological traditions feed their favorite theological cows. His burden seems to be that some of their distinctives based on particular readings of select passages just do not bear the weight put upon them. The things that keep Evangelicals apart need another exegetical review lest we harden categories and end up refusing the true fellowship we have in Christ. Ecumenism is not Witherington's burden, it seems to me, but the natural outflow of a broader and more supportable exegesis should make us carry our distinctives with a certain amount of humility and openness. I have first hand working knowledge of both Dispensationalism and Calvinism, less so with Wesleyanism. Adherents to these views need to exhibit the honesty that admits that other traditions can have equally valid interpretations of key texts that while maybe not convincing at least should instill charity and an effort to build camaraderie. I have been in church communities that consider the other traditions as more the enemy than the world, the flesh and the devil. We should no longer say that our position on these distinctives is "as plain as the nose on your face." They are not. And intellectual integrity demands that we admit it.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know
click to open popover