A Response To Thomas R. Schreiner’s Objection To My Presentation In “Four Views On The Role Of Works At The Final Judgment” -- By: Robert N. Wilkin
Journal: Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society
Volume: JOTGES 27:52 (Spring 2014)
Article: A Response To Thomas R. Schreiner’s Objection To My Presentation In “Four Views On The Role Of Works At The Final Judgment”
Author: Robert N. Wilkin
JOTGES 27:52 (Spring 2014) p. 17
A Response To
Thomas R. Schreiner’s Objection To My Presentation In “Four Views On The Role Of Works At The Final Judgment”
Grace Evangelical Society
In July of
I appreciate the gracious responses to my chapter by the other contributors. While they had major differences with my understanding of Scripture, their remarks were generally kind. In the interests of continuing the debate, this article analyzes Thomas R. Schreiner’s response to my presentation.
JOTGES 27:52 (Spring 2014) p. 18
II. Who Is Thomas R. Schreiner?
Tom Schreiner is one of the leading American NT scholars. Indeed, as Alan P. Stanley points out, he is “one of the world’s leading New Testament Pauline scholars” (p. 24, italics added). He teaches NT at Southern Seminary in Louisville, KY. He has published over a dozen books, including commentaries on Romans, Galatians,
JOTGES readers might find it interesting that Tom was mentored by Earl Radmacher at Western Seminary. For a time, Tom’s thinking was in line with Earl’s and mine. Further education led him down a different path.
III. The Nature Of Schreiner’s Criticisms Of My Article
Schreiner’s criticisms of my views are primarily philosophical, not exegetical. Rarely does he actually explain why my interpretation of a passage is off base. He does say, “his (Wilkin’s) exegetical support for his thesis is singularly unconvincing.” But then, before discussing my exegetical support, he mentions some areas of agreement (p. 51).
After two paragraphs of agreements, he then begins with areas of disagreement. Surprisingly for me, he does not discuss exegetical disagreements, but instead theological disagreements. I say this is surprising since he said my exegetical support is singularly unconvincing. Thus I expected him to explain, for example, why You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe