Summary The purpose of Fuller’s Gospel & Law is to argue against the notion of antithesis between Law and Gospel and to make a case for the fundamental continuity between Gospel and Law.
Even though Fuller’s book has become somewhat dated, his theological positions have gained steam in recent years through the efforts of his students. As Fuller and his controversial ideas continue to make an impact on evangelicalism, a fresh engagement of Gospel & Law is in order.
He states that, “although today’s dispensationalism explains the relationship between law and grace in wording that is different from that of covenant theology, there is not substantial difference in meaning. .today’s Dispensationalism has reverted to a virtual covenant theology in the way it handles the law-gospel problem” (pp. Because both systems introduce this improper distinction between Law and Gospel, Fuller introduces an alternative way to approach this question.
Reprint, Pasadena, CA: Fuller Seminary Press, 1990. According to Fuller, both Dispensational and Reformed theology posit an unbiblical discontinuity between Gospel and Law.
However, this book has far more liabilities than strengths.
Law And Order Antithesis
The scope of the book is too broad for two-hundred and seventeen short pages.
The exegetical weaknesses of Galatians 3 (and other texts not criticized here) undermine his thesis.
His denial of sola fide renders his solution unacceptable.
Fuller’s book is riddled with unclear definitions of key terms.
As Moo has criticized, “In a book devoted to Gospel and Law, one would expect some indication of the way in which these key terms are being used.” On a number of occasions, Fuller uses Gospel as an equivalent of grace (p. Yet the New Testament does not equate these two terms.