I have only read 1/3 of his book and am not agreeing with everything he says (he also quotes other commentators, not just his own ideas). I do think he is generally on the right track and is more correct that OSAS/POTS.
In reference to your frequent accusations that we are reducing God to human level, consider this from Sanders-Hall debate:
You say that OT has a tendency to distill God to human proportions. What criterion are you using to make this judgment? You do not seem to accept all the divine attributes of classical theism. For instance, you don't seem to accept the classical definition of impassibility, and in your last letter you say that God may be able to change in some respects. Hmm. Do you know what Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and contemporary classical theists would say about you? They would say, 'Chris Hall has a tendencyto reduce God to human proportions.'
You see, it all depends on the view one holds as to whether someone is reducing God. I don't think I am but you think I am. You don't think you are but Aquinas would say you are. Aquinas did not think he was but Tillich would say even Thomas made God too human. So, I welcome you to the 'club' of those who are accused of reducing God to human proportions.
Since you did not use quotation marks I don't know where one leaves off and gr begins. Nor do I know what point you are making with respect to me versus Chris Hall. By the way, a source of the quote would have been nice, no?
I have read both of Shank's books (
Life in the Son,
Elect in the Son). On election he maintains an unhealthy appeal to "universal passages", that when these verses are explained properly, make his entire argument collapse and his view then becomes no improvement over the Arminian position.
On perseverance of the saints, his doctrine can be shown to be in opposition to the doctrine of forgiveness and justification. Shank's answers seemed at times to deal with caricatures rather than the real doctrines of unconditional security or perseverance. Thin documentation contributed to this problem. I was also taken aback by his reliance upon Barth and Berkouwer, even going beyond them both. Shank calls Christ the locus standi of election, concluding, "In the face of many affirmations of Holy Scripture, it may in truth be said that Christ, who is our Life, is Himself the Election" (page 44,45). Shank here seems to be saying that Christ is the
only elect, exceeding any evidence that he offered.
The most serious weakness in this book and the argument Shank puts forth is that there is no clear statement from Scripture to the effect that the regenerated can lose their salvation. Given such a serious fate that could befall a Christian, it would seem that there should be at least one definite statement to give warning concerning the danger. Instead Shank cited parables, suppositions, warnings, and possibilities. He rested the burden of his case, by his own admission, upon the figurative language of John 15:1-6. This is quite amazing, given the figurative language and the existence of clear didactic passages.
The weakness in both texts is his failure to accept a Scriptural balance in his doctrinal position. Shank fails to understand that biblical faith is both the act of a moment and the continual habit of a lifetime. In the salvation experience Shank emphasizes the response of man while neglecting the work of God which makes that response possible. Shank does not distinguish between the desire and the determined will of God.
