Horton, Michael S. Covenant and redemption: union with Christ. Louisville: WJK, 2007.
In Part 1 of this book, Horton offers the best theological criticism of the new perspective on Paul that I have read. In summary, he grants E. P. Sanders’ characterization of federal nomism as active in Second Temple Judaism. But he then argues that such a view is exactly what Paul rejected (and was similar to what the reformers rejected in Roman Catholicism). As part of this argument, Horton makes the distinction between the Sinai Covenant and the New Covenant. I think his case is exegetically convincing, although he appears to have difficulty in integrating his exegetical insights into traditional federal theology (sometimes he seems to indicate that the Sinai Covenant is a Werkbund, and sometimes he appears to be part of it) Mercy).
second part of the book, while containing an excellent review by Radical
Orthodoxy and Luther’s Finnish interpretation seemed somewhat confused
Discussions about union with Christ. On the one hand, Horton wanted to see
Justification as a forensic basis for every other aspect of the Ordo. In this
He tried to keep the forensic and transformative elements together
Soteriology. The latter are justified in the former. So is the union with Christ
founded on justification. On the other hand, he also seemed to acknowledge that
Union precedes justification. In one paragraph, he identified both justifications
and Christ as the engine that pulls the wagons that make up the Ordo.
Understand why Horton wants to keep the forensic and transformative elements of
Salvation united, but I am not convinced that he has the right wording.
Note: We are not the author of this content. For the Authentic and complete version,
Check its Original Source