I sang the praises of volume 1, for it was truly brilliant and beautiful. It is with much regret that I say volume 2 is not the same. First, the good.
- His theme is the identity of God in the narrative of Israel. It’s a strong theme and more often than not, he is successful in anchoring his loci in this theme.
- While the chapter on Scripture was weak, his narrative-theme does provide the ground for helpful reflection on the nature of canonization.
- Humor: He is savagely funny. He never fails to ridicule the NRSV translation, as all of us are morally obligated to do.
- Great chapter on sexual ethics and the nature of polity.
- Fairly decent chapter on anthropology. He notes the inherent problems in Rome, the East, and in some inadequate Reformed responses.
- He adopts Barth’s view of election. That is not my specific critique. Others have given better critiques of Barth on that point, so I refer you to them (e.g., Horton). My problem is that his chapter on anthropology (where he basically summarizes Luther’s Bondage of the Will) seems inconsistent with his chapter on Election.
- He had a good section on the canon, but a weak chapter on Scripture. He points out that the true honoring of Scripture is not in the churches that give it honorific titles (e.g., infallible) but in those who hear and obey (meaning mainline churches). I call bullsh*t. The PCUSA struck down a motion to save post-born infants from botched abortions. Mainline churches openly advocate after-born murder. They don’t care what scripture says.
- The chapter on justification was plain bad. It was so bad it seemed like a good chapter on sanctification. I am less optimistic that the Finnish Interpretation of Luther really works.
- The chapter on church government, while helpful in pointing out to the East where they evolved on some points, basically argues that we need a monarchical patriarch to establish unity. He is aware that V1 made papal infallibility a condition for individual salvation (or damnation), and he admits he is uncomfortable with this language (!), but like other ecumenicists, he does not realize that Rome–even with the liberal pope today–will never budge on this point. This is why Ecumenicism always falls to the Pope’s Jesuit Shock Army Troops.
- Flirts with universalism. To be fair, he doesn’t affirm it but you can tell he really wants to.
Horton has given other critiques of Jenson on these points, so I refer you to them (cf Lord and Servant: A Covenant Christology and Covenant and Salvation: Union with Christ, esp. pp. 153ff, 174-176,