Dr. K. Scott Oliphint of Westminster Seminary has written a review of Evangelical Exodus for the journal Themelios. Read it HERE!
Oliphint’s main complaint is that the contributors only seemed to see two options: Evangelical theology or Rome. This is far from correct, and not based on what was stated / argued in the book. None of us were ignorant of Reformed theology simply because we attended SES, and, in fact, two of the nine contributors were on their way to being ordained in the Reformed Anglican tradition when they made their way across the Tiber instead.
Unfortunately far more time time is spent in speculation and Evangelicalism-bashing rather than book interaction. As a friend put it, Oliphint mostly uses the book as a hammer to bash SES and Evangelical theology (which he does pretty well). While I do appreciate some of Oliphint’s criticisms of various facets of Evangelical theology, he offers nothing to make his presuppositional Protestantism appear more credible than the historical claims of the Church, however. Further, if the contributors were picking a tradition based on how much they approved of its theology, we’d still be Protestants – for that is the Protestant paradigm.
Oliphint also dismisses the book’s substantial “argument section” with a hand-waving “there’s nothing new here.” Well, why should there be anything new in a 500 year old debate? While theological innovation is (of necessity) of great value to the Protestant, such is neither valued nor necessary for the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.