One can imagine at least three books that would be needed to address adequately the subjects Fuller wants to engage: a critique of dispensationalism, a historical comparison of dispensationalism and covenant theology with reference to the law-gospel question, and a biblical and theological analysis of the Law-Gospel problem.
Because Fuller addresses all of these issues in such short order, a certain superficiality is inevitable.
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.
The exegetical weaknesses of Galatians 3 (and other texts not criticized here) undermine his thesis.
His denial of sola fide renders his solution unacceptable.
Thus The Westminster Confession (1646) states, “Faith. ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love” (Westminster Confession XI.2). One wonders if Fuller really understands the Reformed position on this issue.
Also, Fuller often speaks of Calvin as if he is the representative of Covenant theology.
To the extent that Fuller’s thesis builds upon a definition of these terms, to that extent Fuller’s argument will not stand.
Fuller argues for a novel view of Galatians -12, “Galatians -12 affirms that the law and the gospel are one and the same, and the antithesis stated in Galatians represents the Jewish misinterpretation of the law” (p. Fuller’s exposition of Paul’s discussion of the law in Galatians three completely misunderstands the salvation-historical context of Paul’s remarks. Paul could not be clearer that the law that he is referring to is the Mosaic law.