(Part 1)

JBTM Book Reviews
117
of one’s theology as a whole” (185). However, his treatment could leave readers to infer
wrongly that an affirmation of a historical Adam requires an affirmation of alien guilt. Such
a view would be incorrect, as illustrated by the many examples of Reformed and Wesleyan
theologians cited in the chapters by Macleod and McCall who affirm both the historicity of
Adam and mediate imputation (inherited corruption, not inherited guilt).
Part 3 addresses “Original Sin in Theology.” In chapter 9, James Hamilton explores the
topic through the lens of biblical theology. He explains that biblical theology “seeks to describe
both the storyline and the network of assumptions and presuppositions and beliefs
assumed by the biblical authors as they wrote” (189). Hamilton’s definition continues by
acknowledging, “The only access we have to what the biblical authors thought or assumed
is what they wrote.” One wonders, then, if a theological method labeling itself “biblical
theology” would be better served by focusing on the explicit statements of the biblical text,
rather than on implicit assumptions, presuppositions, and beliefs. This concern which arose
when reading the beginning of the article was dispelled by the end of the article. Hamilton’s
biblical-theological treatment of original sin was majestic, and his use of English prose
might be the finest example in the book. Just as Collins’ view earlier in the book, Hamilton
makes the case that the Bible shows (rather than explicitly tells) its audience that the Genesis
3 narrative is the explanation for sin and death in the world. In this excellent treatment
of original sin, Hamilton never mentions imputed guilt. Also, he explains Hosea 6:7, a key
Old Testament text, without importing a covenantal interpretation.
In chapter 10, Madueme and Reeves argue that affirming a historical Adam and original
sin are required in order to account for the need for the atoning work of Christ. In that way,
the gospel requires an affirmation of Adam and original sin (210, 224). In chapter 11, Madueme
proposes scriptural realism as a model for addressing the relationship between faith
and science. Then, he applies this to the doctrine of original sin. Strangely, Madueme concludes
that sinful behaviors committed by people who suffer from biological conditions are
not actually sinful (247). The result is that all people are responsible for Adam’s sin (which
they did not commit), but not responsible for their own actions (which they did commit)
if those actions resulted from a biological condition. Part 3 concludes with a chapter by
Daniel Doriani titled “Original Sin in Pastoral Theology.” In this excellent chapter, Doriani
explains that while culture and the church tend to reject or minimize the effects of sin, a
robust theology of original sin will shape one’s pastoral ministry.
Part 4, “Adam and the Fall in Dispute,” concludes the book with chapters penned by
Thomas R. Schreiner, Noel Weeks, and William Edgar. In chapter 13, Schreiner addresses
Romans 5:12–19. Schreiner should be commended for his affirmation that Adam’s sin
brought sin, death, and condemnation into the world. Unfortunately, Schreiner provides
theological conclusions which are not established by his exegetical work in Romans 5. Specifically,
Schreiner states, “Human beings enter the world condemned and spiritually dead
because they sinned in Adam” (278, also 272, 274, 279–80, and 287). None of the verses