One brief reply to one point in the review. The reviewer argues, “We see within the opening chapters an occasional tendency to orientate the debate over confessions of faith; this is seen in other later essays. That is of course a reasonable discussion to have, but when a confession has been drawn into question by someone’s exegesis, it is the exegesis that must be debated.”
Yes, there was that tendency, in part, because we were addressing a threefold problem. It’s true that, relative to the NPP, appeals to the Reformed confessions are less probative, especially for those who do not claim to adhere to them. Second, we were implicitly trying to encourage orthodox readers that, in fact, the Reformed confessions do speak to these questions. Third, we were also addressing a movement that claims to adhere to the Reformed confession and to some version of NPP or to the Federal Vision. In that case, appeal to the Reformed Confessions, as a way of setting boundary markers, is entirely appropriate and quite necessary. As the reviewer himself notices, the volume does offer a good deal of detailed biblical exegesis and argumentation especially in response to the NPP.