McCall, Friedeman and Friedeman have written a controversial but trailblazing book. I like that. But it isn't controversial without reason. Unfortunately they don't go far enough and in my opinion they end up in a bog. The trail didn't make it through to the promised land.
The premise of the book is that works have got a bad rub by Protestants over the years since the Reformation but it wasn't always this way. McCall shows how some popular figures in Protestant history thought in more nuanced manner, where salvation does not equate to or reduce to justification, and where faith, works and causality are carefully defined. They also demonstrate from first principles in Scripture what this more robust view of works looks like, from the Old Testament to the New. They conclude that works are nothing less than necessary for the Christian--although what that precisely means you'll have to find out.
The gaps, unfortunately, are large. For example in discussing Jesus' view of works, they take at face value the apparent need to ""be perfect"" (Matthew 5:48), be more righteous than the Pharisees, and as illustrated with the rich young ruler, ""Jesus regards good works as. . . necessary for ultimate salvation"" (p. 68). The problem is that nobody is perfect. The point of Jesus talking like this is to make people realise they need God's righteousness, and cannot do it themselves. You can either be perfect and come to God that way (impossible), or, you fall on your knees in desperation…
