A wishy-washy misunderstanding of the spiritual theology of St. ...
596133
A wishy-washy misunderstanding of the spiritual theology of St. Therese. I do not suggest this for either spiritual or academic uses.
2124569
I am astounded that this official Church document about preaching can overlook the importance of the Liturgy of the Hours. Priests and deacons are required by Canon Law to the daily recitation of the Hours. That Liturgy is our spiritual home, a dwelling place of the heart. Study of scripture and lectio divina are all very well, but our spiritual life begins with the Liturgy of the Church.
Perhaps the bishops failed to include their religious brothers and sisters in the writing of this document, that they overlooked the liturgical foundation of our life of prayer.
They could have at least reminded Catholic preachers of our obligation to the Liturgy of the Hours while they promoted lectio divina.
830614
Mr. Scott's review below unfortunately suffers from a failure to accurately represent Dr. Boyd's views. This is not to say I agree with Boyd, but the reader is encouraged to examine Boyd's position for themselves rather than rely on the misrepresentations in Scott's critique. In fact, one needs to read no further than page 19 to find this statement by Boyd, contradicting Scott's claims:
"I do not deny that in the context of this war zone God sometimes may allow, or even ordain, suffering for a particular higher purpose. Scripture teaches this much. I can therefore affirm much in those traditional theodicies that explain suffering as, for example, God's way of punishing sin, of building our character, or of contributing to some other 'greater good.'"
Satan & the Problem of Evil is the second book in a three-part series. The first volume is entitled God at War. This first book builds the biblical case for Boyd's view. Scott will find most of his straw men answered in this first book. The second book (the one under review) is more concerned with the philosophical arguments. The third volume is forthcoming and is entitled Myth of a Blueprint. From what I understand, it deals with the historical dimensions of the subject. In this series, Boyd addresses common conceptions of the Divine will as absolutely determinative, and proposes a model of spiritual warefare in which created beings do not always comply with that will.
Although Boyd's views may be seen as borderline evangelicism (especially his defense of open theism, or the "open view of God"), he does draw our attention to many relevant Scriptural themes which all too often aren't given their due.
The table of contents is as follows:
Introduction
1. The World at War: The Warefare Worldview of the Bible & the Early Church
2. The Free Fall: Free Will & the Origin of Evil
3. A Risky Creation: Divine Foreknowledge & the Trinitarian Warfare Worldview
4. A Question of Balance: Issues Surrounding the Foreknowledge of God & the Openness of the Future
5. Love and War: Risk & the Sovereignty of God
6. No Turning Back: The Irrevocability & the Finitude of Freedom
7. Praying in the Whirlwind: Miracles, Prayers & the Arbitrariness of Life
8. "Red in Tooth and Claw": Perspectives on the Origin of Natural Evil, Part 1
9. When Nature Becomes a Weapon: Perspectives on the Origin of Natural Evil, Part 2
10. This an Enemy Has Done: "Natural" Evil & the Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy
11. A Clash of Doctrines: Eternal Suffering & Annihilationism
12. A Separate Reality: Hell, das Nichtige & the Victory of God
Appendix 1: Remaining Objections
Appendix 2: Four Philosophical Arguments for the Incompatibility of EDF & Self-Determining Free Will
Appendix 3: On Incomplete Probationary Periods
Appendix 4: A Theology of Chance
Appendix 5: Exegetical Notes on Texts Used to Support Compatibilism
Glossary, Bibliography, Author/subject index, Scripture index
Overall, this book is superbly written. Boyd is an author whose works are hard to put down.
2207205
There aren't many translations of Reformation-era historical analysis of the early church so the translation of part of Robert Bellarmines text De Controversiis Fidei Christianae by Ryan Grant is a welcome addition. This section on papal error is taken from book 4 of the treatise.
The work really shows the limits of Counter-Reformation historical knowledge. I was interested in what Bellarmine says about Pope Honorius but instead I get a vague accusation that Greeks corrupted the Acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council to include an anathema to Honorius. Bellarmine states clearly  it was nearly an ordinary custom of the Greeks to corrupt books (page 53). Needless to say, this claim has not withstood modern scholarship.
A frustrating thing about this book is the lack of notes. Bellarmine discusses the views of Nilus of Thessalonika (Pages 1, 57-59) but nowhere does the translator explain that he was Nilus Kabasilas, the 14th Century Orthodox bishop of Thessalonika.
Another thing is the peculiar way some of the names are written/translated. Patriarch Tarasios of Constantinople is called Thrasius (page 46) and Tharasius (page 54). The chronicler Theophanes the Confessor is called Theophanus the Isaurian (page 53). This sort of thing can lead to a lot of confusion.
There is no index and that is frustrating too. As I said in the title, interesting but flawed.
3301035
At first glance, many believers will think that this book is based upon the rock of Christ's words, and those of the Bible. But, his inclusive approach is at best nothing but mystical cherry picking of particular passages that God apparently spoke to him about. Absent is a sound-minded explication of a systematic nature that one might expect from a seminary-trained pastor, and professor.

It is mystical to claim that he heard God 'speak' to him, and mysticism is nothing but a promotion of subjectivity--a sign of feminism and Romanism amongst other nefarious belief systems. Further, he seems to promote the errant theology of Karl Barth by calling his pursuit an 'encounter' with Jesus. For those of you who are familiar with Barth's error, you know that he disparaged doctrine, and rather adopted the term 'event' to describe truth, thus, the term 'truth as encounter'. In other words, it's the experience of this encounter when the words of the Bible suddenly and inexplicably become divine. Nevertheless, apart from the experience, they do not have the authority. If you think this is a stretch, just contrast this with the orthodox Protestant view that is the propositions of Scripture, and their logical deductions that composes God's word, completely independent of man's experience. Truth is not subjective, but objective.

He has adopted a Roman Catholic hermeneutic, which is wildly speculative. The Roman church is the most effeminate church on the planet as it exalts Mary to the role of co-redemptress, endorses visages, promotes mysticism, Popery (including the Popes claim to be God and own all souls universally, to be founded on Peter who is believed to be the first Pope, etc.)--all which disregard logic, and soundness of mind (masculine) and exalt the emotional hysteria (female). He is currently under the spell of feminism and appears to have capitulated to the wide, politically correct way back to Rome.

So, there's a theological critique of this work. It is effeminate, mystical, a capitulation to feminism, and an abandonment of true masculinity--but, most of all, it is a betrayal of Protestant sound thinking and reasoning from the Scriptures.

His conclusions do not appear to be the result of sound deductions from the Scripture, but some kind of generic, subjective introspection that serendipitously came through some inexplicable esoteric enlightenment.

It is falsehood that causes this man's soul to tremble (not all should aspire to be teachers for they face a harsher judgment), not the rantings of his irrational wife who presumes disrespectfully to instruct/enlighten her husband's mind. He has acquiesced to feminism, and a woman's attempt at usurpation of her man's authority. It causes him to bow to the pressure on this painful, yet unbiblical torment of introspection, mysticism, and getting into her head. In other words, it appears that he bowed to the pressure of discarding his masculinity, and exchanged it for an effeminate model.

When Christ says to love your wives many men are hoodwinked by the modern spin that Christ requires them to lay down their leadership, and adopt a shared authority by becoming beholden to becoming an expert at taking his wife's emotional temperature, and living according to those cues, thus, making her the controlling influence in the innovative, perverse model of domestic equality. The passage distinctly defines the way he is to love her: It is by the consistent instruction of the Word of God. In other words, he is to teach her washing her of corruption inherent in the female constitution, and she is to submit to this command by demonstrating humility, and receptivity.
4863492
Zagano selectively chooses aspects of Dominican spirituality that she likes in order to present an incomplete and, conveniently enough, in the end, a vergingly heterodox treatment of Dominican spirituality.  For something more orthodox, I recommend William A. Hinnebusch's Dominican Spiritulity: Principles and Practice, which book may be found online here: [...]
2132756
If we agree with the keeping of the Sabbath or not, or on what level the law of God is important or not; one thing I hope we can all agree on is that it is wrong to do reactive theology rather than a theology that sets out to discover truth. My big problem about this book is not on what Chris White thinks about the Sabbath or Law but rather that his theology is not seeking to be a study of God or truth but rather a proving of what he wants to be Gods truth. In other words, if what he thinks is right is right or not, is hard to say, because from title to execution his intent to look at the issue through the cannon of his own doctrine is well stated and brought to completion by his own admittance.

Pros
Chris correctly and faithfully attacks legalism
Chris correctly stands by the biblical position of Jesus and His atonement being the only means of salvation
Chris correct identifies the larger theological issue of being an issue of the covenants of God
Chris seems sincere and to work from a desire to be faithful

Cons
Chris does not follow good theologically or hermeneutical practices. He talks about context but continually treats the Bible like a 21st century document and is unable to look at the cultural, literary, and historical realities of the text.
Chris proof texts most the book (embraces texts he agrees with and ignores points he does not)
Chris complains his opponents use the Appeal to Authority fallacy, (Ie Constantine) but he himself in trying to repute then makes the exact same Appeal to Authority fallacies (to Church Fathers).
Chris fails to uphold a theology of traditional evangelical academic understanding of the correct usage of the Law (conviction of sin and delivering us to Christ) and incorrectly assumes Sabbatarians think the use of the law is unto salvation and thus most of this book, likely unknowingly to him, is pure straw man fallacy. He is fighting a war that is not real.
While Chris correctly identifies the issue as a Covenant problem he shows lack of depth in his understanding of the Old Covenant when he continually incorrectly breaks with academic understanding insisting the old covenant was one of all works and no faith. The Apostle Paul is as clear as any man could be in Romans 1-3 that Jews and Gentiles were saved the same way but both sides misunderstood Gods teaching.

Lastly, I respect Chris Whites passion and accept this was a labor of love for him but his conclusions are bathed in well meaning half-truths and unsound academics. What he ends up saying (by miss applying Gal 5-6) is that all 9 commandments stand but Sabbath does not simply because the purpose to the whole ministry of Jesus was pretty much to dispel his own commandment. Again, if you agree with the Sabbath or not, an ends justify the means theology guts the gospel you seek to protect.
4884805
This book is an effort by a noted Episcopalian educator and priest to describe his "understanding of what it means to be an Anglican." By "Anglican," Dean Holmes meant "nothing more than those Christians who worship according to some authorized edition of the Book of Common Prayer and who are in communion with the see of Canterbury." As an Anglican who is trying very hard to understand what is happening in the Anglican Communion today, I looked forward to reading this book. It is loosely organized into 12 chapters, each dealing with the author's assessment of the Anglican perspective on key issues in the church, such as authority, the Bible, the Liturgy, Episcopacy, and like topics.  Each chapter could stand alone as an essay on the subject at issue, which makes reading the book less challenging than it might otherwise be.  The author is articulate and his prose is generally understandable in a single reading. He delights in using vivid imagery to describe the theological topics he is examining; for example, Dean Holmes writes that "the Sacraments are to life in the church as sexual intercourse is to a marriage. They do not encompass it, they guarantee nothing, but out of them springs the possibility of lives changed by an intimacy with God at the deepest level."

I was nevertheless very frustrated by the book. It is less a description of Anglicanism than its 20th century American incarnation; a better title would have been "What is Liturgical Liberalism?" The author neglects the Anglican tradition of the last five centuries as well as that evolving in the rest of the world in favor an "Anglican attitude" that is, as another writer has observed, "averse to the truth claims, disciplines, and passions that make for mission." It is also interesting that an author who repeatedly stresses the need for imaginative approaches to theology and "the penultimate nature of our answers to the character of God and his will for us" can speak so derisively of those who do not share his positions. Dean Holmes refers to the "simplemindedness of Pietism," characterizes the worship of Protestants as "homogenized," refers to those who think that the Gospel of Matthew could possibly support the infallibility of the Pope as "foolish," and labels as "absurd" the views of those who see in the book of Revelation prophecy about our present circumstances.  So much for the much-vaunted Episcopalian tolerance! The reader in search of an objective answer to the question of "What is Anglicanism" should, quite frankly, look elsewhere. As an alternative, consider The Anglican Spirit by Michael Ramsey or Our Anglican Heritage by John Howe, either of which outshines this volume.
1198056
This book attempts to look at every verse in the New Testament which refers to the coming, the Second Coming, of Jesus Christ.  It actually comes up a bit short in doing so, but probably approaches at least 98% of the verses.  Russell thoroughly shows by the historical contexts, the persons written to, and the Greek that it is impossibe for the Second Coming to be other than a first-century event.  How can one refute the Greek texts, such as in 2 Tim. 4, which says "who is about to judge."  Why don't the translators translate that 9-letter word which means "about" in the sense of "immediacy," "at the door"?  Why do they leave it out completely?  Is it because they insist on their own views over truth?  Evidently, for Russell shows that there is no way to understand the Second Coming outside the first century when one takes the Greek as it is written, and written to the first-century believer.
There are two errors in Russell's book that does not contradict the final conclusion of the book.  Russell's dealings with 1 Thess. 4:17 and Rev. 20 indicate a need for more thinking.  These verses, though still misunderstood among preterists today, are coming to better light in how they fit the preterist view.
The 1000 years in the Greek is literally the 1000s years, referring not to a time period, but to an earlier non-time reference.  In Rev. 7 & 14, the 144,000 is actually 144,000s and the the 12,000 references are 12,000s.  In other words, the period of time in Rev. 20 is not a 1000 years, but the 1000s years, the term 1000s being a qualitative rather than quantitative description of the period of reigning:  it was the years of the reign of the thousands earlier defined in chapters 7 & 14 of Revelation. That reign was between 38 and 40 years.
Russell also fails to link 1 Thess. 4:17 with some other important references in 1 Cor 15 and 2 Cor. 5:1-4.  The activity of this verse is not something that happens as a group, but something that happens to every believer as they die, and this verse concerns those who die after 70 AD versus verse 16 which refers to what happened in 70 AD to saints who had died up to 70 AD at the SEcond Coming of Christ.
Nevertheless, this book is a must read for anyone who truly takes the revealed truth of scripture seriously and puts truth above tradition, feelings, popularity, etc.  Read this and DeMar's "Last Days Madness," and then try to figure out how anyone can believe "left behind" theology.  It's because the truth as so competently revealed in this and DeMar's book is being deliberately hidden from the people by the sensationalists, the false prophets who continue to predict, fail, and rewrite their false predictions.
Any person sincerely looking for biblical truth in the area of eschatology will have to face this book and DeMar's book.  To refuse to do so would be to deliberately ignore important historical and foundational hermeneutical documents that are critical to making sure we are letting the Bible interpret the Bible.  But I'm sure there are many of a certain group who would rather be "left behind" than face these matters openmindedly.
Russell's and DeMar's books are THE extra-biblical standards available today that must be faced, and they are irrefutable concerning the fact that the Second Coming is past, if one remains true to scripture.
4415401
This book is mostly about Lackeys journey as a Unitarian. She uses Scripture to support her argument for Unitarianism and against the Trinity Doctrine. She touches upon the terror that Trinitarians have used to force the Trinity Doctrines on Unitarians. Further, she identifies and discusses the absurdities, flaws, and inconsistencies of the Trinity Doctrine. The Trinity Doctrine does not come from the Scriptures; its origin is Greek philosophy.

She affirms what a religious commentator, for want of a better term, used to say: The quickest way to get kicked out of a church is to ask questions  especially about its doctrines. He also said that he was convinced that Christianity was the true religion because it has survived 2000 years of Christians. She describes some of these Christians to whom he refers.

Lackey shows that new math is not that new. It goes back to the fourth century when church leaders discovered that 1+1+1=1.

However, she displaces some ignorance about Jews. She confused Jews and Israelites. The two are not the same; they are not identity. Moreover, the Talmud is not merely a commentary on the Old Testament as she claims. Apparently, she does not realize that the Talmud (what Jesus called the traditions of men) is the Jewish holy book, not the Old Testament. Also, she cites more than once the verse where John calls the Jews antichrist without realizing that he was referring to the Jews. Moreover, she seems not to realize Judaism is a decedent of Pharisaism. In short, she Judaizes too much.

Furthermore, telling where her quoted material begins and ends is often difficult.

If you are looking for a human-interest type of book by a Unitarian, this book serves that purpose. If you are looking for a systematic Scriptural defense of Unitarianism or a systematic Scriptural argument against the Trinity Doctrine, pass this book by. Also, if you are looking for a history of Unitarianism or a history on the development of the Trinity Doctrine, pass this book by. Nevertheless, her book does bring Jesus into better focus.
3532723
I ordered this book because I'm looking to see what the church must do to attract active membership. Church attendance is down and my little church's attendance is dropping and we are struggling as a faith community. Why is our community flailing?This book did not supply any acceptable answers. The notion of God he rejects is one I reject also. The kind of God he rejects is not a God of a mature believer. It misses the mark of a mature church's turn to interiority. I agree with the author that people are leaving the church but the reasons I am finding is that they don't need God or the church has hurt them deeply. Thus a revitalized church will be kinder and more welcoming. Will provide a space to grow in love and faith. The better model here is "The Purpose Driven Church" by Rick Warren. He has a well worked system focusing on loving welcome and acceptance and handles scriptural maters and dogma in a mature reflective way. The author rejects miracles as unscientific and therefore nonsense perpetrated on believers. The author has no experience of miracles. I'm sad for him. There was a momement or two of insight but it was muddled with poor pointers for positive action. He talked about virtue as proposed by Aristotle. Good start. He missed the role of heroes to urge us forward in virtue. Sports heroes of long ago served something of this function. The authors gives a passing nod to Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr., but misses the greats I discovered while reading this book. The Miracle of Fr. Kapuan, Priest, Soldier, Korean War Hero is one compelling book; another is My Sisters the Saints, A Spiritual Memoir. These are heroic, miraculous books. Also the author rejects traditional Christian/Jewish Scripture as superstition. He really misses the depth of spiritual insight and experience coming from the writers of these scriptures. The good parts of this book is that it made me reflect deeply on my spiritual perspective. The shortfall is that the author would like all churches to be like his.
3314814
I would like to agree with everyone else here that this is a trememndous book, but I have some sincere reservations about it.  While I agree that books about the souls in purgatory are necessary and often productive of improved spiritual life, there are some pros and cons about this book.

Pros first - it is a bonus to have these detailed photographs from the Suffering souls museum.  I had read about some of these objects, such as the burnt cloth, burnt table, etc. in some other books on purgatory and am glad at last to see them.  I wish these photos could be inserted in TAN's earlier and better book, Purgatory Explained by the lives of the saints, which contains descriptions from the saints themselves.

Which leads me to the first con.  This book is almost entirely the words of Gerard Van Den Aardweg, and while I have no issue with him, I think it far more beneficial to hear first hand accounts from the saints who experienced these things themselves.  Aardweg is also an apologist for some more controversial people such as the Jose' Escriva (wrote a book about him)and Sister Faustina.  The reason these are controversial is that some traditional groups do not accept their accounts of sanctity, since Sr. Faustina's writings were condemned by the Holy Office (while it still existed) and the diaries were written in several people's handwritings.  This is not the place to go into a discussion on that, or on Escriva, but the amount of people who have come forward in that case and wanted to testify at the canonization hearings against his santitiy (former secretaries who witnessed him curse and threaten, etc) is staggering, and these people were denied the opportunity to testify.  That in addition to the Vatican getting rid of the "devil's advocate" in the more recent canonizations has given many people pause.

So with that in the background, I tried to judge the book on its own merits and this was disturbing.  He presents some of these events of the "paranormal" (not a very catholic term and the Church usually uses "supernatural) and it has the feeling sometimes of reading Amityville Horror or some poltergeist book.  He also gives as examples episodes in which people engaged in "spiritualism" (a movement from the victorian era that was forbidden for Catholics) in which using seances, souls would be conjured up.  This practice is a grave sin for Catholics, and yet the author never points this out.  He wraps up one example by admitting that this was a "diabolical apparition."  So why does he include this on a book about the Holy Souls?  In another case, he taklks about a Viscount who uses a spiritualist "speaking table" after conversation with this being, the "spirit took leave of us with thesewords: "God forces me to speak thus; hell claims me back, farewell."  Besides the oddity of a demon saying anything as nice as "farewell" why are readers interested in helping suffering souls exposed to paranormal and sinful behavior with souls condemed to hell?

Finally, for centuries the Church has offered the faithful the opportunity to help the suffering souls with indulgenced prayers.  I could not locate a single indulgences prayer in this book and wish that it al least provided readers with sources to find those indulgences, such as the Raccolta, the earlier Purgatory book from TAN and espcially The Purgatorian Manual printed by Mother of Our Savior Catholic Goods.
1452629
Martin Thielen's book "What's the Least I Can Believe and Still Be a Christian? A Guide to What Matters Most" is exactly what its title proclaims, a review of the essentials of the Christian faith. However, it goes further and discusses issues that are not essential as well.

The book has two main sections. The front half of the book consists of 10 points that Christians do not need to believe. It is clearly the weaker half and at times seems to be a tad reactionary. The next half consists of 10 essentials Christians must believe and is much better. Overall, I have little objection to the 2nd half of Thielen's book, and if it were a stand-alone book, instaed of being joined with the first half, I would even suggest it for seekers and those looking to understand the essential quality of the Gospel.

The weakest and most mistaken chapter in the book is chapter 8, "Everything in the Bible should Be Taken Literally." The chapter woefully distorts the orthodox views of Inspiration and Biblical revelation. In his attempt to present his argument in a manner that is easily understood, he oversimplifies the issue and ends up getting it wrong. He ignores completely the primary principle of Biblical understanding that it is context (literary, historical grammatical and etc...) that determines how a passage should be understood.

Thielen confuses the ideas of "Literalist" and "Inerrancy" when it comes to understanding Scripture. "Literalist" describes how one reads a genre within Scripture. It's a issue of how one reads the text before them. "Inerrancy" describes the underlying doctrinal understanding that Scripture, as Inspired revelation from God, in the original manuscripts and contains no "error" on everything it is venturing to teach.

I cannot recommend this book. The author simply does not understand basic tenets of how to interpret Scripture. I came away wondering if he even understands what Scripture is and what it is for. Instead, I would encourage readers to check out "Blue Parakeet" by Scot McKnight or Ben Witherington's "The Living Word of God"
2429561
This book represents a compilation of sixteen authors.  Its focus is Emerging Church missiology in North America, and it is written against the backdrop of declining membership in mainline Churches.  Having read it from cover to cover, I consider that it has several startling shortcomings:

1.  It assumes a problem in the Church, yet fails to reveal it.  For example, editors George R. Hunsberger and Craig van Gelder kick off by referring to "deep uncertainty, malaise, and despair in the Churches . . . a certain dis-ease in our congregations".  What is missing, they suggest, is a certain "something more".  Being a non-American myself, I wondered how I, or even an American, should understand what this and many similar comments might mean.

2. It would seem to shift the blame from the Church to society.  While the book does suggest that the Church might be at fault for its malaise, the emphasis is undoubtedly on its outward circumstances.  For instance, Craig van Gelder puts the trouble down to a "crisis of paradigms", out there in "the world that we encounter".  The book leaves one with the uneasy sense that it might be turning a blind eye to the specifics of its internal malaise.

3. It fails to define crucial terms.  The following is a short selection of terms deposited without definition:  kingdom categories, forces that bring death, God's coming shalom, eschatological imperative, universal salvific purpose.  I would defy any theologian (let alone reader) to proffer concise definitions for these terms.  With theological terms being as "loaded" as they are, definitions should be regarded as crucial.

4. The authors in large part support their missiological framework with Lesslie Newbigin -- a missionary who took over, virtually in toto, the epistemology (theory of knowledge) of Michael Polanyi.  Polanyi himself, however, suggested that if a missiologist should ever try this, there would be "absurdly remote chances" for the enterprise to succeed (Personal Knowledge, 1962, pg. 318).  No matter, Newbigin attempted the absurd, and editor George R. Hunsberger introduces the book by "applying Newbigin's thesis to North America".

5. The authors completely avoid the H-words.  Missiologists of the past would frequently use the H-words with reference to missiology -- that is, the "eternal dwelling places" of humankind -- and Jesus was not too shy of them Himself.  Considering that this is a substantial book on missiology, the authors accomplished quite a feat in excluding them completely.

6. The authors are strikingly vague about the solutions throughout.  For example, Charles C. West, in his concluding paragraphs, considers that "now we must create new models that are both novel and practical.  What form should they take? . . . The church has no pat answer."  And finally, editor George R. Hunsberger considers that "the mental crisis we are facing is . . . a theological crisis, one of great magnitude and consequence."

I understand that this is hardly an impartial or dispassionate review, and the reader would rightly suspect that this book does have its strengths.  For those who wonder what it is really all about, its main thrust is that the Church finds itself today in "a new social location", and therefore needs to view its own culture as a mission field.
2578973
Ronald Nash examines two charges that Christian theism is internally inconsistent on one hand and needs to be more relatable on the other hand.  In this brief primer Nash gives a whirlwind tour of philosophical theology and introduces the reader to a number of problem areas.

Nash has been accused of jettisoning key aspects of classical theism (see Dolezal, Reformed Forum podcast) but this isn't true.  Nash vindicates classical theism, albeit he acknowledges some difficult issues.

The first villain is process theology, which makes God finite in order for them to consider God a person.  It is not difficult to refute this position but we will highlight some areas:

*  It is just as committed to Greek philosophy, except that it prioritizes becoming over being.
* If one pole of God is potentiality and the other pole is actuality, and potentialities can never actualize themselves, then how can God actualize himself? On the other hand, if Gods actuality is primary, then what is the point of process theology?

But is what is known as Thomism any more credible?  Maybe.  We must first say that Thomism is necessarily the view of the church from its earliest days onward.  If one dissents from some Thomist formulations, one has not denied the doctrine of God.  But even here Nash doesnt reject the Thomist picture.  He defends almost all key loci of Thomism, possibly excepting simplicity.

In terms of omnipotence, God cannot do any act which is logically incoherent..  Further, Gods inability to do some actions (e.g., sin) is not his inability to act, but his not actualizing an imperfection.

The most interesting chapter concerned propositions about the future (Nash 55-62). Process theologians and open theists deny that God knows propositions about the future because the future doesnt exist.  Nash explores how the theist might respond:

If God doesnt know the future, does he at least have beliefs about the future (59)? If knowledge is something like justified, true belief, and if God doesnt know the future but does have beliefs about it, then are these beliefs simply good guesses?  LOL!

Even worse, now it is possible for God to have false beliefs about the future!

But back to propositions.  A sentence isn't the same thing as a proposition (68). A sentence has meaning and the proposition is what is expressed by the meaning.  So take the following two propositions:

1.  Christ is born in Bethlehem.
2.  Christ was born in Bethlehem.

If Gods knowledge is timeless, then Gods knowing (1) and (2) happens at the same time, which is a contradiction.  But critics of theism move too quickly.  We say that Gods eternal knowlege is about the tenseless state of affairs regarding Christs birth rather than the specific indexicals.

Possible Criticism

It seems Nash wants the Law of Noncontradiction to exist alongside God and something to which God must heed.  Certainly, we expect the law of noncontradiction to be in play in the God-world relation, but the way Nash phrased it makes it seem like the law exists independent of God, which would contradict John 1:1-3.

Notwithstanding, this is an outstanding primer on philosophical doctrine of God.
3762564
R.C. Sproul is an excellent writer and I have come to expect no less from him, but I think he misses the mark on what the "Gospel" is.  First to the positives: Sproul has a good overview of the debates which raged on during the Reformation.  He has a good assesment of quotes from the two central figures of the Reformation, and an excellent summary of the Protestant position on Sola Fide.  He also is right in critisizing people for not giving the historic Protestant doctrine its rightful place.

Now to the negatives: As noted above, Sproul has a very narrow definition of what the "Gospel" is.  He seems to hold to justification by faith by believing in justification by faith (contra his assertions concerning Packer), because he asserts that Sola Fide is an essential truth of the Gospel, and if you deny this, you deny the Gospel.  The Gospel is that Jesus is risen, and by means of the resurrection, Christ is Lord (see Richard Gaffin, Resurrection and Redemption).  I am including a quote from the great German Theologian Zacharius Ursinus from the Heidelberg Catechism of 1553 to prove that this is not historic Reformed teaching:

Question 22. What is then necessary for a christian to believe?

Answer: All things promised us in the gospel, which the articles of our catholic undoubted christian faith briefly teach us.

Question 23. What are these articles?

Answer: 1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: 2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord: 3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary: 4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead, and buried: He descended into hell: 5. The third day he rose again from the dead: 6. He ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty: 7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead: 8. I believe in the Holy Ghost: 9. I believe a holy catholic church: the communion of saints: 10. The forgiveness of sins: 11. The resurrection of the body: 12. And the life everlasting.

As is obvious, 1/3's of the great Three Forms of Unity does not see fit to include Sola Fide as what must be believed by Christians.

Another problem is that Sproul is content to only quote the Council of Trent, and has nothing to say of Vatican II whatsoever.  This is disturbing, because Vatican II "modernized" Trent's medieval Catholicism.

This is a decent work, but has its flaws on the definition of the "Gospel" is.
3067162
Faith doesn't mean what this author claims. This means the foundations of the book are extremely rocky, and based on a very scant understanding of any faith community's intellectual tradition. It is surprising that such shoddy work is taken seriously by anyone.