Read any good books, lately?-3

XV. Commentaries

Genesis

Baker (forthcoming)
Currid
Hamilton (moderate)
Hartley
Sarna (Jewish)
Waltke (moderate)
Walton (OEC; strong on ANE background)
Wenham (moderate)
Youngblood (OEC)

Exodus

Alexander (forthcoming)
Currid
Enns
Kaiser
Longman (forthcoming)
Motyer (popular)
Ross (forthcoming)
Sarna (Jewish)
Stuart

Leviticus

Baker (forthcoming)
Currid
Harrison
Hartley
Hess (forthcoming)
Ross
Wenham

Numbers

Ashley
Currid (forthcoming)
Harrison
Sailhamer (forthcoming)
Wenham

Deuteronomy

Block (forthcoming)
Craigie
Currid
Duguid (popular)
Merrill
Thompson

Joshua

Hess
Woudstra

Judges

Block (includes Ruth)
Younger

Ruth

Duguid (popular)
Hubbard
Younger

1-2 Samuel

Arnold
Baldwin
Block (forthcoming)
Tsumura
Youngblood

1-2 Kings

Hess (forthcoming)
Provan (moderate)
Wiseman

1-2 Chronicles

Dillard (moderate)
Pratt
Thompson

Ezra-Nehemiah

Fensham
Kidner
Yamauchi

Esther

Baldwin
Duguid

Job

Clines (learned, liberal)
Hartley
Smick
Longman (forthcoming)

Psalms

Allen (moderate)
Craigie (moderate)
Goldingay (learned, liberal)
Kidner
Tate (moderate)
VanGemeren
Wenham (forthcoming)

Proverbs

Garrett
Longman
Waltke

Ecclesiastes

Garrett
Hubbard
Kaiser
Kidner (moderate)
Longman (liberal)
Provan (moderate)

Canticles

Garrett
Gledhill
Longman (moderate)
Provan (moderate)

Isaiah

Motyer
Oswalt
Ridderbos (moderate)
Smith
Young

Jeremiah-Lamentations

Craigie (Jer 1-25)
Feinberg
Harrison
Kaiser (on Lamentations)
Kidner
Thompson

Ezekiel

Allen (moderate)
Bock
Duguid

Daniel

Baldwin
Longman (moderate)
Mitchell (forthcoming)
Young

Minor Prophets

Baldwin (Haggai-Malachi)
Garrett (Hosea, Joel)
Hubbard (Hosea, Joel-Amos)
Kidner (Hosea)
McComiskey, ed. (Hosea-Malachi)
Merrill (Haggai-Malachi)
Robertson (Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah)
Robertson (Jonah)
Smith (Hosea-Micah)
Stuart (Hosea-Jonah)
Verhoef (Haggai-Malachi)
Waltke (Micah)

Matthew

Blomberg
Carson
Evans (forthcoming)
France (moderate-conservative, NICNT)
Keener (advanced. moderate-conservative)
Morris
Nolland (moderate, advanced)
Turner (forthcoming)

Mark

Edwards
Evans (moderate, advanced)
France (advanced)
Horsley (learned, liberal, forthcoming)
Lane
Stein (forthcoming)
Witherington

Luke

Bauckham (moderate, forthcoming)
Bock
Garland (forthcoming)

John

Bauckham (moderate, forthcoming)
Bruce
Carson.
Keener (advanced)
Kostenberger
Morris.
Ridderbos (moderate)

Robinson, J. The Priority of John

Acts

Bock
Bruce (both commentaries)
Gasque (forthcoming)
Keener (forthcoming)
Porter (forthcoming)
Witherington (advanced)

Alexander, L. Acts
Porter, Paul in Acts

Romans

Barnett
Cranfield (Barthian, advanced)
Fitzmyer (Roman Catholic)
Longenecker (NPP, forthcoming)
Murray (Reformed, postmil)
Porter (forthcoming)
Schreiner (Reformed, premil)
Piper, The Justification of God (Rom 9)

1 Corinthians

Blomberg
Ellis (forthcoming)
Fee (Charismatic)
Garland
Keener
Thiselton (advanced)

2 Corinthians

Barnett
Garland
Harris (technical)
Seifrid (forthcoming)

Galatians

Bruce
Carson (forthcoming)
Longenecker (NPP)
Ryken (popular, Reformed)
Silva (forthcoming)
Vine
Wright (NPP, forthcoming)

Ephesians

Bruce
Hoehner (advanced)
O'Brien

Philippians

Bockmuehl
Bruce
Fee
O'Brien
Silva (2nd ed.)

Colossians

Beale
Fitzmyer (Philemon)
Garland
Moo (forthcoming)
O'Brien
Wilson (learned, liberal)
Wright

Thessalonians

Beale
Bruce (moderate)
Vine (premil)

Pastorals

Johnson (Catholic)
Knight
Liefeld
Mounce
Quinn (Catholic)
Towner (moderate, advanced)
Yarbrough (forthcoming)

Hebrews

Bruce
Carson (forthcoming)
DeSilva (strong on background)
Ellingworth (advanced)
Lane. (Arminian)
O’Brien (forthcoming)
Witherington (uneven)

James

Davids (Anabaptist)
Moo
Witherington (uneven)

1 Peter

Clowney (popular)
Davids (Anabaptist)
Grudem
Jobes
Marshall (popular—with scholarly touch)
Schreiner (Reformed Baptist)

2 Peter &/or Jude

Bauckham (liberal, learned)
Davids (moderate)
Green (forthcoming)
Moo
Schreiner (Reformed Baptist)
Witherington (uneven)

1-3 John

Bruce
Carson (forthcoming)
Kruse
Marshall (Arminian)
Yarbrough (forthcoming

Revelation

Aune (liberal, technical)
Beale (amil, technical)
Caird (liberal, learned)
Carson (forthcoming)
Keener (popular—with scholarly touch)
Michaels (moderate, popular)
Poythress (amil, popular)
Smalley (moderate)
Thompson (liberal, brief but scholarly)
Witherington (semi-popular, premil, erudite)

*New Testament Commentary series by W. Hendriksen and S. Kistemaker). A very readable series in the Dutch-Reformed tradition. Nothing unpredictable, but sound and sober-minded.

Apocrypha/Pseudepigrapha

Tobit

Fitzmyer

Wisdom of Solomon

Winston

Daniel/Esther/Jeremiah

Carey

XVI. Reference Works

Augustine Through the Ages
Baker Theological Dictionary of the Bible
Blackwell Dictionary of Eastern Christianity
Biographical Dictionary of Evangelicals
Blackwell Companions to Philosophy
Blackwell Dictionary of Evangelical Biography
Blackwell Encyclopedia of Modern Christian Thought
Calvin's Commentaries
Cambridge Companions (series)
Concise Dictionary of Christian Theology (M. Erickson)
Dictionary of Biblical Imagery
Dictionary of Biblical Interpretation
Dictionary of Biblical Tradition in English Literature
Dictionary of Christian Biography
Dictionary of Evangelical Biography
Dictionary of Judaism in the Biblical Period
Dictionary of New Testament Background
Dictionary of Scottish Church History and Theology
Dictionary of the Ancient Near East
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch
Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books

Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism
Encyclopedia of Archaeology of Ancient Egypt
Encyclopedia of Christianity
Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects & New Religions
Encyclopedia of Early Christianity
Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy & Religion
Encyclopedia of Evangelicalism
Encyclopedia of Postmodernism
Encyclopedia of Religion
Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Encyclopedia of the Enlightenment
Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages
Encyclopedia of Protestantism
Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith
Encyclopedia of the Renaissance
Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire
Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology
Evangelical Dictionary of Theology
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament
Handbook of Metaphysics & Ontology
Historical Dictionary of the Orthodox Church
Illustrated Bible Dictionary
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament
IVP New Testament Dictionary Set
New Bible Dictionary
New Catholic Encyclopedia
New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
New Dictionary of Theology
New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology
New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis
Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium
Oxford Dictionary of Popes
Oxford Dictionary of World Religions
Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church
Oxford Companion to Christian Thought
Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt
Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (C. Evans)
Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy
The Papacy: an encyclopedia
Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible

XVII. Devotional reading

Richard Baxter
John Bunyan
William Cowper
Martin Lloyd-Jones
Abraham Kuyper
J.I. Packer
John Piper
Christian Rossetti
Samuel Rutherford
John Ryle
Richard Sibbes
Spurgeon

Read any good books, lately?-2

X. Countercultism

_Armstrong, J., ed. Roman Catholicism (Moody 1994). Best general post-Vatican II critique.
_ Baker, D., ed. Biblical Faith & Other Religions (Kregel 2004).
_Beckwith, F.(ed.), See the Gods Fall (College Press 1997). Best general contemporary treatment.
_____, The New Mormon Challenge (Zondervan 2002).
_Beckwith, R. Elders in Every City: The Origin & Role of the Ordained Ministry (2003).
_Berkouwer, G. The Conflict with Rome (Baker 1958). Erudite critique from pre-Vatican II perspective.
_Berlinski, D. The Secrets of the Vaulted Sky: Astrology and the Art of Prediction (Harcourt 2003)
_Blomberg, C. How Wide the Divide? (IVP 1997). Tends to shade the differences, but Blomberg's material is useful.
_Bowman, R. Jehovah's Witnesses (Zondervan 1995)
_Brown, R. et al eds. Mary in the New Testament (Fortress 1978).
_Caird, G. Our Dialogue With Rome (Oxford, 1967). Erudite critique by NT scholar and Congregationalist.
_Caner, E. Unveiling Islam (Kregel 2002).
_ Carter, S. & D. Groothuis, eds. Dictionary of Contemporary Religion in the Western World (IVP 2002).
_Chaudhuri, N. Hinduism: A Religion to Live By (London 1979). By an erudite Indian secularist.
_Corduan, W. A Tapestry of Faiths: Common Threads Among the World’s Religions (IVP 2002). Evangelical. Good coverage.
_____, Neighboring Faiths (IVP 1998).
_Cunningham, W. Discussions on Church Principles (Still Waters, 1991). Useful critique of Romanism.
_Edwards, P. Reincarnation (Prometheus1996).
_Fairbairn, D. Eastern Orthodoxy Through Western Eyes (2002).
_Fregosi, P. Jihad in the West (Prometheus 1998). Secularist.
_Gabriel, M. Islam & Terrorism (Charisma House 2002)
_____, Islam & the Jews (Charisma House 2003)
_Garrett, D. Angels and the New Spirituality (B&H 1995)
_Hoekema, H. The Four Major Cults (Eerdmans 1963). Reformed.
_Kenny, A. A Path From Rome (Oxford, 1985). By an ex-priest and philosopher.
_Kidd, B. The Roman Primacy to AD 461 (SPCK, 1936). Historical exposé.
_Lampe, P. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Fortress 2003).
_Larson, S. Quest for the Golden Plates (Freethinker Press 1996). Exposé of Mormon archeology.
_Leeming, G. (ed.). Towards Christian Unity (Oxford, 1967). Good essays by Packer and Caird.
_ Letham, R. Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective (2007).
_Lewis, B. The Crisis of Islam (Random House 2003).
_Lloyd-Jones, M. The Basis of Christian Unity (IVP 1962). Broadside against ecumenism.
_Margoliouth, D. The Early Development of Mohammedanism (AMS 1979). Witty and erudite exposé of Islam.
_Metzger, B. "The Jehovah's Witnesses and Jesus Christ," Theology Today (1953), 10:65-85.
_ Miller, E. & K. Samples, The Cult of the Virgin Mary: Catholic Mariology and the Apparitions of Mary (Baker 1992).
_Mozley, J. The Theory of Development (New York, 1879).
_Nazir-Ali, M. Islam: a Christian Perspective (Westminster, 1983). Written by a Pakistani Christian and Anglican bishop.
_Netland, H. Encountering Religious Pluralism: The Challenge to Christian Faith & Mission (IVP 2001).
_North, G., Unholy Spirits (Dominion Press 1986). Exposé of the occult. A tad gullible. North is a brilliant but erratic writer.
_Preus, R., Justification & Rome (CAP 1997). Traditional Lutheran.
_Rahner, K. Visions and Prophecies (Herder & Herder 1963). Catholic.
_ Ross, H. et al. Lights in the Sky & Little Green Men (NavPress 2002).
_Schatz, K. Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present (M/G 1996).
_Spencer, R., Islam Unveiled (Encounter Books 2002).
_____, Onward Muslim Soldiers (Regenary 2003).
_Stamoolis, J. ed. Three Views On Eastern Orthodoxy (2004).
_Svendsen, E. Evangelical Answers (Reformation Press 1999).
_____, Who is My Mother (Calvary Press 2001).
_Trifkovic, S. The Sword of the Prophet (BHB Int. 2002).
_Von Döllinger, I., The Pope and the Council (Boston, 1870)
_Vos, J. A Christian Introduction to Religions of the World (Baker 1965). Dutch-Reformed.
_Ware, T. The Orthodox Church (1997).
_Warraq, I. Why I am not a Muslim (Prometheus 1995). Secularist.
_Watt, W. The Faith and Practice of Al-Ghazali (Allen & Unwin, 1967). Spiritual autobiography of Islam's leading thinker. Recounts his crisis of faith.
_Whitaker, W., A Disputation on Holy Scripture (Still Waters, n.d.).
_Wills, G. Papal Sin: Structures of Deceit (Doubleday 2000).
_Ye'or, B. Islam & Dhimmitude (Fairleigh Dickinson U 2001)

XI. Epistemology 101

_Alston, W. A Realist Conception of Truth (Cornell 1997). Important and astute defense of alethic realism.
_____, Beyond Justification (Cornell 2005). Tries to recast the terms of the debate.
_____, Divine Nature & Human Language (Cornell 1989), Useful, but suffers from some libertarian concessions.
_____, Perceiving God (Cornell 1993). Astute defense of argument from experience.
_____, Realism & Antirealism (Cornell 2003)
_____, The Reliability of Sense Perception (Cornell 1996)
_Frame, J. Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (P&R 1987). A reconstruction of religious epistemology in light of Scripture. A groundbreaking work.
_Helm, P. Faith & Understanding (Eerdmans 1997). An exploration of the Anslemian epistemic tradition.
_____, Faith with Reason (Oxford 2000). On faith and assurance.
_____, Objective Knowledge (IVP 1989). Critique of post-modernism, relativism.
_____, Varieties of Belief (Allen & Uwin 1973). Comparative historical Christian epistemology.
_Marechal, J. Studies in the Psychology of the Mystics (Benziger Brothers 1927). Transcendental Thomism.
_Mavrodes,G. Belief in God (Random House, 1970). Shifted debate from abstract arguments to the real reasons people believe.
_____, Revelation In Religious Belief (Temple U 1988)
_Meek, E., Longing to Know: The Philosophy of Knowledge for Ordinary People (Brazos Press, 2003). Influenced by Michael Polanyi.
_Pike, N. Mystic Union (Cornell 1992)
_Plantinga, A. Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford 2000). His magnum opus on "Reformed Epistemology."
_Polyanyi, M. Personal Knowledge (Chicago 1958).
_____, The Tacit Dimension (Routledge 1967). Updated version of Newman's illative sense.
_Wolsterstorff, N. Divine Discourse (Cambridge 1995). Critique of post-modernism.
_____, Thomas Reid & the Story of Epistemology (Cambridge 2000)
_Young, W. Foundations of Theory (Craig Press 1967).

XII. Bible 101

1. Canonics

_Beckwith, R. The Old Testament Canon of the New Testament Church (Eerdmans 1986). The standard-bearer.
_Bruce, F. The Canon of Scripture (IVP 1988)
_Desilva, D. Introducingn the Apocrypha (2004).
_Ellis, E. The Making of the New Testament Documents (Leiden: Brill 1999).
_____, The Old Testament in Early Christianity: Canon and Interpretation in Light of Modern Research (Baker 1992).
_Gamble, H. Books & Readers in the Early Church (Yale 1995).
_Hengel, M. The Septuagint as Christian Scripture (2002).
_Jobes, K & M. Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint (2005).
_Metzger, B. An Introduction to the Apocrypha (1977).
_____, The Canon of the New Testament (Oxford 1987)
_Roberts, J. & Du Toit, A. Gude to the New Testament, Vol. I (Pretoria, 1989).
_Sailhamer, J. Introduction to Old Testament Theology: A Canonical Approach (Zondervan 1995).
_Trobisch, D. Paul’s Letter Collection (QWP 2001).
_____, The First Edition of the New Testament (Oxford 2000).

2. Hermeneutics

_Beale, G. & D. A. Carson, eds. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (2007).
_Carson, D. Exegetical Fallacies (Baker 1996)
_Fee, G. & Stuart D. How to Read the Bible for All It's Worth (Zondervan 1993)
_Longman, T. Making Sense of the Old Testament (Baker 1999)
_____, Reading the Bible with Heart & Mind (NavPress 1997)
_Poythress, V. God-Centered Biblical Interpretation (Zondervan 1999)
_Pratt, R. He Gave Them Stories (Wolgemuth 1990)
_Schreiner, T. Interpreting the Pauline Epistles (Baker 1990)
_Stein, R. A Basic Guide to Interpreting the Bible (Baker 1997).
_Thiselton, A. Interpreting God & the Postmodern Self (Eerdmans 1995).
_VanGemeren, W. The Progress of Redemption (Academic Books 1988).
_Vanhoozer, K. ed. Dictionary of Theological Interpretation of the Bible (Baker 2005).
_____, Is There a Meaning in This Text? (Zondervan 1998).

3. Veracity

_ Aalders, G. The Problem of the Book of Jonah (Tyndale 1948).
_Alexander, T. From Paradise to the Promised Land (Baker 2002). Emphasis on thematic unity of the Pentateuch.
_Allis, O. The Old Testament (P&R, 1972). His magnum opus.
_Archer,G. (Moody 1994). A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Strong on inerrancy, weak on creation.
_____, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Zondervan 1982). Archer is a great scholar. Useful material. Rather wooden grasp of harmonization. Blomberg is more nuanced.
_Barnett, P. Is the New Testament Reliable? (IVP 1986). Anglican scholar and Classicist.
_____. The Birth of Christianity: The First Twenty Years (Eerdmans 2005).
_Bauckham, R. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans 2006).
_____, The Testimony of the Beloved Disciple (2007).
_Blomberg, C. The Historical Reliability of John's Gospel (IVP 2001)
_____, The Historical Reliability of the Gospels (2007).
_ Bruce, F. F., The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (1984).
_ Carson, D. A. & D. Moo, An Introduction of the New Testament (Zondervan 2005).
_ Casey, M. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew & Luke (Cambridge 2002).
_____, Aramaic Sources of Mark’s Gospel (Cambridge 1998).
_Comfort, P. (ed.). The Origin of the Bible (Tyndale 1992). Excellent collection of essays.
_Currid, J. Ancient Egypt & the Old Testament (Baker, 2001).
_ Garrett, D. Rethinking Genesis: The Sources & Authorship of the First Book of the Pentateuch (Mentor 2000).
_Guthrie, D. Introduction to the New Testament (IVP 1990). Standard conservative introduction. Detailed.
_Harris, R. Inspiration and Canonicity of the Scriptures (A Press, 1995). Interesting analysis of prophetic office.
_Helm,P. The Divine Revelation (Crossway Books 1982). Philosophical defense of Scripture. Only weakness is the plausible, but specious assumption that evidentiary arguments must cut both ways.
_Hemer, C. The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History (Eisenbrauns 1990). Erudite.
_Hengel, M. The Four Gospels & the One Gospel of Jesus Christ (SCM 2000). Moderate. Useful material.
_Hess, R. Israelite Religions (2007).
_Hoffmeier, J. Israel in Egypt (Oxford 1996).
_____, Ancient Israel In Sinai (Oxford 2005).
_Hoffmeier, J. & A. Millard, eds. The Future of Biblical Archaeology (Eerdmans 2004).
_Hurtado, L. The Earliest Christian Artifacts (2006).
_Kaiser, W. & D. Garrett, eds. Archaeological Study Bible (Zondervan 2006).
_Kim. S. The Origin of Paul's Gospel (Coronet 1984).
_Kitchen, K. On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 2003). Moderate. Useful material.
_ Köstenberger, A. Encountering John (Baker 2003).
_Lightfoot, J. Biblical Essays (Baker, 1979). Definitive Victorian essays in defense of Scripture.
_Linnemann, E. Historical Criticism of the Bible (Baker 1990). Convert from liberal to Evangelical faith.
_Long, V. et al., eds. Windows into Old Testament History (Eerdmans 2002).
_Long, V. The Art of Biblical History (Zondervan 1994).
_Marshall, I. Luke: Historian & Theologian (Zondervan 1989).
_Mauck, J. Paul on Trial (Nelson 2001)
_Metzger, B. The Text of the New Testament (Oxford 1992). The standard work.
_____, “Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Religions and Christianity,” Historical & Literary Studies: Pagan, Jewish, & Christian (Eerdmans 1968), 1-24.
_____, The New Testament: Its Background, Growth, and Content (Abingdon 1983).
_Millard, A. Reading & Writing in the Time of Jesus (NYU 2000).
_____, “Zechariah Wrote (Luke 1:63),” The New Testament in Its First Century Setting, P. Williams et al., eds., 47-55.
_Mitchell, T. The hbible in the British Museum: Interpreting the Evidence (2004).
_Neuer/Yarbrough, Adolf Schlatter (Baker 1995).
_Provan, I. et al., eds. A Biblical History of Israel (WJK 2003).
_Robinson, J. Redating the New Testament (SCM, 1976).
_____. The Priority of John (Meyer-Stone Books 1987).
_Stonehouse, N. Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (Baker, 1979)
_Tov, E. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (Fortress 1992)
_Walton, J. Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament (Baker 2006).
_Wegner, P. The Journey from Texts to Translations (Baker 2001)
_Wenham, J. Christ & the Bible (IVP 1973)
_Winter, B. (ed.). The Book of Acts in its First Century Setting (Eerdmans/Paternoster 1993-96)
_Wiseman, J. & E. Yamauchi, Archaeology & the Bible (1979).
_Yamauchi, E. Africa & the Bible (Baker 2000)
_____, Jesus, Zoroaster, Buddha, Socrates, Mohammad (IVP 1972).
_____, Persia & the Bible (Baker 1990)
_Young, E. Thy Word is Truth (Eerdmans, 1981)
_Zahn, T. Introduction to the New Testament (Kregel 1953). Moderate-to-conservative by the most erudite 19C NT scholar of his generation.

XIII. Ethics 101

_Adams, R. Finite & Infinite Goods: A Framework for Ethics (Oxford,1999). Philosophical theology.
_Ames, W. Conscience (Still Waters, n.d.). Classic of Reformed casuistry.
_Bahnsen, G. Homosexuality: A Biblical View (Baker 1979). Theonomic.
_Baxter, R. A Christian Directory (Soli Deo Gloria, 1990). Concerned with cases of conscience.
_Chamblin, J. Paul & the Self (Wipf & Stock 2002). Reformed.
_Davis, J. Evangelical Ethics (2004).
_Feinberg, P. & J. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (1993).
_Fox, F. & D. Virtue, Homosexuality (Emmaus Ministries 2002). Evangelical Anglican. Goes into the gory details of the so-called homosexual "lifestyle."
_Frame, J. Medical Ethics (P&R, 1988). Best work in the field.
_____, Perspectives on the Word of God (P&R, 1990). Metaethics.
_Gagnon, R. The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Nashville 2001). Definitive.
_Geach, P. The Virtues (Cambridge 1977). Thomistic.
_Harrison, R. Encyclopedia of Biblical Ethics (Testament 2003)
_Henry, C., Wycliffe Dictionary of Christian Ethics (Hendrickson 2000).
_Hoekema, A. The Christian Looks at Himself (Eerdmans 1975)
_Hughes, P. Christian Ethics in Secular Society (Baker, 1983). Evangelical Anglican.
_Johnson, P. Intellectuals (Harper & Row 1988). Exposé of unbelievers.
_Jones, E. Degenerate Moderns (Ignatius 1993). Excellent expose except for the hatchet-job on Luther.
_Jones, S. & Yarhouse, M. Homosexuality: The Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate (IVP 2000)
_Kaiser, W. Toward Old Testament Ethics (Academie 1983)
_Lovelace, R. Homosexuality: How Should Christians Respond? (Wipf & Stock 2002).
_Murray, J. Principles of Conduct (Eerdmans 1957). Focus on creation-mandates.
_Packer, J. A Passion for Holiness (IVP 1992). Focus on Puritan ethics.
_Prigg,D. Getting It Straight
_Rushdoony, R. Politics of Guilty & Pity (Thornburn 1978)
_Schmidt, T. Straight & Narrow? (IVP 1995)
_Sears, A. & Craig Ostenm C. The Homosexual Agenda (Broadman 2003).
_Waltke, B. Finding the Will of God (Eerdmans 2002). Iconoclastic.
_Wold, D. Out of Order: Homosexuality in the Bible and the Ancient Near East (Baker 1998).
_Wolfe, C. (ed.). Homosexuality & American Public Life (Spence 1999).

XIV. Occult/Paranormal

_Amoroth, G. An Exorcist Tells his Story (1999). Catholic
_____, An Exorcist: More Stories (2002).
_Beekman, S. Enticed by the Light (1997).
_Braude, S. The Limits of Influence (1986). Secular.
_____, ESP & Psychokinesis (2002).
_____, Immortal Remains (2003).
_____, The Golden Leaf Lady (2007).
_Decker, R. & Michael Dummett, A History of the Occult Tarot (2002).
_Findlay, A. Demons: The Devil, Possession and Exorcism.
_Fontana, D. Is There An Afterlife (2007). Pluralistic.
_Gauld, A. Mediumship & Survival (1982).
_ Goodman, F. How About Demons? (1988).
_ Houran, J. & R. Lange, eds. Hauntings and Poltergeists: Multidisciplinary Perspectives (2001).
_Koch, K. Christian Counseling & Occultism (1972). Evangelical.
_____, Demonology: Past & Present (1973)
_____, Occult ABC (1986).
_____, Occult Bondage & Deliverance (2006).
_ Kselman, T. Miracles & Prophecies in Nineteenth-Century France (1983).
_Lane, A. ed. The Unseen World: Christian Reflections on Angels, Demons and the Heavenly Realm.
_Lloyd-Jones, M. Healing & the Scriptures (1988). Evangelical.
_ Lester, D. Is there Life After Death? (2005).
_Martin, M. Hostage to the Devil (1992). Catholic.
_McAll, K. A Guide to Healing the Family Tree. Evangelical.
_____, Healing the Family Tree.
_Montgomery, J. ed. Demon Possession: Papers Presented at the University of Notre Dame (1975). Evangelical.
_Montefiore, H. The Paranormal: A Bishop Investigates (2002).
_ Paterson, R. Philosophy and the Belief in a Life After Death (1995).
_Peck, M. Scott. Glimpses of the Devil (2005). Protestant.
_Radin, D. Entangled Minds (2006). Secular.
_Richards, J. But Deliver us from Evil (1974).
_ Sabom, M. Light & Death (1998). Analysis of NDEs from a Christian scientist.
_ Stoeber, M. & H. Meynell, eds. Critical Reflections on the Paranormal (1996).
_ Storm, L. & M. Thalbourne, eds. The Survival of Human Consciousness: Essays on the Possibilities of Life After Death. (2006).
_Twelftree, G. In the Name of Jesus: Exorcism Among Early Christians (2007). Moderate evangelical. Heavy on redaction criticism.
_Unger, M. Beyond the Crystal Ball (1974). Evangelical.
_____, The Haunting of Bishop Pike: A Christian View of the Other Side (1971).

XV. Church History

1. Primary Sources:

_Philo, Therapeutae
_Josephus, Jewish War
_____, Antiquities of the Jews
_Luke, Book of Acts
_Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
_Isidore, Chronica Majora
_Jerome, On Illustrious Men
_Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People
_Pilgrimage of Etheria
_Socrates, The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates
_Sozomenus, The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen
_The Bordeaux Pilgrim
_Anna Comnena, The Alexiad
_Theodoret, The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret
_Michael Psellus, Chronographia
_John Zonarus, Epitome of History
_Beza, Life of Calvin
_Knox, Reformation of the Scottish Church
_William Bradford , Old Plymouth Plantation (1620-1647)
_Cotton Mather, Magnalia Christi Americana
_John Witherspoon (Works)

2. Secondary sources:

_Aland, K. A History of Christianity (Fortress 1986)
_Berkouwer, G. A Half Century of Theology (Eerdmans 1977)
_Bratt, J. Dutch Calvinism in Modern America (Eerdmans 1984)
_Brown, C. Christianity & Western Thought (IVP 1990)
_Bruce, F. New Testament History (Doubleday 1980)
_____, The Spreading Flame (Eerdmans 1995)
_Cairns, E. Christianity Through the Centuries, (Zondervan, 1996).
_Cameron, N. Biblical Higher Criticism and the Defense of Infallibilism in Nineteenth Century Britain (Lewiston, 1987).
_Chadwick, H. The Church in Ancient Society (Oxford 2001)
_Chadwick, W. The Victorian Church (London 1966-70).
_Cunningham, W. The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation (Banner of Truth 1967).
_Ferguson, E. Backgrounds of Early Christianity (Eerdmans 2003)
_Gonzalez, J. The Story of Christianity: The Early Church to the Present Day (Hendricksen , 2001).
_Himmelfarb, G. The Demoralization of Society (Knopf, 1995).
_Hughes, P. Theology of the English Reformers (Eerdmans 1965).
_Kelly, J. Early Christian Creeds (Longman 1989)
_____, Early Christian Doctrines (A. C. Black 1977)
_Kroner, R. Speculation & Revelation in the Age of Christian Philosophy (Westminster 1959)
_____, Speculation & Revelation in Modern Philosophy (Westminster 1961)
_Landow, G. Victorian Types, Victorian Shadows (RKP 1980).
_Latourette, K A History of Christianity (Prince Press 2000).
_____, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age (Longdon 1959-63)
_Marsden, G. Fundamentalism & American Culture (Oxford 1993)
_____, Reforming Fundamentalism (Eerdmans 1987)
_____, The Soul of the American University (Oxford 1996)
_Murray, I., Evangelicalism Divided (Banner of Truth 2000).
_Noll, M. The Old Religion in a New World (Eerdmans 2001)
_____, The Rise of Evangelicalism (IVP 2004-)
_____, America's God: From Jonathan Edwards to Abraham Lincoln (Oxford 2002)
_____, American Evangelical Christianity (Blackwell 2000).
_Schaff, P. History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans,1979).
_Sell, A. Defending and Declaring the Faith: Some Scottish Examples (1860-1920),(Exeter, 1987).
_____. Dissenting Thought and the Life of the Church (Mellen, 1991).
_Sheldon, H. History of the Christian Church, (Hendrickson 1996).
_Shelley, B. Church History in Plain Language. (Word, 1995). Topical rather than chronological.
_Schlossberg, H. The Silent Revolution & the Making of Victorian England (Ohio, 2000).
_Toon, P. Evangelical Theology, 1833-1856: A Response to Tracterianism (Knox, 1979).
_Torrance, T. Scottish Theology: From John Knox to John McLeon Campbell (T&T Clark, 1996).
_Verduin, L. The Anatomy of a Hybrid: A Study in Church-State Relationships (Eerdmans 1976).
_Wells, D. Reformed Theology in America (Eerdmans 1985)
_White, H. Southern Presbyterian Leaders 1683–1911 (Banner of Truth 2000).
_Wiles, M. & M. Santer, Documents in Early Christian Thought (Cambridge 1979)
_Yamauchi, E. Pre-Christian Gnosticism (Baker 1983)

Read any good books, lately?-1

Half the time spent on study lies in finding out who's worth reading, and the other half in reading him. This reading list consists of a number of entry-level works, along with some intermediate and advanced works. Most selections fall within the Reformed or Evangelical ambit. I'd like to thank John Frame, Randy Broberg, and Daniel Wright for some helpful input.

I. Periodicals
Banner of Truth
Bibliotheca Sacra
Books & Culture
Bulletin for Biblical Research
Calvin Theological Journal
Chalcedon Report
Christian Renewal
Christian Scholar's Review
Christianity Today
Churchman
Credenda Agenda
Crux
Evangelical Quarterly
Faith & Philosophy
First Things
Founders Journal
International Journal for Philosophy of Religion
Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Mid-America Journal of Theology
Modern Reformation
New Horizons
New Southern Presbyterian Review
Philosophia Christi
Presbyterian Reformed Magazine
Presbyterion
Protestant Reformed Theological Journal
Southern Baptist Journal of Theology
Themelios
Trinity Journal
Tyndale Bulletin
Westminster Theological Journal
World Magazine

II. Worldview 101

_Jordan, J. Through New Eyes (Wolgemuth, 1988). Quirky and iconoclastic.
_Kuyper, A. Lectures on Calvinism (Eerdmans 1983). Seminal, programmatic.
_Nash, R. The Meaning of History (Broadman 1999). Popular.
_____, Worldviews in Conflict (Zondervan 1992). Popular.
_Rea, M. World Without Design (Clarendon 2002). Exposition and exposé of naturalism.
_Schilder, K., Christ and Culture (Winnipeg: Premier, 1977).
_Schlossberg, H., Idols for Destruction (Regnery, 1990)
_Seerveld, C., A Christian Critique of Art and Literature (Toronto: AACS, 1964)
_Van Til, H. The Calvinistic Concept of Culture (Baker, 1959
_Young, W. Toward a Reformed Philosophy (Piet Hein 1952). Kuperian.

III. Philosophy of Religion

_Davies, B. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford 2004).
_Lewis, H. Philosophy of Religion (London 1969). Popular. Excellent breadth.
_Quinn, P & Taliaferro, C. Companion to the Philosophy of Religion (Oxford 1997)
_Stump E. & Murray, M. Philosophy of Religion: The Big Questions (Oxford 1999).
_Taliaferro, C. Contemporary Philosophy of Religion (Oxford 1998)

IV. God 101

_Frame, J. Doctrine of God (P&R 2002). Best work of its kind. Supersedes Bavinck. Philosophical and exegetical. I demur from his model of divine immanence (in relation to time and space).
_Helm, P. Eternal God (Oxford 1988). Collection of occasional pieces defending God's timeless eternality. Needs updating.
_Leftow, Divine Ideas (Cornell, forthcoming)
_____, Divine Simplicity (Cornell, forthcoming)
_Miller, B. A Most Unlikely God (Notre Dame 1996). Defense of divine simplicity.
_Morris, T. Our Idea of God (IVP 1991). Good orientation to philosophical theology. More speculative than Scriptural.
_Richards, J. The Untamed God (IVP 2003). Better at asking questions than answering them.
_Rogers, K. Perfect Being Theology (Edinburgh 2000). Good introduction to this tradition. Shares its strong and weak points.
_Ware, B. God's Lesser Glory (Crossway 2000). Critique of open theism.
_Wierenga, E. The Nature of God (Cornell 1989). Study of classical theism. Philosophical theology.
_Warfield, B. "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity," Works, vol 2.
_Young, E. The Way Everlasting. Study of Ps 139 (Banner of Truth 1997).

V. Theology 101

_Adams, R. The Virtue of Faith (Oxford 1987).
_Barth, K. Protestant Theology in the Nineteeth Century (London 1972). Barth is a 20C liberal critic of 19C liberal theology.
_____, Protestant Thought: From Rosseau to Ritschl (Harper & Row, 1959)
_____, The Theology of John Calvin (Eerdmans, 1995). Fine exposition.
_Bavinck, H. Reformed Dogmatics (in process of translation). Strong on historical theology, weak on exegetical theology.
_Calvin, J. Institutes (Westminster 1977). By turns pastoral, polemical, and systematic.
_Cooper, J. Body, Soul & Life Everlasting (Eerdmans 2000). Standard defense of mind/body dualism
_Cunningham, W. Historical Theology (Banner of Truth 1969). Uses historical theology to do polemical theology. A very exacting thinker.
_Edwards. J. The Works of Jonathan Edwards (Banner of Truth 1984). Edwards was a very versatile theologian.
_____, Treatise on the Trinity (Clarke & Co., 1971), P. Helm, ed.
_Elliot, M. The Surviors of Israel (Eerdmans 2000). Learned critique of the new perspective on Paul.
_Engle, P. ed. Understanding Four Views on Baptism (2007).
_Ferguson, S. John Owen on the Christian Life (Banner of Truth 1987). Introduction to Owen's prolific opus.
_Helm, P. John Calvin's Ideas (Oxford 2004)
_____, The Providence of God (IVP 1994)). Reformed. Strong on philosophical theology, weak on exegetical theology. Good complement to Warfield.
_Hoeksema, H. Reformed Dogmatics (RFPC 1985)). A bit reactionary, but a useful counterbalance.
_Miller, B. The Fulness of Being (Notre Dame 2002).
_Muller, R. Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics. Definitive exposition, but weaker on analytical side than Cunningham.
_Murray, J. Collected Writings of John Murray (Banner of Truth 1973-82). Murray's main contribution was to put Reformed theology on a firmer exegetical footing. Generally successful although Murray is prey to occasional word-study fallacies.
_Nicole, R. Standing Forth (Christian Focus, 2002). Essays by an extremely erudite Reformed Baptist theologian.
_Owen, J. The Works of John Owen (Banner of Trust), Greatest Puritan theologian and English theologian. Discursive style, Latinate prose.
_Packer, J. Concise Theology (Tyndale 1993). Reformed Anglican. Best brief intro to Christian theology.
_Rainbow, J. The Will of God & the Cross (Pickwick 1990). Defense of Calvin on special redemption.
_Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology (Eerdmans 1992). Standard exposition. Useful, but resorts too often to the already/not yet as a disguised description masquerading as a genuine explanation.
_Schreiner, T. New Testament Theology (2008). Reformed Baptist.
_Turretin, F. Institutes (P&R 1992-97). Exceptionally thorough defense of Reformed theology.
_Vallicella, W. A Paradigm Theory of Existence: Onto-Theology Vindicated (Kluwer 2002). Philosophical theology & metaphysics.
_Vos, G. Biblical Theology (Eerdmans 1959)). Seminal work in redemptive-historical theology.
_____, Redemptive History & Biblical Interpretation (P&R 1980). Essays & reviews.
_____, The Eschatology of the Old Testament (P&R 2001).
_Waltke, B. An Old Testament Theology (2007). Reformed. Touches of liberalism.
_Warfield, B. The Works of Benjamin Warfield (Baker, 2003). Warfield was a man of very versatile brilliance and erudition. His Persian flaw was theistic evolution.

VI. Salvation 101

_Beilby, J. & P. Eddy, eds. The Nature of the Atonement (2006).
_Berkouwer, G. Studies in Dogmatics: Faith & Justification (Eerdmans 1954).
_Coppes, L. Are Five Points Enough? (REF 1980) Reformed, Presbyterian. Breaks out of the 5-point cliché to offer a more well-rounded definition and exposition.
_Engelsma,D. Hyper-Calvinism & the Call of the Gospel (RFPA 1994)
_Frame, J. "Introduction to the Reformed Faith" (Thirdmill.org).
_Helm, P. Calvin & the Calvinists (Banner 1982)
_____, The Beginnings (Banner 1986)
_____, The Callings (Banner 1987)
_____, The Last Things (Banner 1989)
_Hoekema, H. Saved by Grace (Eerdmans/Paternoster 1989)
_Jeffery, S. et al. Pierced for Our Transgressions (2007)
_Jewett, R. Election and Predestination (Eerdmans 1985) .
_Murray, J. Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Eerdmans 1955)
_Nicole, R. Our Sovereign Saviour (Christian Focus 2002)
_Peterson A. & R. Williams, Why I am not an Arminian (IVP 2004)
_Piper, J. Counted Righteous in Christ (Crossway Book 2002).
_____, Let the Nations be Glad (Baker 1993).
_____, The Future of Justification (2007). A critique of N. T. Wrights new perspective on Paul.
_Schreiner, T. Paul: Apostle of God's Glory in Christ (IVP 2001)
_____, Still Sovereign (Baker 2000)
_Warfield, B. The Plan of Salvation (Eerdmans 1984)

VII. Jesus 101

1. Christology

_Berkouwer, G. The Work of Christ (Eerdmans 1965). Berkouwer began as a Calvinist, but took a hard left somewhere along the line. He is, as such, a very uneven author.
Bowman, R. & J. Komoszewski, Putting Jesus in His Place (2007).
_Bruce, F. Jesus: Lord & Savior (IVP 1986).
_Fee, G. Pauline Christology (Henrickson 2007).
_Harris, M. Jesus as God (Baker, 1992). Standard treatment.
_____, Three Crucial Questions About Jesus (Baker 1994)
_Hurtado, L. At the Origins of Christian Worship (Eerdmans 2000)
_____, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Eerdmans, 2003).
_Machen, J. The Virgin Birth of Christ (Baker 1977). Definitive.
_Morris, L. Jesus is the Christ (Eerdmans/IVP 1989)
_Reymond, R. Jesus, Divine Messiah (P&R 1990)
_Vos, G. The Self-Disclosure of Jesus (Eerdmans 1954). Less breadth, more depth, than Warfield.
_Warfield, B. The Lord of Glory (Guardian Press 1907). Definitive overview.
_____, "Christology & Criticism," Works, vol. 3.

2. Messianic Judaism

_Alexander, T. The Servant King (Regent College 2003).
_Brown, M. Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus (Baker 2000-). By a Messianic Jew.
_Clowney, E. The Unfolding Mystery (NavPress 1988). Popular.
_Evans, C & D. Hagner. Anti-Semitism & the Early Church (Fortress 1993).
_France, R. Jesus & the Old Testament (Tyndale, 1971). Standard work on typology.
_Goldberg, L. (ed.), How Jewish is Christianity? (Zondervan 2003)
_Hagner, D. Jewish Reclamation of Jesus (Academie Books 1984)
_Hess, R. et al., eds. Israel's Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Baker, 2003).
_Hurtado, L. One God, One Lord (Fortress 1998)
_Kaiser, W. The Messiah in the Old Testament (Zondervan 1995). Useful for prooftexting.
_Longman/Grove. Immanuel in our Place (P&R 2001)
_Motyer, J. "Messiah," The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 2:987-95. Better methodology than Kaiser. Thematic progression.
_Poythress, V. The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses (Wolgemuth 1991). Klinean and theonomic by turns.
_Robertson, O. The Christ of the Prophets (P&R 2004).
_Sailhammer, J. The Pentateuch as Narrative (Zondervan 1992). Thematic progression.
_Satterthwaite, P. et al., eds. The Lord's Anointed: Interpretation of Old Testament Messianic Texts (Baker & Paternoster, 1995).
_Snow, E. A Zeal for God (iUnivese, Inc. 2005).

3. Quest for the Historical Christ

_Barnett, P. Jesus and the Logic of History (Eerdmans 1997)
_____, Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity (IVP 1999).
__Bauckham, R. Jesus and the Eyewitnesses (Eerdmans 2006).
_Blomberg, C. Jesus and the Gospels (Broadman 1997)
_Bock, D. Breaking the Da Vinci Code (Thomas Nelson, 2004)
_____, Jesus According to Scripture (Baker 2002)
_____, Studying the Historical Jesus (Baker, 2002)
_____, The Missing Gospels (Nelson 2006).
_Bock, D. & D. Wallace, Dethroning Jesus (2007).
_Bockmuehl, M. This Jesus: Martyr, Lord, Messiah (IVP 1994).
_Borg, M. & N. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus (HarperSanFrancisco 1998). Debate between a moderate and a liberal.
_Bruce, F. Jesus & Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Eerdmans 1974).
_ Catchpole, D. The Trial of Jesus; A Study in the Gospels and Jewish Historiography from 1770 to the Present Day (Brill 1971).
_Chilton B. & C. Evans, eds. Authenticating the Activities of Jesus (Brill 1998).
_____, Authenticating the Words of Jesus (Brill 1998).
_____, Studying the Historical Jesus (Brill 1994).
_Copan, P & R. Tacelli, eds. Jesus’ Resurrection: Fact or Figment? (IVP 2000).
_Davis, S. Risen Indeed (Eerdmans, 1993). Supports postmortem evangelism. Otherwise, a fine treatment.
_Evans, C. Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (IVP 2006).
_____, Jesus & His Contemporaries (Leiden: Brill, 1995)
_Guthrie, D. A Shorter Life of Christ (Academie Books 1970).
_ Habermas, G. & M. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Kregel 2004).
_Harrison, E. A Short Life of Christ (Eerdmans, 1968)
_Johnson, L. The Real Jesus : The Misguided Quest for the Historical Jesus and the Truth (Harper SanFrancisco1997). Roman Catholic.
_Komoszwski, J, M. Sawyer, & D. Wallace. Reinventing Jesus (Kregel 2006).
_Ladd, G. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus (Eerdmans 1975)
_Longenecker, R. Life in the Face of Death (Eerdmans, 1998)
_Moore, P. (ed.), Can A Bishop Be Wrong? The Scholars Challenge John Shelby Spong (Moorehouse, 1998). Evangelical Anglican.
_Porter, S. The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research (Sheffield 2000).
_Quarles, C. ed. Buried Hope or Risen Savior? (2008).
_Schlatter, A. The History of the Christ (Baker, 1997). Moderate-conservative Lutheran.
_Stein, R. Jesus the Messiah (IVP 1996)
_Stonehouse, N. The Witness of the Synoptic Gospels to Christ (Baker 1979).
_Strimple, R. The Modern Search for the Real Jesus (P&R 1995).
_Strobel, L., ed. The Case for Christ (Zondervan 1998).
_Swinburne, R. The Resurrection of God Incarnate (Oxford 2003).
_Twelftree, G. Jesus the Exorcist (Hendrickson, 1993). Standard work.
_____, Jesus the Miracle Worker (IVP, 1999). Standard work.
_Warfield, B. "The Historical Christ," Christology & Criticism, Works, vol. 3.
_Wenham, D. Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Eerdmans 1995)
_Wilkins/Moreland (eds.). Jesus Under Fire (Zondervan 1995). Reply to Jesus Seminar.
_Witherington, B. The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth (IVP 1997)
_Wright, N. The Challenge of Jesus: Rediscovering Who Jesus Was and Is (IVP 1999)
_____, The Contemporary Quest for Jesus (Augsburg/Fortress 2002)
_____, The Resurrection of the Son of God (Fortress 2003). Definitive.
_____, Who Was Jesus? (Eerdmans 1993). Lethal book reviews of liberal writers.

VIII. Apologetics 101

_Adams, R. Leibniz (Oxford 1994). Parts are greater than the whole. Although he was no paragon of Evangelical orthodoxy, one can glean some apologetic fodder from the chaff.
_Alston, W. A Sensible Metaphysical Realism (Marquette U 2001).
_Anderson, J. Paradox in Christian Theology (2007). Van Tilian.
_Beauregard, M. & D. O'Leary, The Spiritual Brain (2007). A defense of dualism. Soft on religious pluralism.
_ Beckwith, F. David Hume’s Argument Against Miracles (U Press of America 1989).
_____, Beckwith, F. et al., eds. To Everyone an Answer: A Case for the Christian World View (IVP 2004).
_Berkeley, G. Three Dialogues Between Hylas & Philonous, R. Adams, ed. (Hackett, 1988). Although theistic idealism represents an unorthodox extreme, Berkeley is an acute critic of radical empiricism.
_Boa, K., & Bowman, R. 20 Compelling Evidences That God Exists. Popular.
(Tulsa: River Oak, 2002).
_____, Faith Has Its Reasons (NavPress, 2001. Comparative metapologetics. Gives equal time to Reformed apologetics. Better at exposition than synthesis.
_Boethius, Consolations of Philosophy (Bobbs-Merrill 1962). Classic exposition of Christian platonism.
_Brown, C. Miracles & the Critical Mind (Word 1984)
_Bruce, F. The Defense of the Gospel in the New Testament (Eerdmans 1977). Exegetical study of NT apologetics.
_Byl, J. The Divine Challenge (Banner of Truth 2004).
_Campbell-Jack, C. & G. McGrath, eds. New Dictionary of Christian Apologetics (IVP 2006).
_Carson, D. How Long, O Lord? A pastoral, Bible-based approach to the problem of
Evil (Baker 2006).
_____. The Gagging of God. Critique of post-modernism (Zondervan 1996).
_Clark, G. A Christian View of Men and Things (Baker 1981). Better at tearing down than building up.
_Coady, C. Testimony: A Philosophical Study (Oxford 1994).
_Cooper, J. Body, Soul, & Life Everlasting (Regent College 1995)
_Copan, P. & P. Moser, eds. The Rationality of Theism (Routledge 2003).
_Corduin. W. No Doubt about it (Broadman 1997). Eclectic, good anecdotes.
_Craig. W. Reasonable Faith (Crossway Books 1994). Electic, erudite.
_Davis, R. The Metaphysics of Theism & Modality (Peter Lang 2001)
_Dembski,W. Unapologetic Apologetics (IVP 2001). Useful reflections, but too much time on opening moves and too little on checkmate.
_Dulles, A. A History of Apologetics (Wipf & Stock 1999). Catholic.
_Earman, J. Hume’s Abject Failure (Oxford 2000).
_Fischer, J. The Metaphysics of Free Will (Blackwell 1997). Philosophical defense of compatibilism.
_Fischer, D. Historians’ Fallacies: Toward a Logic of Historical Thought (Harper & Row 1970).
_Fischer, J. et al. Four Views on Free Will (2007).
_Foster, J. The Immaterial Self (Routledge 1996). Defense of Cartesian dualism.
_Frame, J. Apologetics to the Glory of God (P&R 1994). A model of how to do apologetics. His Reformed theology and perspectivalism supply a unifying principle.
_Fudge, W. & R. Peterson, Two Views of Hell (IVP 2000). Although Peterson has the better of the argument, and even stronger case could be made for the traditional position.
_Gerstner. J. Theology in Dialogue (Soli Del Gloria). Reformed theology, eclectic methodology.
_Goodman, F. How About Demons? (Indiana, 1988). Based on field studies of possession.
_Guinness, O. Long Journey Home (Waterbrook 2001). An exercise in biographical apologetics.
_Gundry, S. (ed.). Show Them No Mercy (Zondervan 2003). Four views on the judicial execution of the Canaanites.
_Habermas, G. & Moreland, J., Beyond Death (Crossway Books 1998). Good defense of dualism, but overly indebted to Aristotelian realism.
_Johnston, P. Shades of Sheol. Death and Afterlife in the Old Testament (IVP, 2002).
_Kane, R. ed. The Oxford Handbook of Free Will (Oxford 2002).
_Keller, T. The Reason for God (2008). Popular. Reformed. Supports theistic evolution.
_Lewis, C. Screwtape Letters. Insightful satire on the stereotypical strategies deployed by the Enemy.
_Lewis, H. The Elusive Mind (Allen & Unwin, 1969). Standard defense of dualism.
_Machen, J. Christianity & Liberalism (Eerdmans 1983). Classic attack on liberal theology. Although the names have changed, the moves remain the same.
_Martin, G. Does it Matter?: The Unsustainable World of the Materialists (Floris Books 2005).
_Miller, B. From Existence To God (Notre Dame 1992).
_Montgomery, J. W. Tractatus Logico-Theologicus (Bonn 2003).
_Moreland, J. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (IVP 2003). Encyclopedic and eclectic. Well worth reading, but beware of attachment to presentism, Molinism, scientific realism, and Aristotelian realism.
_____, Scaling the Secular City (Baker 1989). Eclectic.
_Morgan. C. & Peterson R. Hell Under Fire (Zondervan 2004).
_Mozley, J. On Miracles (Longmans 1902). Classic Victorian defense.
_Murray, M. (ed). Reason For the Hope Within (Eerdmans, 1999). Uneven.
_Nash. R. Faith & Reason (Academie 1988). Popular, eclectic, Clarkian.
_____, Is Jesus the Only Savior? (Zondervan 1984). Reformed.
_____, The Gospel & the Greeks (P&R 2003).
_Newman, J. Grammar of Assent (Doubleday, 1955). Exposition of what would today be called tacit knowledge.
_Pascal, B. Pensees (Random House, 1941). Existential emphasis by an Augustinian Catholic and polymath. Very influential. His appeal crosses the theological spectrum.
_Peterson, M. Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Religion (Blackwell, 2004)
_Plantinga, A. Analytical Theist (Eerdmans 1998). Classic essays by the leading Christian philosopher of the day.
_____, God & Other Minds (Cornell, 1967). Critique of Hume & Kant.
_____, Warrant & Proper Function (Oxford, 1993). Critique of evolutionary epistemology.
_____, Warranted Christian Belief (Oxford 2000). Magnum opus. Plantinga's strength comes from his Dutch-Reformed background; his weakness from his departures.
_Pruss, A. The Existence of God (Ashgate 2003).
_Reppert, V. C. S. Lewis’s Dangerous Idea: In Defense of the Argument from Reason (IVP 2003).
_Samples, K. Without a Doubt (Baker 2004).
_Schleisinger, G. New Perspectives on Old-Time Religion (Oxford 1988).
_Smart, J. & J. Haldane. Atheism & Theism (Blackwell 2003). Stimulating debate between an analytical Thomist and a Quinean atheist.
_Sudduth, M. A Reformed Objection to Natural Theology (Cornell, forthcoming). Actually, a critique of the Neo-Dutch Reformed objection to natural theology by a Reformed Baptist.
_Van Inwagen, P. The Problem of Evil (Oxford 2006).
_Van Til, C. Christianity & Barthianism (P&R 1962). How you react to this book says as much about your own theology as it does about Barth and Van Til's. If you're expecting an exposition, you may not recognize Barth. Van Til's method is to judge a position, by merely by what it says, but what it implies.
_____, Why I Believe in God. Popular, semi-autobiographical.
_Wilson, D. Letter from a Christian Citizen (American Vision 2007).
_Yandell, K. Philosophy of Religion (Routledge 1999). Useful for its coverage of Oriental philosophy.

IX. Science 101

1. Philosophy of Science

_Dooyeweerd, H. The Secularization of Science (CSC, 1954).
_Hapgood, C. Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (Adventures Unlimited Press 1996).
_____, Path of the Pole (Adventures Unlimited Press 1999). First edition had a forward by Albert Einstein, no less!
_Janet, P. Final Causes (Scriber 1892).
_Kuhn. T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago, 1970). Made a big splash, with continuing ripples. The point of reference for antirealism.
_Laudan, L. Progress and Its Problems (Berkeley 1977).
_, Le Poidevin, R. The Images of Time (2007). Defends the B-theory of time.
___, Travels in Four Dimensions (2003). Defends the B-theory of time.
_Moreland, J. Christianity & the Nature of Science (Baker, 1989). Critical realism.
_Newton-Smith, W, ed. A Companion to the Philosophy of Science (Blackwell 2001).
_Oaklander, L. The Ontology of Time (2004). Defends the B-theory of time.
_Ratzsch, D., Nature, Design, and Science (SUNY 2001).
_____, Science & Its Limits (IVP 2000). Nuanced exposition and analysis.
_Van Fraassen, B. The Scientific Image (Oxford 1980)
_____, Laws & Symmetry (Oxford 1989)
_____, The Empirical Stance (2004). By an astute antirealist. Interesting interaction with religion, but weak on sola scriptura.

2. Creation/Evolution

_Barr, S. Modern Physics and Ancient Faith (Notre Dame 2003). A traditional Jewish perspective.
_Behe, M. Darwin's Black Box (Free Press 1996). Intelligent Design theory. Very influential. Unanswered by the other side.
_____, The Edge of Evolution (Free Press 2007).
_ Brown, M. The Darwin Wars (Simon & Schuster 2001).
_Brown, W. In the Beginning (2001). Young earth creationism.
_Byl, J. God & Cosmos (Banner of Truth 2001). Young earth creationism.
_Copan, P. & W. Craig. Creation Out of Nothing (Baker 2004).
_Dembski, W. Intelligent Design (IVP 1999). Popularization of his doctoral thesis.
_____, No Free Lunch (Rowman & Littlefield 2002). Intelligent design.
_Dembski, W. & J. Wells, The Design of Life (2008). The best current critique of macroevolution.
_Denton, M. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Burnett, 1985). Biochemical critic of evolution from a (then) secular scientist.
_____, Nature's Destiny (Free Press, 1998).
_Gee, H. In Search of Deep Time (Cornell 2001).
_Gentry, R. Creation's Tiny Mystery (Knoxville, 1986). Young earth creationism.
_Green, J. Debating Darwin (Regina Booksk 1999).
_____, The Death of Adam: Evolution and Its Impact on Western Thought (Iowa State 1973).
_Hoyle, F. Mathematics of Evolution (Acorn Enterprises (1999).
_McGrath, A. The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine (IVP 2007).
_Menuge, A. Agents Under Fire (Rowman & Littlefield 2004).
_Midgley, M. Evolution as a Religion (Routledge 2006).
_Milton, R. Shattering the Myths of Darwinism (Park Street Press 1997).
_ Morris, R. The Evolutionists (Henry Holt & Co. 2001).
_Poythress, V. Redeeming Science (Crossway 2006).
_Ratzsch, D. The Battle of Beginnings (IVP 1996). Tries to clear away straw man arguments on both sides of creation/evolution debate. Somewhat overtaken by intelligent design debate.
_Ruse, M. The Evolution Wars (Rutgers 2002).
_Sanford, J. Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome (Elim Press 2005).
_Sarfati, J. Refuting Evolution 2 (Master Books 2003).
_Sermonti, G. Why is a Fly Not a Horse ? (Discovery Institute 2005).
_ Sterelny, K. Dawkins vs. Gould (Totem Books 2001).
_Smolin, L. The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, the Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next (Houghton Mifflin ).
_Spetner, L. Not By Chance! (Judaica Press 1998).
_ Stove, D. Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity, & Other Fables of Evolution (Encounter Books 1995).
_Wells, J. Icons of Evolution (Regnery 2002). Exposé of doctored evidence.
_____, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. (Regnery Publishing 2006)
_Wise, K. Faith, Form, and Time (Broadman 2002). By the golden boy of contemporary creationism.
_Woit, P. Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory & the Continuing Challenge to Unify the Laws of Physics (Jonathan Cape 2006).
_Woodmorappe, J. Noah's Ark (ICR 1996). Defends the feasibility of the flood account against scientific and commonsense objections.
_Young, E. In the Beginning (Banner of Truth 1976). Popular exposition by a top scholar—with an eye on science.

The Passion in perspective

A friend of mine recently went to see "The Passion of the Christ." Because Brian Janko is both a moviemaker and a Messianic Jew, he brings a unique perspective, technically as well as, theologically, to the viewing experience.

*********************************************************

I finally did see "The Passion." I'd heard an interfaith dialogue about the movie's "antisemitism". The person from the Anti-Defamation League, said the problem was not that the movie was antisemitic. They did not feel it was antisemitic. They just felt that the movie left too much "open" for the misinterpretation of guilt on the Jews for Christ's death.

Anyhow, I saw the film and it took me about 20 minutes or so to adjust. There were a few cinematic devices at the beginning which I felt were rather clumsy. But I gradually became more engrossed and it had a powerful effect on me. I would say, overall, that the movie was well done, especially considering the challenge of the subject matter. I was emotionally moved.

Jesus is beaten almost continuously for two hours, bloody and horrid-looking... and just when you think they could not show more beating, they do, and it just gets bloodier... but this is all part of the impact. But it struck me that this is what humans really feel toward God—that in fact these people were beating the tar out of the very Person who made them!!!! This was the unspoken message behind the film.

I do not know if my reaction is what Gibson intended, but I can certainly see why the film made so much money. One of the Jews on the interfaith panel claimed that the big box-office was due to people going to see "what the big deal about this movie was." But I think she simply had an agenda to sell the movie short. A record-breaking box-office indicates that many people saw the movie more than once. It simply made a lot of money, because it was a well-made movie, and emotionally very powerful to watch.

Another Jew on the interfaith panel seemed to think that the personification of Satan was antisemitic because he was wandering around amidst the crowd of Jews. But to my recollection he was wandering around a number of places in the film. And at the point where the Jewish crowd is saying, "No, we want Barabbas," where else would Satan be?

Jews I heard complained that Gibson was asked not to make certain choices in the filming of the story, because it would leave Jew-haters a hook to hang their hatred on. They did admit that they were more concerned about the "antisemitic" elements for the overseas, international release rather than in America where people are more eclectic. I suppose there could be some reason for concern; I don't know. The bottom-line is that I did not see one thing that was antisemitic in this film!

If there is any "antisemitism," then blame God, because the New Testament can seem antisemitic at times. And the most "antisemitic" verse in the NT is where the Jews say, "Let his blood be on our heads and that of our children," which is what, I'm afraid, has actually happened in history. But that was, of all lines, the one line not in the movie! (Someone told me it was in the Aramaic, but the subtitle for it was omitted... to which, I respond to Mel Gibson, "Wimp!")

I think Gibson, or whoever, does have a responsibility in doing that story to be careful that it not foster hatred for Jews or anyone else. But that responsibility stops, I believe, where the accurate telling of the NT begins. In that case, the NT is to blame, not the filmmaker. And if a Klansman or neo-Nazi takes some action, I just don't see how the movie is at fault. But this is a long-worn debate that began way before this particular movie.

One clarification: I say it was a well-made movie because it told the story in an emotionally powerful and (for the most part) accurate way. As I said there were certain cinematic devices as well as simply some choices, like a moving camera and such, that I felt were a little sloppy or ill-conceived.

On the other-hand, there were other cinematic devices which worked wonderfully and added a lot of power to the experience, at least for me. Cinematically, then, I would still say it was very well made, but I would not say it was quite the masterpiece it could have been; it fell short here and there. But few movies do make it to perfection, so I would say it was a pretty good rendition of this story, which is probably one of the hardest stories to film, especially for a believer who probably does not want to detract from it.

Whether it is right to make a movie of the gospel at all, because of the 2nd commandment, is a question I leave for the theologians. I personally do not see the harm done. I do not think anyone walked out of the theatre worshiping the actor portraying Jesus; and I think it might have done a whole lot of good for people "on the fence" who needed an extra nudge to look more closely at who Christ really was.

Hell to pay

There are two theoretical alternatives to hell, universalism and conditional immortality. I’ve already considered the former ("Somewhere over the rainbow"), now I’ll consider the latter.

I. Arguments for conditional immortality:

1. The traditional position is only based on a handfull of prooftexts.

2. Only God is naturally immortal

3. Man is a physical entity.

4. Immortality is indexed to the resurrection

5. The traditional position is indebted to Platonic dualism

6. The word "eternal" may either mean the next age, or have reference to eternal consequences.

7. The fate of the damned is described in terms savoring of oblivion, viz., death, destruction, loss, obscurity.

8. In everlasting punishment, the penalty is disproportionate to the crime. It renders God unjust and unloving.

II. Arguments against conditional immortality.

1. The traditional doctrine is more widely attested than, say, the prooftexts for the Virgin Birth. What counts is the clarity, and not the number, of prooftexts.

2. This is a strawman argument. So what?

3. This ignores Scriptural arguments to the contrary.

i) The worldview of Scripture is dualistic. Reality consists of mind and matter. God and angels are incorporeal spirits.

ii) The Scriptural doctrine of the intermediate state assumes that consciousness survives death (e.g. 1 Sam 28; Ps 73:24-25; Mt 22:29-32; Lk 9:30; 16:19-31; 23:43; Acts 7:59; 2 Cor 5:1-10; 12:2-3; Phil 1:23; 1 Thes 5:10; Heb 12:23; Rev 6:9; 14:13)

4. This is not limited to the resurrection of the just. There is a general resurrection (Isa 26:19; Dan 12:2-3,13; Jn 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; Rev 20:13-15). To raise the damned just long enough to zap them out of existence is utterly pointless.

5. To begin with, there are only a few theoretical options.

i) The fact that Plato hit on one of these does not invalidate the position. This is a historical coincidence. If Plato had never been born, someone else would have exercised the same option, sooner or later.

ii) Belief in the afterlife is a commonnplace of ANE religion, viz., the Egyptians, Mesopotamians. It has been inferred from the burial customs of cave men, not to mention primitive tribes the world over. Such a belief assumes the possibility of a disembodied existence. We’re talking, not about a Platonic distinctive, but something approaching a cultural universal. That doesn’t make it true, but to narrowly attribute this belief to Platonism is a highly provincial and unhistorical interpretation of the evidence.

iii) Belief in the afterlife, not merely for the just, but the unjust, is a presupposition of the Biblical ban on necromancy.

6.

i) Effects have causes. If the fuel is consumed, the fire goes out—in which event, the effect would not be endless. But that’s the opposite of what the verses say. The worm never dies, the fire is never quenched.

ii) The Greek word is a loan word from the LXX, which is a translation of the Hebrew olam, meaning "forever" or "everlasting." Although the Hebrew word (and its Greek synonym) is sometimes used hyperbolically, the meaning of the word is "everlasting."

iii) The Greek word can also be employed in a more classically "Platonic" sense (cf. 1 Cor 2:7; 2 Cor 4:18; 2 Tim 1:9; Tit 1:2-3; Jude 25).

iv) The case for hell must be seen in relation to 1C debates over eschatology. The Sadducees subscribed to annihilationism (Mt 22:23; Acts 23:8), while the Pharisees adhered to something much closer to the traditional position. It is clear that Jesus and the Apostles either side with the Pharisees or situate themselves somewhere to the right on the Pharisees on this issue.

v) The case for everlasting punishment isn’t limited to one word-group. There are other ways of expressing endless duration (cf. Mt 3:12; Mk 9:48; Jn 3:39; Rev 14:11; 19:3; 20:11)

vi) The Bible presents the doom of the damned as a fate worse than death (Mt 10:15; 26:24; Mk 12:40: Lk 12:4-5; Heb 12:26-31). But according to annihilationism, there is nothing worse than death because there’s nothing beyond the grave for the wicked.

vii) The parallelism is Mt 25: 41,46 is very hard to get around. And our effort should be, not to get around a hard saying, but to line up behind it.

7. These are natural metaphors, the significance of which must be gauged by the context.

i) The traditionalist treats the fiery figures as punitive, the annihilationist as destructive, and the universalist as purgatorial. So it’s not as though the annihilationist has the inside track on this usage.

The annihilationist is very literal about his prooftexts, but very figurative about the opposing prooftexts.

ii) Were the lost sheep (Lk 15) extinguished? Were the Galileans extinguished (Lk 13:1-3)? Is a disciple of Christ extinguished (Mt 10:39)?

Can nonentities wail and gnash their teeth (Mt 25:30)? Can nonentities suffer torment (Rev 14:10; 20:10)?

iii) We cannot, like Philip Hughes, turn antonyms into contradictory concepts by saying that "life is the absence of death and death is the absence of life." This confuses the meaning of words with conceptual schemes. A rhetorical contrast is not the same thing as logical or ontological opposition. To suppose otherwise commits an elementary semantic fallacy. On both the sensible and spiritual planes, the relation between life and death in Johannine theology is not a mere matter of reciprocal negation.

iv) Regarding those OT passages that present a stark contrast between life and death, we need to keep the following in mind:
a) Allowance must be made for hyperbole (e.g., Ps 86:13; Jonah 2:2).
b) When in despair, one speaks despairingly—but that doesn't tell the whole story. Just study the mood swings in the Book of Job, psalms of David, and oracles of Jeremiah.
c) The contrast often involves a reversal of fortunes, as the famous are forgotten, the potentates left impotent. In the just judgment and overruling providence of God, today's celebrity may be tomorrow's nobody (Eccl 9; Isa 14; Ezk 32). This carries over to the NT (e.g. Lk 16:19-31; 1 Cor 1-3; Rev 20:4-6).

Ra McLaughlin has a helpful comment on this exegetical issue:



"Some people have thought that Psalm 6:5 teaches that the dead have no memory because many translations render this verse to say that there is no "remembrance" of God in death. Of course, we know that this cannot be taken to mean that in death we no longer remember that God exists (cf. Luke 9:30; 2 Cor. 5:8; Rev. 6:10). In fact, the word for "remembrance"does not mean "memory," but rather "memorial." David means that if he dies he will not be able to praise God for delivering him from this situation (and no one else will praise God for it either). On the other hand, if God does deliver him, then the praise that David renders in return will be a memorial to God's salvation. Psalm 6 itself turns out to be just such a memorial, recording David's prayer and salvation."

8. In annihilationism, the penalty is disproportionate to the crime; for the wicked inflict untold suffering on others, but escape suffering in their own person.

A kinder, gentler mousetrap

Among the moral imperatives of our time, few are more pressing than the need to design a kinder, gentler mousetrap. As Peter Singer has taught us, rats have rights too! We are not the darlings of the universe.

Sure, rats were scapegoated as carriers of the Black Plague—how come the fleas escape blame?—but, hey, they were here before us. We’re the squatters!

Now, despite quantum advances in modern technology, the mousetrap is a throwback to the Middle Ages.

In the interests, then, of animal rights, interspecies respect, and death with dignity, certain modifications are in order.

1. The death penalty, whether for man or rat, is barbaric, and must be abolished. However, mercy-killing is an inalienable right of all sentient species.

2. Rats steal food because they’re hungry. Where’s the crime in that? What is needed is some form of food redistribution. From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs!

3. The only candidates for extermination should be rodents whose quality of life has been diminished by birth defect, accident, or terminal illness.

4. Death by mousetrap ought only to be administered under competent authority, with the permission of a board-certified veterinary ethicist.

5. The bars of the mousetrap need to be lined with velvet, while the board needs to be padded with goose-down.

6. Only low-fat cheese should be used as bait. Under no circumstances must we contribute to the rat’s bad cholesterol.

7. A non-dairy substitute should be made available for vegan vermin.

8. An anesthetic ought to be administered prior to snapping the bar. In case of voluntary euthanasia, this anesthetic should be self-administering according to some sort of automated device. Rats will need to be trained in Skinnerboxes to trigger this device.

9. In case of involuntary euthanasia, this can be administered by the attending veterinarian.

10. Although second-hand cigarette smoke ought to be banned, the use of medical Marijuana should be legalized. A few puffs will sedate the rat.

11. A hospital chaplain may be present to deliver a non-sectarian prayer for his soul, or lack thereof.

The fool has said in his heart

Among the many books written in defense of atheism, perhaps the two best are J. L. Mackie's The Miracle of Theism (Oxford 1982) and Robin Le Poidevin's Arguing for Atheism (Routledge 1996, 2000).

Mackie's magnum opus received a very full and critical review by Alvin Plantinga, "Is theism really a miracle?" Faith & Philosophy (1986) 3:109-34. But, to my knowledge, Le Poidevin's entry into the field has not received the same level of critical scrutiny.

Arguing For Atheism is divided into the three sections. Part 1 is an attack on the "big three" traditional arguments for the existence of God (ontological, cosmological, teleological). Part 2 is an attack on the moral argument, with special reference to the Euthyphro dilemma and the problem of evil. Part 3 is, in part, a defense of theological antirealism, and, in part, a defense of life without an afterlife as meaningful.

In chapter 1, Le Poidevin attacks several versions of the cosmological argument. One problem is that he fails to grasp the Kalaam cosmological argument. This is predicated on the distinction between an actual abstract infinite and a potential concrete infinite. By definition, an actual infinite is a given totality. As such, it must be an abstract object. A concrete object can be a completely given as long as it constitutes a finite totality.

He also has an inadequate notion of ontological or causal priority, which he equates with temporal priority. "Has he [God], for all time, willed the universe to exist. Why, then, did it not come into existence sooner…we are led back to the regress…which the temporal argument was supposed to avoid" (13). No, we are not.
i) God has not, for all time, willed the universe to exist. If the divine fiat is a timeless fiat, then this means that the world began to exist, but that there was never a "time" when the world did not exist. And this first moment is the temporal effect of a timeless cause.
ii) Causation is a subset of constitutive ontological relations. For example, a triangle is constituted by its angles and sides. Yet this is an atemporal and noncausal mode of ontological relations. That is a stronger thesis than we need for the origin of the world, but we can argue from the greater to the lesser.
iii) It is certainly possible to offer a more general definition of causality, one that is neutral on questions of temporal priority or simultaneity. Consider the definition of David Lewis: A is the cause of B just in case B would not exist unless A existed. (Cf. "Causation," Journal of Philosophy [1973], 70:556-67.) The question, then, is whether temporal relations are an essential feature of causality, or merely a special case and incidental mode of causality.
iv) Le Poidevin never explores the possibility of a temporal effect of an atemporal cause. And if time had a beginning, then this conclusion is forced upon us.
Many cosmologists, in fact, concede as much. They identify time with the space-time continuum, and they believe that the universe had a point of origin. Now the science behind this may or may not be true, but the point is that this is considered to be a live option. And if cosmological arguments, such as the Kalaam version, prove a temporal origin of the universe, then they yield this additional conclusion as well.
iv) Le Poidevin is assuming, without benefit of argument, that our notion of causality is derived from observation. But this is viciously circular. You can only recognize what you already know. Empiricism cannot very well bootstrap its own criteria. If you bring some chips to the table, you can win more chips; but if you bring nothing to the table, you can't play the odds. Even a game of chance has some ground rules that are not derived by chance.

Why can it not be known a priori that every contingent thing has a cause? (13). And if it cannot be known either a priori or a posteriori, then science can know nothing at all. For science is the science of the contingent.

In chapter 2, Le Poidevin discusses the ontological argument in relation to modal realism. One of the problems facing the atheist is not just the general question of why there's something rather than nothing, but the specific question of why there's "this" rather than "that." For, on the face of it, it seems that many things could have been otherwise.

And this, in turn, raises a host of related questions. Where do these unexemplified possibilities exist? In the nature of the case, they don't exist in the actual world—inasmuch as they are unrealized alternatives to the actual world. Something merely possible doesn't exist at all except as a property of some other existent—of an agent or agency or property-bearer. What selects for the instantiation of one possibility out of the many?

This has less to do with the ontological argument than a version of the cosmological argument, based on the principle of sufficient reason—a la Leibniz. However, it does get mixed up with modal metaphysics, so there is some interconnectedness.

I'm afraid that Le Poidevin's treatment of modal realism strikes me a simply incompetent. It looks as though he's trying to embed Plantinga's modal version of the ontological argument in Lewis' ontology of possible worlds. But Plantinga has his own framework, which is not at all the same as Lewis' conceptual scheme.

Lewis erases the distinction between concrete and abstract objects. Lewis collapses abstracta into concreta. For Lewis, all possible worlds are equally concrete and real.

Plantinga, by contrast, maintains an abstract/concrete dualism. Possible is to abstract as actual is to concrete. Plantinga also draws another distinction. All worlds, whether possible or actual exist, and are, in that sense, equally real, but all worlds to not obtain. Only the actual world obtains. So Le Poidevin's analysis is incoherent.

There is also a danger of getting carried away with picture language, as when we talk about God existing "in" a possible world.

The theological distinction between the necessity, actuality, and possibility goes back to the Scholastic distinction between God's absolute and ordinate power, free and necessary knowledge. A possible world is a world which God could possibly make. So a possible world is simply a colorful way of objectifying God's omniscience and omnipotence. To reify a possible world as something that God inhabits is to be beguiled by a figure of speech.

Now, there is an underlying reality to this manner of speech. Possibilities inhere in the necessary existence and essential attributes of God. God's relation to the realm of possibility is more akin to a creative writer's relation to his fictional story ideas.

As to the status of the ontological argument, this is a very complicated question.
i) As a general matter, how you rate the ontological argument has less to do with the specifics of the argument than with your general theory of knowledge. If you're in the nominalist/empiricist camp, you're predisposed to reject it; if you're in the realist/rationalist camp, you're predisposed to accept it.
ii) Anselm's argument takes the form of a logical dilemma. An atheist cannot deny the existence of God unless he has a concept of God. This concept is the idea of a greatest conceivable being. What is more, even though the concept is mental, it is a concept of an extramental being. Although the thought of God subsists in the mind, the object of thought is the idea of God as an extramental existent. That much is necessary even for purposes of negation.

So what is the gold-standard that redeems the object of thought? What is it that makes either the affirmation or negation of a proposition to be true or false? And what if the proposition is about a being that is greater than the thinker who thinks him?

Gaunilo replied by introducing the counterexample of the blessed isles. But this fails on couple of counts: (i) it raises a similar dilemma, for what is there that grounds both the bare possibility and its practical denial? Of what is this possible? Of what is this false? To what does it refer? (ii) Unlike the idea of the blessed isles, the idea of God is the idea of a being that is more than an idea.

The ontological argument is deceptively simple, for it quickly draws us into deep waters regarding the truth-conditions of intentionality, possibility, necessity, and negation. This is what, in turn, invited a modal version of the ontological argument—a la Plantinga. But this can be pressed a step further, for what is there that lays the final foundation of modality, if not the greatest conceivable being?

This is why the ontological argument, like Dracula, is so often pronounced dead and buried, yet continues to rise from the grave. For there is just too much at stake. It cannot be denied without denying the possibility of denying anything else.

Chapter 3 begins by reiterating the confused exposition and analysis of modal realism in chapter 2. Hence, this part of the argument can be set aside.

Next, Le Poidevin attacks the prime mover version of the cosmological argument on the grounds that causal explanations cannot be extrapolated beyond the bounds of natural law and space-time.

Before addressing the specifics, one is struck by how often the appeal to natural law forms the bedrock of secularism. This seems especially ironic. Where does the notion of natural law come from, anyway?

Isn't this a personification? And does it not represent a hangover from faith in the Creator of the world? God is the Lawgiver who legislates the natural and moral order of world as the work of his hands.

How can you deny the existence of God by invoking natural law if natural law presupposes his existence? How do we cash out the metaphor once we take God out of the picture? The atheist is like a man who locks himself inside a prison cell and tosses the key out the window.

Back to the particulars of his case, he says that "as an explanation [the prime mover] is a dead loss: it tells us nothing about the first cause other than that it is a cause" (37). But this objection is wrong on two counts:
i) Certainly it advances our understanding to know "that" something had a cause, even if we didn't know "what" was the cause in question. Knowing "that" the murder had a cause is the presupposition for a homicide detective to investigate "what" caused the murder.
ii) A Christian apologetic has a very clear concept of what the prime mover is like. Although he may, in part, infer his existence from the origin of the world, his information is not limited to that inference alone.

Le Poidevin then says that we cannot demand a causal explanation for the universe as a whole inasmuch as causality is an intra-cosmological rather than extra-cosmological principle. Without the universe, there are no natural laws; without natural laws, there are no causal explanations. By way of reply:
i) This simply begs the question. Whether the universe is self-explanatory is the very point at issue. Rather than an argument for secularism, this is just another paraphrase of secularism. At the very least, then, it raises the question of the burden of proof.
ii) Cosmology doesn't suffer from any inhibitions when it comes to theorizing about the origin of the universe as a whole. And this holds true whether you subscribe to a cyclical (closed-time model) or linear theory of time.
iii) Le Poidevin is assuming, without defending, a particular brand of epistemology, according to which the principle of causality is an inference abstracted from a generality of inductive instances. But this is a roadmap to nowhere.

Le Poidevin then says that "two things cannot be related as cause and effect unless there are laws connecting one type of event with another." (37). By way of reply:
i) One problem with this criticism is that it fails to engage the opposing position. Le Poidevin is writing against theism. As such, he needs to ask himself what the theistic alternative would be, and how that stacks up against his own position.
Although theism is generally committed to some level or degree of second causes, yet—in principle—that is inessential to the idea of divine causation. To begin with, a Christian would say that God is the primary and immediate cause of all secondary agents and agencies. This is especially so if we regard God as timeless, such that he enacts the entire world in one indivisible fiat. In addition, many miracles are the effect of direct divine action. Finally, some Christians regard the category of miraculous events as a special class or limiting case of a more uniform and universal principle of divine agency (occasionalism).
Now, Le Poidevin would reject all this, but the problem is that he has failed to offer any sort of rebuttal to the opposing position, even though that is the stated aim of his argument. Why should a Christian accept his premise? A Christian doesn’t share his wholesale investment in natural law.
ii) He fails to distinguish between natural laws as descriptive and prescriptive or proscriptive. He seems to ascribe a causal efficacy to natural laws, as though a law of nature were the same thing as a force of nature. Here he seems to be bewitched by the power of a metaphor or shorthand expression. Natural laws don't do anything; they don't make anything happen—any more than a speed limit makes me drive at 60 mph. A traffic law is not an internal combustion engine.

In fielding the argument that the world was the work of a personal agent, Le Poidevin says two things. To begin with, he reiterates his claim that causal priority assumes temporal priority. But I've already dispatched that objection in chapter 1.

Second, he says that intentions are contingent, so that trying to explain a contingent world by recourse to divine intent only pushes the problem back a step and thereby generates an infinite regress.

But this is sophistry, for the adequacy of the answer depends on the scope of the question. When a homicide detective traces a murder back to the murderer, he has solved the crime. Sure, this is not a total explanation. We can still ask why the murderer killed his victim. But if we can't answer that question, does that imply that the crime scene is a discrete, self-contained event?

Le Poidevin's objection is a non sequitur. I don't need to explain everything to explain anything. Failure to explain the murderer's motives does not render the murder self-explanatory. The crime requires a criminal.

In chapter 4, Le Poidevin tries to debunk the teleological argument by first offering two different interpretations of the argument, either as an argument from analogy or an argument from probability, and then attacking both lines of argument.

Before touching on the specifics, I'd just register an initial and elementary caveat. For I don't regard either analogy or probability as an essential feature of design.

Let's take two illustrations of Paul Janet's Final Causes (Scriber 1893). I drop a crystal on the floor. It shatters along geometric lines. I conclude that this could not be by chance. The outward pattern bespeaks an inward pattern, the effect a preexistent structure. I don't need to repeat the experiment.

Suppose, though, someone would object that, for all we know, this could be a freak accident, a natural anomaly. So, to be on the safe side, we should repeat the experiment.

Very well, but this draws attention to the old quandary regarding the limits of induction. How many times does the same result have to turn up for us to detect design or dub a law of nature?

This brings us to Janet's second illustration. I'm awakened by the sound of a clock striking four o'clock in the morning. Strictly speaking, I "perceive" it striking four, but I only "hear" it striking one o'clock four times in a row.

The inner relation is not given in nature. Sensation only registers a temporal sequence of discrete particulars. All I hear is one, then one, then one, then one. I never hear "four."

This is the irony of induction. You can never learn induction by induction. Unless the mind has an innate ability to discern certain patterns and classify natural kinds, induction would be dead in the water.

You don't distinguish glass from crystal by repeatedly smashing both objects on the floor. All it takes is one instance to distinguish a random from a non-random distribution pattern of the shards. This is not an argument from either analogy or the law of averages.

Hence, the "design inference" does not depend on any background information, and that's a good thing, too—otherwise induction would generate a vicious regress.

Moving on to a few of the particulars of his objection, Le Poidevin regards the theory of evolution as having inflicted heavy damage on the analogical version of the design argument (45-56). Of course, this objection is only as good as evolution itself, and is vulnerable to its own set of objections. Certainly his own explanation raises many more questions than it answers. If biological organisms are cast in the die of nature, how can they be ill-adapted to their natural surroundings? What accounts for this in-built adaptibility to begin with? If some species are ill-adapted to their environment, how do they survive long enough to adapt?

It takes an intelligent observer to appreciate the survival value of an opportune adaptation. But natural selection is blind. So an atheist must assume a God's-eye view of nature in order to deny a God's-eye view of nature. He must resort to a top-down, goal-directed explanation to make sense of a bottom-up, non-directive process. The process has a purpose unknown to the process. Hence his ontology and epistemology tug in opposing directions. Naturalism needs a viewpoint above brute nature to explain naturalism. Naturalism denies supernaturalism any admittance through the front door, but allows it in through the back door, on an incognito basis.

Le Poidevin's discussion of statistical probability (50-51) suffers from the same crippling confusion over modal realism that disabled his attack in chapter 2. There is an interrelated quality to a number of Le Poidevin's arguments that is either a strength or a weakness. It is a virtue to see that many issues are interrelated. And it lends the treatment a certain elegance and efficiency to apply a few basic principles of analysis. But by that same token, a few strategic errors introduce a cumulative error rate into the analysis.

Towards the tail-end of this chapter and into the next, he discusses the anthropic principle, and actually concedes that the theist has the better of the argument here. I would, though, just touch on the common countermove, which says that there's nothing remarkable about the existence of intelligent life, for absent intelligent life, there'd be no one to mount the anthropic argument in the first place!

This strikes me as a disguised description rather than an explanation. To borrow an illustration from W. L. Craig, if I survive a firing squad, I have good reason to wonder how all those bullets managed to miss their target. To say that if I hadn't survived the ordeal I'd be in no position to pose the question is hardly an answer in itself.

Chapter 6 is rather odd because Le Poidevin answers his own objections, but doesn't seem to register that fact. He says that virtue might be dependent on God in a couple of respects: (i) "since he created things in such a way that doing certain things would be good for us" (78); (ii) "God has some properties that we would consider good in a human" (79). The first explanation would form a natural law ethic, the second an exemplarist ethic. And both these ways of grounding the good are complementary. The former is grounded in the will of God, the latter in his nature.

He then poses the question of how we become aware of moral values, if they exist independently of us (80,85). This fails to distinguish between the ontological and epistemic aspects of morality. They exist independently in the sense that exemplary virtues inhere essentially in the nature of God, and exist whether or not we exist. However, God has created us with a natural constitution and exemplary virtues. They inhere continently in human nature, as ontologically dependent on the nature and will of God.

As to how we come to know them, Le Poidevin answers this question, in part, with reference to divine command theory (83). This, however, is not an arbitrary fiat. God has given us a conscience, as well as a revealed code of conduct, and these are preadapted to the Creator/creature distinction. The command is not what constitutes our obligations; rather, it discloses our obligations. That is how moral values supervene on natural facts (85). Thus the recourse to divine command theory does not generate a vicious regress (83). It is only natural that a finite creature ought to obey an omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent Creator.

Different conceptions of right and wrong exist in part because of different degrees of revelation (special and general), as well as the effect of sin, which seeks self-justification and thereby redefines the moral law to excuse its own criminality.

Le Poidevin says that these difficulties are not faced by atheism, which can resort to moral subjectivism and emotivism. But the problem with this contention is twofold:
i) These are not genuine difficulties for Christian theism.
ii) Subjectivism and emotivism are descriptive, whereas morality is prescriptive and proscriptive. Appeal to feelings doesn't adjudicate between good and bad feelings, or between conflicting feelings. It is devoid of moral discrimination. On this view there is no problem of evil because there is no gratuitous evil, no distinction between good and evil whatsoever. It just comes down to feelings—yours and mine.

In chapter 7, on the problem of evil, Le Poidevin says that the greater good defense is unable to account for the sheer amount of suffering, some of which seems to be purely gratuitous (89).

This objection is very vague. First of all, is the objection quantitative (degree of evil) or qualitative (kind of evil)? These are two very different objections. Is there some quantifiable threshold beyond which the amount of evil would count against the existence of God? It is hard to see what calculus could be applied to that question.

As to the quality of evil, this is high ambiguous. Evil can be purposeful in one respect, and purposeless in another. Adam's motive in precipitating the fall are very different from God's in ordaining the fall.

Again, something can be both a means and an end, or either one or the other, depending on the viewpoint and incentive of the agent or coagent.

The gratuity of evil exposes its true character. Its shock value has pedagogical value (Rom 7). Such is the paradox of gratuitous evil, which, at another level, ceases to be merely gratuitous. The wonton abuse of a first-order good makes possible the emergence of a second-order good.

In chapters 8-9, Le Poidevin defends religion without God. This is, to varying degrees, a widespread phenomenon in Christendom. You have churchgoers who grew up in the faith without growing into the faith. They have no faith, but faith has spoiled them for unbelief. They have nothing better to replace it with, and, indeed, the alternative is far too austere and severe to contemplate head-on, so they live and die like a dog that would rather starve to death upon his master's grave than linger on without his master's company.

Far from being an argument for atheism, this exposes the tragic outlook of atheism to an uncommon degree.

Le Poidevin distinguishes between scientific realism and antirealism (instrumentalism, positivism). But by way of reply, scientific theories could be true or false, but because "we have no privileged perspective on reality" (109), we could not tell which, if any, are true. Again, some scientific theories could "function" as useful fictions, even if they were not fictional, but positively false. They would be useful to the extent that they sustain some correlation with the real world, yet that need not be descriptive. A "code" language (109) sets up a closely controlled correspondence between the ciphertext and the plaintext, yet their point of contact is functional rather than formal.

There is a parallel between the moves in a chess game and the plotline of a Lewis Carroll novel (Through the Looking Glass), but the action of the former does not resemble, in a representational sense, the action of the latter.

Indeed, the very fact that there is, on the one hand, some sort of gap between appearance and reality, in spite of which we manage to make our way in the world, is—itself—a theistic argument. For it would take a common mind to coordinate their interactive relations, like a VR program.

Again, there are local as well as global varieties of realism and antirealism. One could be a global realist about abstract objects, and a local antirealist about concrete objects—admitting "that" there are extramental sensibles, but denying that we can know "what" they are like.

In addition, we could say that there is at least one agent who does enjoy a privileged perspective on the world, and that is the Maker of the world. Moreover, we could say that God, in some measure, shares his privileged perspective with us by means of divine revelation.

In chapter 9, one of the problem's with Carnap's deflationist theory is that it looks suspiciously like a position that imposes on reality rather than deriving from reality. It stipulates the questions and answers in advance by spreading an interpretive grid over the debate. But the exercise is highly artificial, for this is not what motivates scientific theorizing. People ask questions and seek answers about the real world. Their theories may be wrong or wrongheaded, but scientific investigation intends to be descriptive.

Likewise, God-talk is intended to be descriptive. Theological antirealism is parasitic on theological realism. It takes over traditional categories and formularies that were meant to be descriptive of the truth, whether in literal or analogical terms, and treats them as fictional. It substitutes a pretended meaning for an intended meaning. To treat traditional theology as make-believe is—itself—an exercise in make-believe.

In his tenth and final chapter, Le Poidevin deploys the B-theory of time to defend the enduring value of life without an afterlife. On the A-theory, every human achievement is a sandcastle, erected at the ebb-tide of life, and washed away at the high tide of death.

Le Poidevin tries to counter this dismal notion by contending that if the B-theory of time is true, then all times are equally and eternally real, such that "regardless of whether all traces of my life will be destroyed, it will always be the case that I once lived and did various deeds. These truths can never be obliterated, even if the evidence for them is" (144).

What are we to make of this? Atheists have often tried to salvage some consolation in the thought that their deeds live on in the hearts and thoughts and deeds of those they influence.

But the problem with this sort of solace is that it is a sentiment which, in the nature of the case, can only appeal to the living and not the dead. It assumes a viewpoint which death denies, for if death marks the extinction of individual awareness, then it cannot share in this satisfaction. It is a view of death poised on the living, and toppled from its perch by the cessation of consciousness. So this sentiment is a spectral projection.

In sum, I conclude that Arguing for Atheism is a failure from start to finish. This is no reflection on Le Poidevin, who is an astute and ingenious advocate for his cause, with a deft touch at many points. But he cannot surmount the overwhelming handicap of arguing for a false thesis. Logic can only follow the facts.