Can God Be Trusted?

I received this book from InterVarsity Press and really had no background to the book or it's author. The full title is "Can God Be Trusted?: Faith and the Challenge of Evil." This was one of the few times where I had no idea what theological convictions were of the author as he wrote. After reading the book, I am still left confused for the most part on his theological convictions on quite a few important orthodoxies.

The author, John Stackhouse, breaks the book down in two parts:

Part I: Problems (This is where evil is discussed)

Part II: Responses

I went back and forth with this book as I read it as to whether or not I would recommend it to anyone. Let me hit some of the strong points in the book and then I will hit some of the weak points.

Some of the strong parts of the book is that Stackhouse does a good job in defining and describing faith. One can tell that he has read some Schaeffer (or at least Schaeffer's sources) on this point, because his thoughts on faith remind me much of what I have read from Schaeffer on faith. Stackhouse does a good job of showing that faith is not a leap, but one that is based on at least some, if not quite a bit of, knowledge of the thing or person one puts faith in.

Stackhouse also does a good job of speaking to those whom the book is probably offered, which is the non-Christian. He speaks to them in their terms, gives respect to other religions where respect is due, and also is very open and honest about the struggles within Christendom. Within this, he also asks some very good questions to those who are non-Christians within the understanding of evil. He actually switches the question at one point to say if we think we can ask, "Why is there so much evil?" we have to also ask the question, "Why is there so much good?" I really enjoyed his discussion on that topic. He does open up some further questions for the skeptic, or the searcher, that they (actually all of us) need to ask at some point to come to an understanding of what we believe and why.

Those are the good points.

As a Christian, there was much to be alarmed at. I really don't know what theological convictions John Stackhouse has at this point. His answer to evil was quite troubling. He said that the reason there is evil was pointed to the fact of free will in all men. At one point saying that God "took a risk when creating humans with free will." This is a big stumbling block for me and this book. I am not sure how a sovereign God, who knows all things can take risks. His basic answer to why there is evil, is simply because of free will. He uses, somewhat, Alvin Plantinga's Free Will Defense to answer the question how God could be good, all powerful and still have evil exist. Free will in this book is taken as mere fact, with no Scriptural proof at all. The only time that predestination is mentioned is when speaking of the theologies of Calvin and Luther, as though it was their theology that wasn't found in the Bible. This mention lasts only 2 pages. What Stackhouse overlooks is the fact that predestination is mentioned in the Bible where the idea of moral free will is never mentioned apart from Adam and Eve. He continues this thought with the angels in heaven having free will and that is why they fell, and that while in heaven we will all have free will but will only choose good because of all the good before us. The question comes, "Does this mean we can fall like the angels did because of our free will?" The answer has to be yes in Stackhouse's system. Which is completely false. Quite the conundrum, especially when trying to defend that God is all powerful and evil can exist. I am not saying this makes the answer easy, but at least it is biblical.

The above is the one that really had me perplexed and one that made me question the book as a whole, but then it continued in other areas. Stackhouse would sometimes open up a can of worms without defending them but would just say, "a lot of Christians (or theists) believe..." and then leave it. He did this with the following things:

The doctrine of hell being annihilation

Whether the Old Testament should be taken as literally true. At one point saying he is just being candid and then adding, "Doesn't this all sound unbelievable, like a fairy story for kids rather than a serious explanation of reality for adults?"

The Idea of macroevolution being true

He doesn't defend Original Sin, but says that it has been debated historically

It was hard to hear him open up these topics without really commenting on them. He just would say something about them and move on (besides original sin, which he went on to describe a sort of middle ground), leaving the reader confused of why he would mention it in the first place. What then happens is one wonders what Stackhouse's actual convictions are in these areas.

Beyond those things, the things that had me concerned were his positive affirmations. Those were as follows:

His belief that the Protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15) was not really a pronouncement of the gospel, or meant to be understood spiritually at all, but should be taken as simply a curse on the snake. He says that "later interpreters have seen all of this as having to do with spiritual warfare between Satan and humanity, but the text itself is enigmatic. "

He also states that he believes that although the Gospel writers agree on the whole and overarching understanding of who Christ was, that they sometimes vary and contradict each other in some details. Through this we can see that Stackhouse must not believe in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture.

As an added frustration, there are times when Stackhouse seems to defend, or at least acknowledge in part, that Christians, Contemporary Jews and Muslims all worship the same God. This seems to be a case to bring parties into agreement when there are too many lines of separation to do so.

Overall, this book will frustrate many, as it did myself. Just when you think it is getting good, he throws some odd curve ball into the mix that confuses things. I just can't get passed the bad to see the good in recommending this book to people. Although the description of faith and the resurrection are well done, the discussion of God's risk with free will, annihilation, OT kid stories, original sin, macroevolution, the Protoevangelium and the infallibility and inerrancy of God's word puts too much junk into the discussion. I cannot in my right mind recommend this book for reading. There is too much other good reading on the subjects at hand to have to wade through the bad theology in this book to get to the traditional and correct orthodoxy. Not Recommended.
Buy from:

InterVarsity Press

Sense and Sensuality: Jesus Talks with Oscar Wilde

This was a book that was given to me at Christmas. I wasn't too sure about it and it still is kind of strange to put words in the mouth of Christ. The book is set up on the death bed of famous playwright and bi-sexual, Oscar Wilde. It opens with him and his lover/friend Robert Ross speaking to each other when Wilde then goes to the cemetery and encounters the "gardener" who ends up being Christ. Through the book, Christ and Wilde speak about many things and Christ also brings in a hero of Wilde's, Blaise Pascal, to show him his faults and the victory in Christ.

You can pick up on some of Ravi Zacharias' apologetic defenses in the discourses and I find them to be very interesting to be read in conversation form.

The idea of the book is a good one, but I am still not sure how I feel in having Christ portrayed as visiting someone for a conversation of their life. Theologically, this book misses on some points and I am trying to figure out if I can forgive that misstep for the overall premise to the book as a whole. I actually enjoyed reading this mock conversations with our Saviour, the greatest mathematician to ever live, and the man who put living for yourself and your sensuality on the map. It seemed honest with something real about it. Dr. Zacharias used many quotes directly from the Scriptures and from Oscar Wilde himself to draw out the conversation so that it wasn't totally made up.

Dr. Zacharias is very poignant in his discussion on God's order and how God meant pleasures to be handled. Ravi was very clear on these points so that none could see Jesus being dismissive with the gross immorality that was Oscar Wilde's life. The way that Ravi handles this conversation though is with truth and grace, something we could all learn as we handle those outside of the faith and entranced with sin.

Although it was an interesting read and one that I wouldn't mind giving to someone else, I am not sure that it will be one that will be cherished or remembered. I like the layout, if I can get passed the mock words of Jesus, so I probably will pick up some of the other conversations with Jesus that Ravi has done. I can't say I would recommend this book, but I wouldn't keep someone from reading it either.

The Future of Justification

This book is a tough one. The reason I say this is because I totally agree with John Piper's view, and the Reformation's view of the Pauline theology of justification by faith. I agree with Piper's and the Reformation's view of the imputation of Christ's righteousness to the believer. I also disagree with N.T. Wright's, which ultimately started with Schweitzer, Wrede and Sanders, view of Pauline theology and the link they believe it has with second century temple Judaism. Although I do like their premise of trying to understand Old Testament Judaism. I believe though that they get confused in what God intended with the Law and how the Jews misused it.

So, now that I have stated all that, you would expect me to really like Piper's book on the topic. The problem is that I think it is a little too early to try and refute what Wright is coming out and saying. The reason for this is because no one really has a clear understanding of what Wright believes (at least those who I have talked to). Piper even praises Wright for many of his views of Scripture, and also the high view that Wright places on Scripture. But, there are many places in here that Piper says that he "thinks" Wright means this, or that Wright "might" believe that. I would think that it would be better to go ahead and wait this out until we find what Wright is really saying before we try and refute him outright.

With all this said, I also understand why Piper desired to come out with a refutation. I just believe it was too soon. I believe he would have been better to come out with a short intro to some disturbing beliefs of Wright and then wright a polemic on the justification of God and the imputation of Christ. I know that Piper has a couple of books that do this, so maybe an update to those books with this intro would have served better.

The book, because of the confusion of Wright's beliefs, is very hard to follow. There are even parts in the book where I would probably either agree with what Wright is saying, confused on what the problem is, or just am completely confused on what Wright really believes. The book really makes you feel like Piper is as confused as you are with what Wright is trying to say.

I honestly wouuld not recommend this book to anyone trying to get a grasp on what Wright believes, it was very confusing. Because of this, Piper's refutations come out very confusing as well. The best part of the book was the end, when Piper gives a small defense of the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.

I believe that this book will be something that will be forgotten and will need to be thrown away once we understand more on what Wright is trying to get across in his views of Justification and Pauline theology. Once a better understanding is seen, I would ask Piper to try again. Not Recommended. Link to Buy.

The Lightlings

I was given this book by a friend of mind for our kids this past Christmas and decided to finally read it to my oldest son this past week. No reason not to read it before besides the mere fact that I just overlooked it.

The story by R.C. Sproul is an allegory to the creation and fall of man and then the coming of Christ for redemption. The lightlings are a people that were created by the King of Light but they didn't follow His rules and so they were turned over to the darkness. After some time in the darkness they notice in the distance a light shining. The younger lightlings were curious and decide to go check it out and find that it is the King of Light's son to return the light to the lightlings.

My 5 year old son was on top of the story pretty well, understanding who was God and who was Jesus and also the sin of the lightlings. What he didn't understand, and kind of made the story lose focus, was the fact that the lightlings were little fairy creatures that my son thought were angels. I had to correct him and tell him that it was just a story to try and show us who God is, what we have done in our sin and the coming of Christ into the world. He understood afterwards, but that one question for me was enough to question the book as a whole.

I did like the parallel and thought the story was done very well, but I wish that the illustrations of the lightlings would have been more geared to not look like little fairies or little angels. I know that it is fiction and just a parallel but it did confuse my son when he first went through the book with me.

The only other thing that I wish R.C. Sproul would have done was include the actual biblical account at the end of the story. This would have made a complete book. Instead, Dr. Sproul puts a glossary at the end of the book to describe who each person is, but to read that to a child is a little weird. I only say this because there are some Christian parents who need the aid of drawing out the biblical principles of even a children's book. Although, there are discussion questions that will aid in this, I would have rather have had those questions AND the story end with the actual biblical description. This could just be personal preference though.

Overall, I liked the parallel (even more so if the description came at the end) but wish that the illustrations would have been geared to something different (even though the actual illustrations were very well done). Not Recommended

Link to Buy

The Case for Faith

I want to show some grace here in this review so that I am not coming across as attacking the author or the participants that the author interviewed. I read The Case for Christ and very much enjoyed that book and thought it was done in a very tasteful manner, but this book left me shaking my head.

Lee Strobel unpacks this book just as he did with the Case for Christ, in that, he has 8 different questions that he would like answered and then goes and interviews 8 experts in those fields to answer those questions. The one thing I wish that he would have done is read some of the reviews and thoughts from readers and taken them to heart. The main complaint is that he just interviewed those who agreed with the Christian position and chose not to interact with those who were on the opposed side of the debate.

Although Strobel starts the book off on interviewing an atheist, Charles Templeton, this was the last time that he interviews anyone on the opposing side. Although, I do really like the way the book is set up with the interviewing process.

The questions that were to be raised in the book are the following:

1) If there's a loving God, why does this pain-wracked world groan under so much suffering and evil?

2) If the miracles of God contradict science, then how can any rational person believe that they're true?

3) If God is morally pure, how can he sanction the slaughter of innocent children as the Old Testament says he did?

4) If God cares about the people he created, how could he consign so many of them to an eternity of torture in hell just because they didn't believe the right things about him?

5) If Jesus is the only way to heaven, then what about the millions of people who have never heard of him?

6) If God really created the universe, why does the evidence of science compel so many to conclude that the unguided process of evolution accounts for life?

7) If God is the ultimate overseer of the church, why has it been rife with hypocrisy and brutality throughout the ages?

8) If I'm still plagued by doubts, then is it still possible to be a Christian?

Strobel, to answer these questions, goes to eight different men to help him answer these tough questions posed to the Christian faith. Some of those interviewed were Norman Geisler, William Lane Craig, Peter Kreeft, Ravi Zacharias, John Woodbridge and others.

We could always discuss the theological differences that I have between myself and the contributors, such as their views on libertarian free will, the views that hell is not a literal place with flames, the view that the big bang is true and God was the originator just 'tweaked' it to make it work, that God reacted to man and created hell, but it wasn't in His original plan, and so on. These are all things that contributed to a very poor discussion on the reason for faith. But, even above all these problems, Strobel forgets the biggest reason for faith in God and Jesus Christ: our sin.

Sin was completely left out of the discussion. This topic of us needing a Creator and Saviour to take our place of our sin was not in any of the discussions. The route that Strobel takes is more of a route in putting us in a court room. The atheists and agnostics as the prosecutors, God as the defendant and we are the jurors. We sit, listen, weigh the evidence and then choose who to follow. The problem is that this leaves God as a powerless being, ringing His hands, hoping we choose him. This is not faith! This is just choosing the lesser of the two evils, or the better of the two goods, depending on how you see it.

This book is really a bad attempt at presenting the true God. It really leans more towards Aristotlianism, where "reason governs us" instead of what we are told it should be: God and His word governs us. I am afraid that the bad theology presented here is not going to strengthen anyone's faith but in actuality, will make them rely on their intellect and thoughts on the issue. This is actually the reason that Strobel is able to bring in a Roman Catholic theologian (Peter Kreeft) and no have no issue with his thoughts on issues. Strobel really doesn't differentiate between the Catholics and Protestants but just merely continues to call them both "Christians." Ignoring the reformation or the Pope calling the Catholic church, "the only true church." (sidenote: I know this book was written before this declaration, but it was not a new declaration or something Protestants and Catholics didn't already know was the foundational thoughts of the Roman Catholic church)

Anyone who takes a long look at themselves will know that they change their minds on things all the time. They change their views on things all the time, so what is going to be different this time? The main proponent of faith was left out: Jesus Christ died for the sins of the people, the Holy Spirit gives them faith, calls them to His side, God justifies them with the blood of Christ, and perfects them until the day Christ returns. It is God's power that holds us, not our "weighing of evidence."

This is the reason I cannot recommend this book to anyone. It seems as though Strobel has placed God on the side of the road trying to "sell" His religion to people and hoping some will just choose Him. God is not a beggar.

One contributor said this: "God sends no one to heaven and He sends no one to hell" Although I agree that sin is what sends people to hell, it is not true that God doesn't send anyone to heaven. He is the only power that is able to send people to heaven.

It seems as though this book missed some key verses in the Bible:

For indeed He was crucified because of weakness, yet He lives because of the power of God. For we also are weak in Him, yet we will live with Him because of the power of God directed toward you.
2 Corinthians 13:4

No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day.
John 6:44

Most important Paul lays out the importance of the Gospel, not secular reasoning or secular evidence for the case for faith:

For I determined to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ, and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness and in fear and in much trembling, and my message and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.
1 Corinthians 2:2-5

Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches

I was pretty apprehensive about reading this book. I really didn't know what to expect and didn't know really what the approach was going to be with this book. To be honest, the only reason that I picked up the book is because I went to the Resurgence Conference and Mark Driscoll was one of the contributors. I am glad I didn't "judge" Driscoll for being a part of this book before I read this, because I thought he was distancing himself from the people that contributed to this book. After reading, let's just say that Driscoll is definitely NOT a part of what is commonly known as the Emergent church and he is really a lot different than those a part of the wider used term, "emerging church."

The only thing that I got from this book, besides Driscoll admonishing the other contributors (Burke, Kimball, Pagitt, Ward), is to make sure that our theology is put into practice. I can say that it did make me think from that perspective. Outside of that, this book was very shallow and far from, and I mean FAR FROM, biblical ecclesiology. Mark Driscoll had to continually "exhort sound doctrine" to these other "pastors" and return them to the Scriptures. Driscoll was the only pastor that truly held to Sola Scriptura, while the others look more to our culture and those around them to form their ecclesiology, orthopraxy, and most dangerous: orthodoxy.

The two "pastors" that people need to really be warned of is Doug Pagitt and Karen Ward. They are far from Christendom (which they would admit and happily accept) and should not be given an ear to listen to. Burke and Kimball were on the edge but still held to the complete authority of Scripture, although I would definitely not adhere to a lot of the ways that they practice their theology and more specifically, their ecclesiology.

Again, Driscoll was the lone bright spot and because of the far reaching post-modern ideas of the other contributors, Driscoll sounded like John MacArthur more than an emerging pastor. Througout the discussion, just when you thought Driscoll was getting "soft" he "brought it" again.

As far as the frame of the book, it is set up to give each "pastor" a chapter with the other four being able to respond to that pasor's contribution. The original intent was for each author to show their thoughts on the Trinity, the atonement and Scripture. I found only Driscoll's chapter to be the only one who "followed the rules." But, what else should we expect from these emerging leaders? The sad thing is that since the authors were so shallow, Driscoll was forced to defend basic orthodoxy and wasn't able to give a great in depth study or defense of the above said topics.

If you would like to read about these different views on the emerging church, I guess it is okay to read, but it is just so messed up as far as their thinking on how church should be run that it is hard for me to recommend. I am glad I read it so that I could see that Driscoll is NOT Emergent in any way. He is far from Pagitt and McLaren and should be seen as the lone bright spot out of these that contributed to the book.

Please be discerning if you pick this book up and like a Berean, test all teachings to Scripture.

Link to Buy.

Light in the Shadow of Jihad: The Struggle for Truth

I thought this was going to take more of a stand against Muslims and Islam. But what I found is really a fight against evil and really against what the "extremists" believe in Islam. If I hadn't read or listened more of Ravi than just this book I would think he was partial to the "peaceful" Muslims. He did talk about the Islamic countries in bits and about their oppression but never really came down on the crux of this religion that, based on their own Koran, they are told to be "killing machines" to all those who are not Muslim, to wait in the bushes to ambush the infidels. So what happened on 9/11 shouldn't have been a shock to those educated on what Islam stands for.

The book was good in parts but left me wanting more arguments for why Christianity is based on love and Islam is based on a vengeful and hateful allah to even his own people. Instead all you get is more generalities and universal arguments from a worldview standpoint instead of a point by point argument or discussion on basically "Why Christianity and Why not Islam" Because truly Christ is the only Light in any shadow.

I was left wanting, and there was no message at the end that pointed people to Christ, just very vague. I did like the read and found some interesting points on topics and discussions I wasn't expecting. Link to buy

Who Made God?: And Answers to Over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith

The answers in this book are way too condensed and simple. Doesn't thouroughly answer the questions that are brought forth and takes snippets from other books on these topics for its' answers, such as "When Skeptics Ask" and "Case for Christ."

It seemed as though they were just wanting a book on the shelf that had Ravi's name on it, very poorly put together. If you are looking for answers to tough questions pick up "When Skeptics Ask" "Case for Christ" "Kingdom of the Cults" and/or "Evidence that Demands a Verdict"

This book leaves a lot to be desired and expected more being that Ravi was the General Editor of this book and also "Kingdom of the Cults" Link to Buy

What Angels Wish They Knew

This book reminded me a lot of "More Than a Carpenter" which I prefer over this book, because of the ways you can use "More Than a Carpenter" but this book was well put together, flows very easily and a quick read for those wanted some basic answers to the Christian faith. It goes over the basics of defending the faith to a pagan world. It uses both a presuppositional approach and also extra biblical finds to show the validaty of the Bible. The one thing that I do respect about Alistair Begg is that he does not pretend that the use of extra biblical findings will save anyone, where I think McDowell would disagree on. It seems as though Begg uses the extra biblical sources as information without leaning on them for a true "proof" of the Bible, again with my experience with McDowell, I think this is probably where they would find some differences.

As far as evangelizing, I usually use McDowell's books to answer questions but know that they will never save a soul, only the preaching of the Word and drawing of the Spirit. But McDowell's book is much more compact and a great tool to give away, and that is why I use it above Begg's.

Alistair Begg is a great teacher and pastor and this book is definitely a picture of how he teaches and that is making some hard subjects easy to understand. I would definitely listen to his sermons if you have yet to do. If you own "More Than a Carpenter" there is no need to pick up this book as they are very similar in content and defense. Link to Buy