A magnificent expansion on the geography of Providence. Since the main rule book was rather vague in its description of Providence this book is essential for anyone who wishes to truly enjoy the world of Providence.

Polkinghorn in this short essay studies the Religion as a scientist. He discusses the embodiment of God, Miracle, Good and Evil. It is short but extensive study.It discusses the idea of determinism and somewhat quantum physics.

William P. Barker's book, When God Says NO is an interesting look into the characters of the Bible who experienced pain or found that their requests of God were declined. As Christians in a modern world it is hard to completely submit our will to the Lord and trust Him with our lives; rather, we pray that God will guide us in the direction that we want to go. Unfortunately, God often has different plans for us, which this book beautifully illustrates through familiar Bible persons. Barker creates vivid pictures of characters and truly makes them come to life. This provides for an entertaining read but it could be argued that he takes some liberties that distort the actual happenings that the Bible reports. Nevertheless, the book gives a refreshing outlook and I would recommend it for all those who need reassurance that God knows what he's doing even if things aren't going according to our own personal plans.

So I'm intrigued by prayer. This strange communication, influence perhaps, we have upon the sovereign, almighty King of the Universe. Intrigued, I decide to try and learn as much about it as I can. I'm reading lots of things -- Andrew Murray, Henri Nouwen, as well as more moderns, like Dutch Sheets and whoever wrote "too busy not to pray".

Hunter's point in writing this book is a little different than what I was looking for. I'm trying to understand this profound mystery of prayer; he's setting out to show how prayer is a piece of a harmonized spiritual life. The book reads mostly like a handbook on Christian living - with chapters devoted to the holiness of God, the sovereignty of God, forgiving each other, obeying God, even church discipline. He has a good point -- that no part of the christian life is disconnected, and all of these will affect one's prayer life, ability to hear God, and God's answers to prayer.

I believe that he is a seminary professor or pastor of a large and largely successful church, and he writes like one. Everything's very pragmatic and classroomish; there's no mystery or wonder involved. And he writes like a speaker (note to speakers: writing out your speeches is not the same as writing a book.) funny or interesting story, weak and obvious tie to relevant material, then fully jump into the teaching points and forget the corny story altogether.

So basically, I got pretty bored with it. It's not bad, he has good points, he's not wrong, some people would probably benefit from reading it, maybe I did even, but it did not capture me, or change me. Ultimately, a forgettable book. Like so many others.

Does this feel harsh to you? Can you believe a christian would say this about another christian's work? do you agree with me and can't believe someone else would write that way? do you want to meet this strange guy? are you bored? e-mail me at williekrischke@hotmail.com. i'd love to chat.

I read Dr. Hunter's book during my first year as a student at Talbot seminary. His insights into the nature of prayer, and how we go about praying, were a powerful influence in my own relationship with Jesus Christ. I strongly suggest this book.

A previous reviewer says that he is looking for a book on the "mystery" of prayer, and this book does not provide what he is looking for. But who says that prayer is a mystery? The Bible itself does not say so. What is revealed is not mystery, but clear revelation, and this book systematically guides us to understand what the Bible says about the doctrine of prayer and related issues. Excellent.

I am forced to demur in regards to the other posted reviews of Professor Tupper's monograph. I was a student at Southern Seminary during the last days of Dr. Tupper's professorship there and I can attest to the fact that this work accurately reflects the content of his teaching at that time. Dr. Tupper's thesis can be summed up neatly in the following: "In times of greatest human need, God always does the best that God can." While that sentiment may work for your local State Farm agent, it can in no way serve as a historically and/or biblically informed definition of divine providence (unless the human language has lost all definiteness of meaning). Tupper has abandoned confidence in the sovereign Lord of the Old and New Testaments, not because the biblical texts supporting the time-honoured doctrine of God's sovereign providence have changed or have been misread. Rather, Tupper has given up on orthodox theology at this point because it does not complement his life-experience (and, of course, that is an infallible basis for understanding ultimate reality). Tupper's methodology throughout this tome is not worthy of the term "scholarship": his "exegesis" of relevant texts is sloppy and his theologizing is largely anecdotal. This is a sadly maudlin piece of self-expression that speaks much more to the nature of the author than it does to the nature of God.

Tupper's book takes me back to the wonderous days of seminary as I attempted to capture his passion on paper during his lectures on providence. These pages contain what I failed to document. He asks the questions all seeking Christians ask when facing the hard issues in life. After reading Tupper's book, no Christian would ever again say in an off handed manner "it is God's will". Dr. Tupper's gentle and insightful use of scripture deepens our understanding of God's loving activity in our lives. A must read for pastors.

This review will not do this book justice, because it was just so wonderfully written. Tupper brings conviction and integrity to the Christian church and the Baptist tradition with this book, which the Southern Baptist Convention did not like at all. None of what he said in the book was necessarily new as much as it was well written. If you ever wanted a book to read on Providence, you could do no better than this book.

Dr. Sanders' book is very well written and thought provoking. He raises legitimate philosophical and biblical objections to both classical and Arminian theology. As an Arminian I agree with much more than I disagree with this book. Consistent Arminians affirm libertarian freedom (freewill), general sovereignty (God taking risks), & God's passibility (God being affected by his creation). Classical theists attack this book on much of the shared territory between openness and Arminianism. Because much of the attack against openness is an attack on Arminianism, Arminians should join the debate in defending our relational view of God even though some of views are different from Sanders' and openness. The God Who Risks is a well written case against the classical non-relational view of God, while supporting Openness and Arminian theology. Sanders integrates biblical theology with philosophical theology very well and in an easy to understand manner. Sanders challenged me to evaluate many beliefs I have held over the years and to suggested many new and valid understandings of scripture. This book is a must read for anyone seeking to understand God's relationship with humanity.

Anyone who wants a theolgy that helps us to understand our day to day life needs to read this book. The thesis of the book is well demonstrated in the simple fact that God must place limitations upon the way he interacts with humanity in order to have a viable relationship with his people. He explains that "speculative theology" apart from how we experience the world has given us a philosophical "ideal" view of God not a biblical relational God. Basically there are two reasons why this book is not appreciated by Calvinists: (1)It does not allow Calvinists to impose Greek philosophical frameworks onto the Scriptures (Sanders does an excellent job at showing how Greek philosophical presuppositions have given us an inadequate view of God). (2) It shows a relationship with God as being fuzzy, and not as a computer relationship where every value is given a 0 or 1. Sanders is pointing out that God is an initiator with humanity, giving humanity the ability to live the way that Jesus lived, but all the time wanting reciprication in the relationship. The implication is that God wants us to be responsible to his initation and to make decisions that affect the outcome of history. I am thankful that there is now a book that gives us a picture of how life really is, and answers difficult questions in light of a relationship to God and a not God of Greek philosophy. One think the readers of this book need to keep in mind is that Sanders (and others in the Openness position) are not against Soverignty, Providence, Ominpotence, immutability, (or any of those other long theological terms that most of us don't really understand). They are defining them in terms of how we interact with them in order to for us as humans to understand the character of God, and this is why this view of God really "makes sense" to humanity rather than some other theologies that sound good on paper.

Contrary to Justin's opinion (he must not have read the book very carefully), Sanders presents a view of God that harmonizes with Scripture (something the clasical/reformed tradition cannot do without discarding thousands of texts), reason and our experience as human beings. Sanders takes the reader through those pesky Old Testament texts that so many want to dispose of, as well as the New Testament, and demonstrates that God's interaction throughout salvation history has been one of relation and risk. He further explores Christian tradition, and shows the relational aspect of much of the thought of the early Church Fathers and other avenues of Christian thought. While more of a survey than an exhaustive analysis, there are numerous endnotes which direct the reader to more expansive research. There is enough about this book to keep you studying for a long time.

Despite what has been asserted, Sanders does not contradict himself. God could have chosen to create a world in which relationaily was not a component, although trinitarian theism recognizes the eternal relational aspect of God's being. However, because God IS relational, He sovereignly chose to create a universe in which relationship, not control, was the primary focus. Those who dogmatically define "sovereignty" as meticulous control will certainly not agree with Sanders' conclusions, but will have a hard time refuting him without resorting to name calling and charges of "heresy".

This is not a book one can skim through, it must be read thoroughly and studiously. This book requires thought on the part of the reader, something that is not too often evident which much "evangelical" Christian material these days.

This book was written by a panel of scholars who cumulate PhDs in physics, philosophy and theology, and are more of the "liberal" trend (either evolutionists, Neotheist, Postmodern...). The different essays present a variety of views, but are highly speculative. I do not want to question the value of these scholars, I just think that they have to speculate so much because we know so little about Chaos theory or Quantum Mechanics.
The book is anyway a worthy attempt, given that unclear fields such as Chaos Theory or Quantum Mech. belong as much to physics as to Theology or to Philosophy. All interpretations seem possible.

An important study for our entrance into an age unfettered by a religious system repressing scientific progress, moving toward the merging of science and new religious study.

A Distant Second to Revolutionary Road.

Yates draws some compelling characters in this drama about a mother's inability to come to terms with a cruel world that doesn't give a damn about her 3rd rate artwork, and her son, a young private in the army during WWII. There were some poignant moments and Yates, as always, shows us the dirty underside of the american dream, but he strays too far from these strengths in A Special Providence.

Half the novel takes place in a war setting, and frankly, Yates' war-writing is some of the least memorable I've ever read. Try Mailer or Herr or Heller if that's what you're looking for. Another annoying tidbit is the repetitiveness of the narrative.

Anyway, it's a pretty good read, but nothing "great". Yates is better when he stays closer to home. This story is not as tightly wound as Rev Road, and we don't care about the characters nearly as much. Okay, that's my two cents.

Richard Yates is underappreciated. The general reading public doesn't know him. He had all but faded into literary history after his death until a recent short story collection revived interest in his work. But discerning readers of modern fiction have always placed him in the same literary class as John Cheever, John Updike and the other better-known modernists of the second half of the 20th century. His best-selling and arguably best novel was his first, Revolutionary Road, which captured 1950s suburban angst about as well as anybody. His second novel, which was published fully eight years later, is A Special Providence. It is not well known but it, too, is an excellent work. It tells the story of a mother and her son. It focuses partly on the mother's constant and fruitless search for artistic respect and financial security as well as on the son's experiences during World War II. Unlike some Yates novels, A Special Providence holds together from beginning to end. But it is especially strong in describing the son's relatively brief and unfulfilling war experiences in the European theater. Yates certainly isn't known as an adventure writer, but A Special Providence reveals his ability to create a compelling, fast-paced narrative when the story calls for it. In fact, Yates is at his best when he is in the midst of a strong bit of narrative. Some of his other novels ultimately failed, and failed to draw readers, because they descended for prolonged periods into plodding narrative and excessive introspection. This doesn't happen much in A Special Providence, and that's why it's at least his second best novel.

I have been familiar with the concepts of submission and obedience for about 15 years, so the ground covered by John Bevere was not new to me. However, he presented even the material I learned 15 years ago in modern, fresh, and applicable terms so that I was more easily able to understand the difference between obedience and submission and how to more effectively apply them to my own life so I can receive more of the blessings of God on my life. If I didn't aready own this book, I would definitely buy it.

I'm Holy Spirit filled and go to an awesome church and this book STILL helped me to repent of the little pebbles of sins! Some times it's not the big bolders that Christians need to overcome and repent of, some times the worst are the little pebble sins that go subtle and unackowledged! This book is filled with the revelation of the Holy Spirit and helped me repent and get my spiritual life back going. Thank you God and for using John Bevere!

Lucy

John Bevere has done it again, writing yet another book that will bring you deeper into the mysteries of Christ. In this book, Bevere shows you the difference between submission and obedience. John shows us that you can submit to somebody, and not always obey them, and that you can obey somebody and never submit to them.

Using many excellent personal examples of his own life and ministry (frequent readers/listeners of Bevere will be familiar with many of these examples), as well as corresponding biblical examples, Bevere teaches who we are to submit to - all genuine authority - and what we are to obey by submitting to authority - everything save for something that would be disobedience to Christ. This submission includes even ungodly men and women, be it a president, local government, or even your husband or parents. Bevere says "obedience deals with our responsive actions toward authority. Submission deals with our attitude toward authority" (p. 134)

Hard to believe that we have to submit even to ungodly men and women, but as Bevere shows we don't have to obey them where they ask us to be disobedient to the Gospel. Bevere reminds us that we are to be obedient to decisions of authority that may not always appear to be wise, because they are authority- God's appointed authority of Romans 13 - but if it is an unwise decision we are to remember the heart of the King is in God's hands, and God will judge that ruler for his decisions based on the authority God gave him. If you disobey authority simply because you don't agree with how something should be done, you will be cursed, but should you obey them even if you disagree with them, you will be blessed.

By submitting to authority and obeying it, you will go under God's presence. Because now you are under God's divine protection, and should this authority do something wrong to abuse his position of authority, he will have to answer to God for it, while you will be protected by God's grace.

As hard as it might be to agree to the above- you probably already disagree with this book - buy this book, for it will carefully show you that the above is very biblical. An excellent book that will transform forever how you look at and deal with authority. It will probably not be one of John Bevere's most popular books, but surely will be remembered as one of his better ones.

I've been interested in the Calvist-Arminian debate for several years now, and I've found that Chosen But Free presents a much needed moderate view in the debate between two positions which represent a false dichotomy regarding Scriptural revelation--free will vs. God's Sovereingty. Whether Geisler's view can truly be called "moderate Calvinism" is questionable--I feel the term "moderate" (without "Calvinist" or "Arminian") is more appropriate. Perhaps no label at all would be even better, since neither the "5-point" Calvinist nor the classical Arminian position seems to account for all of the relevent Biblical data. Predictably, both Calvinists and Arminians have been less than thrilled with the position set forth in this book. No matter, Geisler does a fine job handling the Scriptures concerning both Divine Sovereingty and human responsibility, as well as the passages proclaiming God's love for all people. He also effectively demonstrates that God's Sovereignty over His creation is in no way diminished by the fact of "secondary causes" such as free moral agents. Dr. Geisler could have developed this more by emphasizing the fact that God's omniscience extends to all things ACTUAL as well as all things POSSIBLE. Another weakness is that SOME of the Scriptures he uses to refute Calvinist arguments are probably superfluous, since they allow for the "straw man" fallacy to creep in, as I know of no Calvinists who use them to defend their position. He would have done well to leave these out, because he does more than an adequate job tackling the relevent Scriptures to the debate. Overall, Dr. Geisler presented a very reasonble alternative, however brief, to both Calvinism and Arminianism. I would definitely be in favor an expanded follow-up, which would hopefully address Arminianism in more detail, particularly the issue of "eternal security/perserverence of the saints", and which would address the aniticipated rebuttles that will come from both sides.

I thought Geisler did an excellent job of handing a very difficult issue. I would recomend this book to anyone interested in searching the scriptures and understanding the arguements for and against each position. I found his analysis of the scriptures for and against each point to be fair and quite helpful. The issue is best viewed by the illustration of a pulley. If you imagine Predestination on one side and free will on the other you can view what happens in this controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism. If one tugs too much on the free will side the pulley will become unbalanced and if one tugs too much on the predestination side the pulley will become unbalanced. Both views are taken to the extreme. What Geisler offers is a balanced view of Biblical election and free will. I felt that he did an excellent job of communicating it. I find it unfortunate that people have sunk to the low of bashing Geisler simply because they disagree with his view point. This is a must read for anyone seeking a balanced, Biblical view.

Philosopher and theologian Norman Geisler is president of Southern Evangelical Seminary.His present book is written with a popular style and deals with the issue of God's attributes and human free will. He shows that hypercalvinism ("TULIP") and extreme armenianism (Neotheism, molinism) are internally inconsistent views and are also unbiblical. He mostly uses theological (Biblical) arguments but also with a few philosophical arguments, and some arguments from church history (in the appendices). Geisler defends the traditional Christian view that God is omniscient and in charge and that humans have a free will). This is also the view shared by modern calvinists (like Geisler) and moderate arminians. Geisler criticizes however the arminian view that salvation can be lost. The appendices cover half of the book, they contain a lot of very valuable information.

I found Geisler quite convincing. I personally always found hypercalvinism inconsistent: if salvation is question of God's pleasure (predestination) and God is all-good, all powerful and all-knowing then why does he save everyone instead of sending some to hell? I found Geisler quite insightful here in seeing that hypercalvinism will degenerate in universalism. Geisler refutes here the voluntarism of John Piper and defends the traditional Christian view (essentialism.) Among others, I also found quite interesting is the difference of the views between the young and the late Augustine.

What may be lacking in this book are some consideration about the issue of the unevangelized. Many humans throughout history have not known the Christian gospel to be true, or even worse never had an opportunity to hear about this gospel: this is an argument used by extreme calvinists and neotheists. Geisler could have anwered this by making a difference between, on one hand, the evangelized whose salvation/condemnation is decided during their life on earth on the basis of their reaction to knowing the truth about the gospel and on the other hand the unevangelized whose salvation/condemnation will be decided at the last judgement on the basis of their heart/works, their reaction to whatever they received (conscience, etc.) A problem in the book is that the citations of church fathers (e. g. St Thomas) in the appendices sometimes do not refer to verses in original texts but to pages in some modern editions.

This book will be very illuminating and helpful for many Christians. It will be mostly of interest for those Christians who are part of the calvinist or evangelical traditions, but I can imagine that it could also be very interesting for others, for example Catholic Christians interested in the issue or in Biblical arguments against the molinism (middle-knowledge instead of omniscience).

Concerning the issue of God's attributes and human freedom, this book does not address the molinist arguments recently given by William Craig, one of the foremost Christian thinkers. Geisler may not have dealt with this possibly because his present book deals primarily with the Bible. A few philosophical arguments against molinism can be found in Geisler's Creating God in the Image of man, and some more profound ones in Goris' Free Creatures of an Eternal God (with a refutation of Craig's arguments) and especially in Garrigou-Lagrange's monumental work God: His Existence and His Nature, volume 2.