Years back I decided to convert from Espicopal to Catholic. This book was given to me as a gift. Only recently did I finally open this book and I'm sorry I didn't sooner. In my experiences, the Catholic faith has never been so well compiled and explained. I've been moved by the spirit throughout the readings and come closer to my faith through understanding. I am extremely greatful to the authors for such a wonderful publication. Praise be to God!

Written in the 15th Century and directed towards monks, this is a devotional for Christian living and Monastic life. While noting the time period helps give depth to the historical backdrop of when Thomas was writing this book, it is perhaps more important to know the audience. The intended audience for The Imitation of Christ was monks. This is obvious in the text and it should be kept in mind while reading this work.

This highly influential work has a very simple message: live like Christ. Presented in this book, it is a very strict message. Thomas takes a very strict interpretation of following Christ and the message is very much rooted in the idea of works. It is the actions that one must perform, and not so much the inner state (though he does stress that the inner state is important). This would be a difficult message to take or to give, but again, we must consider the audience: monks living in a monastery. They must live a harsher life and because of their vows, this devotional makes perfect sense.

This can be read as a historical document in Christianity or as a devotional. Either way, one can find great value and and some illumination of the words of Christ through this volume.

Thomas a Kempis was medival monk and priest (1380-1471) who served as chronicler of the monastery at Mt. St. Agnes. During his long life of scholarship, he wrote several biographies of church fathers and a number of devotional works. The "Imitation of Christ" remains his most famous work and the one that has best stood the test of time. Indeed, one of the wonderful things about this work is that it reminds us that the life of the mind is not a creature of the Enlightenment. Even during the so-called Dark Ages there were brilliant scholars with a wide knowledge of both scripture and philosophy. Reflecting its vibrant insight into the human condition, the "Imitation of Christ" remains influential on both sides of the Reformation divide. It reportedly was, for example, one of John Wesley's favorite devotionals.

The "Imitation of Christ" is divided into 4 books, each undertaking a basic theme for development. They are, respectively, the Spiritual Life, the Inner Life, Inward Consolation, and the Blessed Sacrament (i.e., the Eucharist). In turn, each book is sub-divided into numerous chapters, each a page or two long. All of which makes the "Imitation of Christ" a useful book for daily devotionals. One can skip around freely within the book, dipping in as the mood strikes. Yet, I think one is well-served by reading it through at least once. Only then does one see Thomas' thought in its fully-developed form. Do be sure to get a good translation. I am fond of the one by Leo Sherley-Price.

Thomas a Kempis was medival monk and priest (1380-1471) who served as chronicler of the monastery at Mt. St. Agnes. During his long life of scholarship, he wrote several biographies of church fathers and a number of devotional works. The "Imitation of Christ" remains his most famous work and the one that has best stood the test of time. Indeed, one of the wonderful things about this work is that it reminds us that the life of the mind is not a creature of the Enlightenment. Even during the so-called Dark Ages there were brilliant scholars with a wide knowledge of both scripture and philosophy. Reflecting its vibrant insight into the human condition, the "Imitation of Christ" remains influential on both sides of the Reformation divide. It reportedly was, for example, one of John Wesley's favorite devotionals.

The "Imitation of Christ" is divided into 4 books, each undertaking a basic theme for development. They are, respectively, the Spiritual Life, the Inner Life, Inward Consolation, and the Blessed Sacrament (i.e., the Eucharist). In turn, each book is sub-divided into numerous chapters, each a page or two long. All of which makes the "Imitation of Christ" a useful book for daily devotionals. One can skip around freely within the book, dipping in as the mood strikes. Yet, I think one is well-served by reading it through at least once. Only then does one see Thomas' thought in its fully-developed form. Do be sure to get a good translation. I am fond of the one by Leo Sherley-Price.

This effort by Ron Nash is good and worth reading. There are a number of very good things about this book, but there are also a couple of things about it that in my view, do not warrant a five star rating.

Nash attempts to argue in favor of an exclusivist view of salvation mostly by trying to present negative aspects of both the pluralist and inclusivist views. He therefore devotes the first part of the book to critiquing the pluralism of John Hick, and the second part to critiquing the inclusivism of Pinnock and Sanders.

His critique of Hick's pluralism was easily the best part of the book. Nash methodically analyzes the pluralism of John Hick and by the end of the critique, the reader is left with the impression that Hick's pluralism has been thoroughly discredited not only on intellectual grounds, but on emotional ones as well. As in his other writings, one of Nash's analytical strengths is his insistence on quoting from relevant sources at length. Nash dedicates a significant part of the pluralist section on quoting from John Hick and letting Hick's own words be the basis for Nash's analysis. Nash's conclusions about Hick's philosophy and the ramifications thereof become all the more convincing as a result.

In my own view, I cannot say that Nash had the same level of success in analyzing inclusivism in section 2 as he had with demonstrating the falsity of pluralism in section 1. It's not that this section is bad, because it isn't, there is a lot about his analysis that is good, particularly his analysis of PME and how Pinnock's embrace of it totally contradicts the inclusivist worldview that Pinnock also embraces. But particularly in his analyses of the Scriptural reference that inclusivists often use to support their worldview, I felt that Nash's critique was too summary oriented and not sufficiently detailed to mount a convincing case against inclusivism. To his credit, I thought that Nash did a good job in the very last chapter of rescuing his exclusivism argument a bit, but I still felt that his analysis of inclusivism needed to be more detailed in order for him to effectively demonstrate what he was trying to demonstrate.

The one other negative aspect of the book, in my opinion, is that Nash does not present a positive case for exclusivism. His argument for exclusivism is based almost completely on negatively critiquing pluralism and inclusivism. And while these critiques certainly needed to be done in order to demonstrate that these worldviews run into big intellectual and emotional problems when thoroughly thought through, Nash nonetheless should have put forth a positive defense of exclusivism in order for this book to truly achieve its mission. This absence, coupled with what I believed to be the too top level nature of his Scriptural critique of inclusivism, persuade me to give the book 4 stars instead of 5. Having said that, his critique of pluralism is top grade, and even his critique of inclusivism, while not perfect, still produces lucid arguments and comments that are worthy of being read, in my opinion.

This book is back in print and is readily available from its original publisher, Zondervan Publishing Company in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The book is perhaps the major work that critiques the opinions of pluralists like John Hick and inclusivists such as Clark Pinnock. It defends the claim that Jesus IS the only Savior.

While only a fifth of this book involves the actual debate between William Lane Craig and Gerd Ludemann, it was the highlight of a book that also includes articles from others commenting on the points made in the debate. Unfortunately, I didn't feel Lundemann was on the same page as Craig, who laid out a clear and concise plan of why the historical resurrection is true. At the time of the debate, Ludemann apparently considered himself to be a Christian, though he has apparently changed his mind since this debate and now declares himself a nonbeliever. Ludemann has a theory (hallucination) that I just don't see how everything matches up. Ludemann does not seem to give an adequate explanation to many important points made by Craig. Except for a disconnect on the actual debate, though, the book is worth a read for those wanting two sides to the issue of Christianity's most important claim.

Philosopher William Lane Craig has spilled a lot of ink over the topic of the (alleged) resurrection of Jesus. Craig argues that the best explanation for the apparent resurrection of Jesus is that God actually did raise Jesus from the dead. More recently, Craig has taken to defending his ideas in debate with liberal theologians who doubt that Jesus really was resurrected from the dead. This is the second book Paul Copan edits that records such a debate. In the first, *Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up?*, Craig's sparring partner is John Dominic Crossan. While the first is a dud (Craig and Crossan largely talk past each other, and Craig repeatedly questions Crossan's rationality), but this second installment is much better. In *Jesus' Resurrection*, Craig and Gerd Ludeman do more to confront each others' positions directly.
Craig bases his belief in the resurrection on what he sees as four incontrovertible facts: (1) Jesus was buried, (2) Jesus' tomb was discovered empty, (3) Some people report having seen Jesus after his death, and (4) Jesus' followers preached the resurrection when they had every reason not to. Craig argues that the best explanation for these facts is that God did indeed raise Jesus from the dead. Ludeman argues instead that Jesus' followers had visions of the risen Jesus for psychological reasons.
Craig certainly comes off better in the debate. Craig is a brilliant debater (even though he tends to blithely appeal to scholarly consensus, and is by no means above declaring his opponents irrational or prejudiced against him), and Ludeman is not. Not surprising--one would expect a philosopher to be a better debater than a historian. Because of this, many will conclude that Craig comes away the victor, as having demonstrated his case.
However, when one gets to the responses to the debate by four excellent scholars that one gets to see the gaps in Craig's arguments. (Craig himself does an excellent job of making the gaps in Ludeman's arguments apparent.) In particular, Michael Goulder's piece develops an idea similar to Ludeman's in a way that is far more sophisticated than Ludeman's view.
In the end, as with most debates, the issue ends unresolved. Craig is surely right that Ludeman's theory does not explain (or explain away) facts (1) and (2), and does not do especially well at explaining facts (3) and (4). But Ludeman's hypothesis is not the only, and I doubt even the most plausible, naturalist alternative. And Craig never really considers the possibility that (1)-(4) are not well-established facts at all. Only for Jesus' crucifixion do we have any references from non-interested sources. In his debate with Crossan, who denies that (1) and (2) are facts at all, Craig's only response is to claim that Crossan's position is not that of most Bible scholars, as if mere consensus determined truth. It is too bad that Crossan did not take Craig to task when he had the chance.
In short, while Craig does a good job of confounding Ludeman's arguments, he does not do so admirably when his own views are called into question, generally responding with blatant appeals to consensus and personal attacks. (As an aside, I take especial offense at the claim he makes in nearly all his apologetic works that his opponents deny his view because their philosophical commitments prejudice their evaluation of the evidence, while refusing to acknowledge the possibility that his belief in miracles has prejudiced HIS reading of the evidence. Sometimes I feel that Criag doth protest too much.) Yet for all that, Craig is undoubtedly a brilliant thinker who takes his task seriously and approaches it accordingly. His arguments cannot be ignored. And neither can the arguments of his opponents, which in their own writings (not in the context of a debate) are presented with much more force.
*Jesus' Resurrection* will not resolve the issues, but it does an excellent job of showing what the issues are. This is certainly not the place to finish an examination into the (alleged) resurrection, but it is a great place to start. With patience and care, one can get a lot out of this book, whatever one's religious persuasion happens to be.

Comparing "Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment" with the similar book "Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up", I found that the former was a much better read. Both debaters in "Jesus' Resurrection" give a clear and concise outline of their main points and the essays provided are representative of both sides. In evaluating the debate and essays, being as objective as one can be, I believe that a better case was given for the "Resurrection Hypothesis" compared to the "Hallucination Hypothesis". Ludemann and company rely on unfounded presuppositions. Namely, a late dating of Mark's Gospel, improper exegesis of 1 Cor. 15, and a dogmatic denial of miracles. Obviously this topic is founded on the beliefs in God and miracles. It would probably have been more appropriate to have a debate on the existence of God and the plausibility of miracles since liberal theologians seem to deny their existence. Nonetheless, the reader profits from reading the book through gaining an understanding of two major systems of belief.

The Cubs is a story about the life of a boy who suffers an accidental castration. The emotions of the boy can be felt and you see his change of attitude towards life. It has twists and turns that make The Cubs unpredictable and interesting. The story revolves around the boy and his group of friends from school.

The other stories range from different topics but most of them are short but detailed at the same time. Most of them will leave you satisfied and looking for more book by Vargas Llosa.

reviewed by Mauricio de la Garza

The Godbeites were a group of Mormon intellectuals and businessmen who dissented from the allegedly autocratic rule of LDS President Brigham Young during the 19th century. Ron Walker, a professor of History at Brigham Young University, probably knows more about the Godbeites than anyone else alive. This book is the summation of his career-long researches into the controversy. Previous accounts have emphasized the dissenter's platform of capitalism, free speech, and separation of church and state (features which finally became part of Utah life 30 years later.) Walker stresses a lesser-known and lesser understood aspect of the Godbeites: their adventures into 19th century spiritualism. They were fond of seances and contacting the dead. In Walker's view, this made them unstable and too subject to their own subjective whims, and cut them off fron mainstream Mormonism. This book is partially sponsored by the Smith Institute of Church History at BYU which suggests they want to present a less flattering portrait of the Godbeites, as an indirect way of commenting on more recent dissenters from the church. This possible agenda, however, doesn't really detract from a fine job of history-writing.