Unfortunately this book is out of print (as most good books are). However, Amazon can track it down for you, and it is worth the hunt. Craig provides some solid historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus between these pages. Moreover, he discusses theories which have been herald at the resurrection of Christ in order to debunk it. Some of these theories include 'The Conspiracy Theory,' 'The Apparent Death Theory,' 'The Wrong Tomb Theory,' etc.

In subsequent chapters, Craig discusses the empty tomb and gives ten lines of evidence (with strong support) as to why the claim of Jesus' resurrection must indeed be true. Moreover, Craig covers the appearances of Jesus after His resurrection and provides evidences from Scripture (actual historical documents) as to why these appearances are correct.

Finally, Craig ends the book with two chapters which deal with faith and belief of the resurrection which is built on fact.

This is a wonderful apologetics text for the resurrection of Jesus, written by a top rate scholar. While the book is fairly simplistic, that tends to lend its being capable of reaching a wider audience (i.e. both laymen and scholars). I wish this book would be brought back into print. It is presented in a very well organized and systematic fashion, and is short enough, but filled with enough good information to be used as a great research tool. I very much highly recommend this book!!!!

In this masterful work, Craig tackles the extremely difficult issue of just what exactly relativity theory says about time. He defends relativity against various detractors, and then refutes the doctrine of metric conventionalism. Then he gets down to the nitty gritty. Through a thorough analysis of the positivistic foundations of Einstein's original formulations, and Minkowski's implausible reformulation in terms of a static theory of time, Craig concludes that a Neo-Lorentzian interpretation of relativity theory is the most plausible. He defends his conclusion against charges of ad hocness and even supports it with quantum mechanical observations.
This book is not an easy read. However, it is mandatory reading for all interested in the philosophy of time or relativity theory.
Let us hear no more of how relativity allegedly supports a static theory of time or how it is irreconcilable with God being temporal.
Thank you, William Lane Craig!

This book was the "first edition" that Craig wrote which later became titled "Reasonable Faith." While the contents are basically the same between the two it must be pointed out that "Reasonable Faith" contains some minor updated material that is not included in this volume. However, this volume is designed in a more technical format that includes bibliographic information (recommended reading) at the beginning of each chapter. "Reasonable Faith" is formatted in a more common publishing style. If you are wanting to collect all of Craig's works then you will want this book (even though it is simply the earlier copy of "Reasonable."). Some of the differences between the two works are: 1) the chapters in the older text carry a Latin title; De Fide, De Homine, De Deo, De Creatione, and De Christo, 2) The cover, of course, 3) The format of the text, 4) the positioning of the bibliography, and 5) the older version (this one I'm reviewing) has an analytic outline at the beginning of the book that is very helpful. Other than that, the books are the same.

Structured, well thought and presented intro to the field of apologetics. This respected philosopher and debater of the Christian worldview presents in technical, detailed outline form, what he terms "analytic outline."

Topices are Faith and Reason, The Absurdity of life without God, the existence of God, the problem of miracles and historical knowledge, the claims of Christ and the Resurrection.

Each topic is presented with thorough bibliography. Pleased to learn that this volume has been replaced and updated in newer volume in another review. Must obtain and see the differences. As solid a place to delve into the fascinating field of apologetics there is.

This is a college-level philosophy text in which the words naturalism, etiology, epistemology, ontology and so forth are used without definition, but it is perhaps the most profound book of philosophy in a generation.

The preface would have been better if it had defined such terms for the uninitiated, but reading the text with a dictionary will solve most of these problems. I personally felt that Chapter 2 was writtem in much more of an introductory style than Chapter 1 and should have preceded it for that reason. For these reasons alone, the book gets four stars instead of five. The book itself it excellent.

The book contains 10 chapters, each written by a different author, as follows:

1 - Farewell to philosophical naturalism - Paul Moser & Dave Yandell

2 - Knowledge and Naturalism - Dallas Willard

3 - The incompatibility of naturalism and scientific realism - Robert Koons

4 - Naturalism and the ontological status of properties - J.P. Moreland

5 - Naturalism and material objects - Michael Rea

6 - Naturalism and the mind - Charles Taliaferro

7 - Naturalism and libertarian agency - Stewart Goetz

8 - Naturalism and morality - John Hare

9 - Naturalism and cosmology - William Lane Craig

10- Naturalism and design - William Dembski

In subjecting naturalism -- the rejection of all things supernatural -- to a critical analysis, the authors expose in convincing fashion the complex incompleteness of our current naturalistic thought processes. William Lane Craig's chapter on Naturalism and Cosmology is particularly excellent in this regard and should not be missed by any serious student of physics.

It does not take long while reading this book to realize that the authors may well be erecting a new philosphical structure for the 21st century. They show repeatedly that we ignore some types of information when the information doesn't fit the standard naturalistic model. They emphasize that we cannot hope to achieve our full potential as a species unless we can overcome these self-imposed bounds.

This is a first-rate academic dissection of naturalism, which is the view that nothing exists but the natural world -- i.e., the world without God in the picture. The essays in this volume explore the consequences of naturalism on morality, free will, consciousness and other areas. Each essay is top-notch and written by a theistic philosopher.

There are so many problems with naturalism one hardly has to look far to find them. For one thing, naturalism entails physicalism, which holds that our mental states and physical bodies are one and the same. Physicalism, however, seems unable to explain the non-physical properties possessed by our mental states (beliefs, memories, desires, etc), for how can my recollection of last Thanksgiving be explained as existing 2 inches behind my right ear, 4 centimeters in length and smelling of cranberry sauce? Also, J.P. Moreland pointed out in another book that while a brain surgeon may know more about my brain than I do, he is not privy to the fear I experience before I'm opened up or what I dream about while I'm unconscious. Moreover, it seems almost impossible for physicalism to account for the intentionality of our mental states. Our mental states possess the property of intentionality, or "aboutness." That is, they are directed as certain things. People don't just "desire"; they desire something. Physicalism seems unable to adequately explain this.

Genetic determinism is touched on as well as naturalism implies genetic determinism. Genetic determinism is self-refuting, as the belief that genetic determinism is true is itself determined. Believing genetic determinism to be true is no more rational than picking your nose. If a determinist has genes that determine him to be a determinist, how can he convince anyone of anything given that everyone else's beliefs are putatively determined by their genes? Also, accepting genetic determinism would mean acccepting a radical re-evaluation of morality. If genetic determinism is true, then all we are is a collection of accidentally arranged atoms. When a bomb hits them, they become rearranged. Ergo, any gut feeling that such acts as murder and rape are evil is illusionary. The type of morality naturalism prescribes is an evolutionary morality. For instance, murder wasn't socially-advantageous at one time in the distant past, so it became taboo; but there is nothing really wrong with killing someone. It is not hard, then, to understand why naturalism provides a very, very poor foundation for morality.

An important book.

This was a fairly good basic intro book for the issues of God/time and God's knowledge/future contingents. While this issue is usually discussed in philosophical journals and in books which cost an arm and a leg to purchase, Craig has brought the issue to the lay persons and scholars alike.

Before I review this book, it must be noted that I disagree with Craig's position. However, I think that Craig has done a noble job in defending his position, and I respect him for that. If I was able, I would have given Craig's book three and a half (3 1/2) stars for my own disagreements with Craig's overall assertions and some of the misunderstanding Craig had regarding certain philosopher's and their assertions (i.e. Aquinas being one which was mentioned below).

Craig's position in this book is that God is temporal (or omnitemporal) due to relations which occurred with the created universe (relations which were not present w/o creation). Craig argues his point based on several elements. First, Craig believes that God cannot remain untouched by the created order's temporality. In other words, according to Craig, God comes into (so to speak) new relations which were not present without the created universe. Second, Craig believes that once time begins at the moment of creation, God becomes temporal by virtue of His real relation to the temporal world. Third, thus God, at least, according to Craig, undergoes some type of extrinsic change due to this new real relation with the created world. These are Craig's underlying assertions regarding God and time.

Also, in this book, Craig rejects Einstein's interpretation of the Special Theory of Relativity (STR). Note, I did not say that Craig denies STR, rather he agrees with the Lorenzian interpretation of the theory over and against Einstein's interpretation. You can read why Craig believes this, since he details it in several chapters of this work.

I believe Craig's overall assessment of the issues is misdirected and wrong in several areas. First, He univocally predicates to God relations which occur between one human and another. This predication occurs via God's new relations with the universe. However, if God is a necessary being (which I think Craig would agree that God is), then any properties predicated of that Being must be predicated necessarily. However, if God is omnitemporal (as Craig asserts) then these properties must be predicated necessarily. By Craig's univocal predication, he does not predicate of God necessarily as he should. This is so because Craig declares that God "changes" from a being who is eternal to a being who is omnitemporal. This is, via Craig's view, an ontological change in God's nature and this is, I believe, metaphysically impossible. Either God is necessarily eternal or God is necessarily omnitemporal. He cannot move from one state to the other and remain a necessary being.

Another problem I had with this book was Craig's misunderstanding of Thomas Aquinas' assertions about God and real relations. In chapter three (3), "Divine Temporality," part II. "Divine Relations With the World," Craig asserts, "Thomas [Aquinas] escapes the conclusion that God is therefore temporal by denying that God stands in any real relation to the world." This could not be more inaccurate and wrong. Aquinas does not deny that God stands in any real relation to the world. In fact, Aquinas declares just the opposite. Aquinas asserted three types of relations: one where both terms are ideas, one where both terms are real, and one where one is real and one idea. That which is created, according to Aquinas, is really dependent upon God, but God is not really dependent upon the created. Thus, they are related as real to an idea. God knows about the relationship of dependence but He does not actually have it. The relationship between God and the world is very real, but God is not dependent in that relationship. In other words, Aquinas is only denying dependent relations between God and the world, not all real ones. Aquinas treats this issue in the Summa Theologiae, 1a. 13, 7, ad. 2. (Also, for an easy explanation of this issue see Norman Geisler's book titled "Thomas Aquinas: An Evangelical Appraisal" I briefly summarized this position based upon those two works).

Overall, Craig's book is pretty good, but it is wrought with several problems. I appreciate Craig's work to bring this issue to the non-philosopher, so to speak, but I would recommend reading Craig's book in light of Brian Leftow's book titled "Time and Eternity," and Paul Helm's work titled "Eternal God." Both of these books are available here at Amazon.com.

This book is actually a condensation of four of Craig's technical works: Time and the Metaphysics of Relativity; God, Time, and Eternity; The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination; and The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination. As a result, some of the issues in this book may remain difficult to those new to the subject, especially the treatments of the Special Theory of Relativity, tensed facts, and the extent of the present. Nevertheless, Craig explains these about as well as could be done in the space available.
The book is divided into five sections. First, he considers arguments in favor of God's being timeless, focusing on those originating from divine simplicity and immutability, relativity, and the incompleteness of temporal life. He concludes that only the last holds any weight. Thomists are likely to find Craig's rather brief dismissal of simplicity and immutability frustrating (W. Norris Clarke has argued that immutability is the best argument in favor of timelessness), but Craig's point remains that we have even less reason to think that God is simple or immutable than we do to think he is timeless.
Section two considers arguments in favor of divine temporality: the impossibility of atemporal personhood, divine relations with the world, and divine knowledge of tensed facts. He rejects the first, but considers the other two to be powerful arguments in favor of God's being temporal.
However, the defender of timelessness still has a way out if he adopts the static theory of time. Thus, Craig devotes the next to sections to the nature of time. In arguments for and against the dynamic conception, he considers the ineliminability of tense from language and our experience of tense. Arguments against include McTaggart's Paradox and the so-called myth of passage. Section four is arguments for and against the static conception: relativity theory, the mind-dependence of becoming, spatializing time, the illusion of becoming, the problem of intrinsic change, and creation out of nothing. Craig concludes that the dynamic conception of time is superior, and thus, God is temporal.
However, this leaves unresolved the question of whether God is temporal without creation. Thus, section five considers arguments for and against the infinitude of the past. Craig makes a very strong case for the finitude of the past. But if time began, how can God be temporal if he never began to exist? There are two options: the first, which Craig argues against, is that temporally before creation, there was an undifferentiated moment, a now with no temporal metric, which was followed by our time with its metric. God existed in this primal before, and now is in our time just like us. The other option is accidental temporalism, the position that God is timeless without creation and temporal with creation. This must not be construed to be saying that God has two phases, a timeless and a temporal, one being temporally before the other. Rather, they are not temporally related to each other at all. Craig gives the analogy of the Big Bang singularity not being before time, but lying on the boundary of time. God's timeless existence may have been something like that.
This is an excellent book, being both thorough and persuasive. Any defender of divine timelessness must attempt to answer Craig's detailed arguments against their position.
In response to the previous reviewer, it must be pointed out that his argument is clearly ridiculous. By no means must we predicate all of God's properties necessarily. This leads to all sorts of obviously false conclusions. For example, God possesses the property of knowing that I will read a book after finishing this review. But if we must predicate that property to God necessarily, then I have no free will. God's necessarily, rather than contingently, knowing that fact requires that I not have the ability to not read that book. If I am free, then God knows that fact contingently. But if he knows it of necessity, then I am not free. Worse, such a position removes God's freedom as well. For example, God possesses the property of being the creator of this universe. But if he possesses it necessarily, then he couldn't have chosen not to create, or to have created a different universe. It is completely theologically unacceptable to say that God could not have created a universe that lacked, say, Pluto, or Alpha Centauri, rather than ours. Thus, if all of God's properties must be predicated necessarily, then that constitutes good grounds for thinking that the concept of God is incoherent. This is not to say that God is not a necessary being. Of couse God is. But being necessary means that God could not fail to exist. In other words, God exists in all possible worlds. But since God is free, he must possess some properties contingently, since there are innumerable possible worlds he could have created.
In conclusion, Craig's position has yet to be refuted. Accidental temporalism wins the day!

Having been introduced to Dr. Craig via the video debate that he did with Frank Zindler in 1993 (I have seen the video a dozen times as I have shown this to numerous apologetics classes), I knew that this was a very skilled scholar of Christian truth and apologetics. "Reasonable Faith did not disappoint. From the issues of the existence of God to the resurrection, Dr. Craig deals with a number of important topics that definitely belong in a book like this. He makes the point for his book in the introduction, "Christianity is being attacked from all sides as irrational or outmoded, and millions of students, our future generation of leaders, have absorbed this viewpoint" (xiii). He is absoultely correct in saying that we need to use our minds to fully know and appreciate the God who has revealed Himself to us through His Word.

The first chapter, Faith and Reason, was well done as he took a historical look at how previous believers have wrestled with how much reason is needed to have true faith. (Hence, the title of the book.) Without the Holy Spirit, no one would ever become a Christian, he says, and I fully agree. Good things were written here, and I truly appreciated his assessment section as he put everything together. Another thing I liked about this chapter (and the other chapters as well) is that Dr. Craig wrote a short conclusion that gives an application for the believer. This not only serves as a wonderful summary but is certainly very useful for the lay reader.

After showing the absurdity of the idea that there is no God in chapter 2, Dr. Craig went to one of his specialities in the third chapter regarding the existence of God. This was a long and sometimes too deep chapter that would probably lose many readers. After reading this chapter, I became confused as to whom Dr. Craig thought his audience was. Was he shooting for more of a lay audience, as his "application" sections seemed to indicate? Or was he going for the more intellectual crowd, a group that could even include skeptics? I'm not sure, but I found that I had to move slowly through this chapter, and I'm familiar with the points being made. Still, there's a lot of meat here and worth a study.

I felt the middle chapters bogged down a bit, with history being emphasized along with the points. Craig Blomberg, though, had an excellent submitted chapter on the historical reliability of the Bible. The last chapter on the resurrection was one of the strongest points of this book, as I think Dr. Craig does as well as anyone reporting on the historicity of the most important event in Christianity.

One final comment. I would have liked it had the editor eliminated the conjunctions that began many sentences (but, for, etc.). The book also has too many sentences beginning with the word "now." Now, I know this is a minor point, but truly it almost became a humorous distraction every time I saw another sentence that began with it. :) Despite this silly observation, Reasonable Faith is a book I would recommend. Indeed there are few Christian scholars as sharp as Dr. Craig. I challenge an atheist, committed or not, to take up this book and see if Christianity is nonsensible. If he is honest, he will have to admit that there are at least some strong points with the Christian religion.

A monumental work! This is the best book on the subject of Christian evidences that I have read. It reviews and assesses the major topics involved in Christian apologetics: faith and reason, the absurdity of life without God, the existence of God, the problem of miracles, the problem of historical knowledge, the historical reliability of the New Testament, and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. What makes this work special is that Dr. Craig draws upon a wealth of knowledge from modern big bang cosmology and New Testament critical studies to bolster his claim that Christianity is reasonable. Reading this book will challenge the skeptic's atheism and edify the believer's faith. Destined to be a classic and rival to C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity."

William Lane Craig is well known inside scholarly circles. Christian scholars regard him as one of the elite. And atheist scholars, along with prominent atheist websites, feel compelled to pay a great deal of attention to the writings and debates of Craig, in my view, because he has demonstrated himself to be one of the sharpest pins to regularly burst the atheism balloon. There is no serious debate about Craig's scholarly credentials and abilities, and Reasonable Faith makes that abundantly clear.

Reasonable Faith is a methodical, meticulous, sometimes impassioned defense of the existence of the Biblically based Christian God. In this book, Craig not only challenges the views of various atheist scholars (whether they reside in science, mathematical or history disciplines) but also challenges the views of deism and 'liberal Christianity'. I felt that the book represented a very logical and easy follow stairway from the issues of faith and reason, to the inescapable reasonableness of the resurrection of Jesus. In between, Craig conducts a quality appraisal of the Godless worldview and where it leads, and an outstanding analysis on the existence of God where he takes on the views of Hawking and others. Craig Blomberg contributes a very good chapter on the reliability of the New Testament, with Craig concluding with a good chapter on the self understanding of Christ and a masterful chapter on the resurrection. Each chapter provides a very compelling chronology of how the debates revolving around these topics have evolved over time, giving the reader a good sense of how thinkers on multiple sides of the issues have formed their various positions. Craig then does an assessment of this chronology in each chapter. I found this approach to be very strong and persuasive.

Craig also does a good job referencing his book, and offers a very good bibliography of other readings that go into further detail on the issues that Craig examines here. When reading this book, the reader may very well want to conduct further investigation and research into a number of areas that Craig touches on, and the bibliography in this book allows the interested reader to do so easily.

The problem of miracles was the one area where Craig could have been a little stronger, in my view. This area is not weak by any stretch, but could have stood for further exploration and examination, in my opinion.

Overall, this is an outstanding book. Craig wrote this book on a more popularized level to make it more amenable to laypeople, but potential readers should not be lead to believe that this is an easy or fluffy read. While written at a more popularized level than much of Craig's high scholarly material, this is still a book that deals with complex issues in a meaty way, and requires the reader to carefully think things through. After reading this book, I hope that even those who remain unconvinced about their need for the Christian God will at least acknowledge that Craig clearly demonstrates that the historical Christian religion can be effectively and articulately defended against the highest level of opposing arguments thrown against it. Christianity is a religion that more than stands on its own intellectually, and Craig shows, in my view, that its competitors in the world of scholarship have long since been lapped. An excellent resource!

If you are looking for an historical 'readings' text for topics in the philosophy of religion, then this book is not for you. However, if you are looking for writings about certain philosophy of religion (or contemporary 'readings') topics then go no further. Craig has assemble some first rate analytical thinkers of the 20th century to cover a wide gamut of topics in the arena of the philosophy of religion.

However, any reader should keep in mind that this is not an historical text of the issues of the philosophy of religion, it is a contemporary text. But, this is actually one of its greatest strengths, since it provides the reader and student some of the most up to date writings available. The topics themselves are 'historical' (for lack of a better way of putting it), but the work is very contemporary.

Some of the topics (or sections) in this text include: Religious epistemology; the Existence of God; Coherence of theism; the problem of evil; soul and immortality; and Christian theology. Some of the philosophers contributing to this volume include: William Lane Craig; William P. Alston; Alvin Plantinga; J.P. Moreland; Eleonore Stump; Quentin Smith; Alfred J. Freddoso; Keith Yandell; Richard Swinburne; Peter van Inwagen; William L. Rowe and many others. This text is a great reference tool, it emphasizes the Christian tradition, it has some first rate introductions, and offers the reader a list of suggested titles for further study. The only downfall, if you could call it that, is the fact that this text is geared toward the student of philosophy and the reader who already has a background in the issues at hand. Some of the articles are quite advanced, but this makes for a great challenging read and will only aid the reader in expanding his knowledge.

...way too advanced for an undergrad like me. This book is an excellent resource for intelligent Christians. Don't get me wrong, I eventually get what is being discussed in the essays, it just takes me a long time.

I don't really understand what the criticism of the earlier reviewer was with regard to Dr. Craig's opinions concerning morality. Dr. Craig has successfully defended his beliefs on morality against his foremost opponents. (I don't know how you can argue for an objective and non-arbitrary morality if you hold a naturalistic worldview.)

I recommend this book to anybody interested in current discussion of philosophy of religion topics. Just be warned if you are not already well versed in elite philosophical terminology: it may take you a while to make it through!

William Lane Craig does a masterful job in his section on Natural Theology. He presents a cumulative case for God's existence by including Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological Argument. ( Although some philosophers have corectly pointed out that his argument is really Cosmological in nature because it presupposes that something exists. One can only know that a poissible world exists on the background knowledge of an actual world.) Plantinga believes that if it is even possible that a maxamally great being exists, then it is true and necessarily true that he does exist. The only question is what warrant exists in thinking that there is a possible world in which a maxamally great being exists. Here is where Craig hammers the nails in the coffin. Based on the other arguments and evidential considerations one may come to the justified conclusion that it is at least possible that a maxamally great being exists. That there is a possible world in which an eternal necessary being exists. Since this being exists necessarily, then he must exist in every possible world. And since the real world is a possible world, then it follows that God exists.

For a more detailed and better treatment on this subject I would recommend Craig's section on Natural Theology in this text. See also Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview by Craig and Moreland ( 2003 ).
The rest of the book is pretty good also. Although it is a little rough at times.

_The Only Wise God_ is a defense of freewill (in the face of divine foreknowledge) and Molinism. Craig turns his attention to the age-old dilemma of human freedom and divine foreknowledge, and attempts a solution. Through a series of discussions on time travel, psychic precognition, and logical fatalism, Craig tries to show that people have freewill even though God knows what they are going to do tomorrow. The strengths of this book include its Biblical defense of divine foreknowledge, and its amazingly clear presentation of the Molinist doctrine of "middle knowledge." However, I do not think that Craig proves his point. His entire case rests upon the reduction of theological fatalism to logical fatalism. That is, Craig thinks that the existence of an omniscient God poses no more of a threat to libertarian freedom than it would if no God existed. But this reductionistic presentation has been sharply critiqued by Nelson Pike and others. I was unconvinced by Craig's book, and I suspect most people will be. The strong intuition that God's past belief about what I will do tomorrow is somehow "fixed" and "unalterable" is hard to deny, and Craig doesn't deal with this issue in any real detail, since he sees it as superfluous.

Furthermore, Craig attempts to refute the major lines of D. A. Carson's argumentation in his book, _Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility_, but in doing so he does not fairly wrestle with the actual Biblical passages. Having read Carson, this severely disappointed me. Craig claims that the Bible says men have freewill, but he produces no clear-cut verses that establish this fact, and he brushes aside the counter-examples given by Carson without any discussion.

I recommend this book for a good defense of Molinism. But for a Biblical critique of Craig's belief in libertarian freewill, I recommend Carson's book mentioned above, and the site,

www.freewill.doesntexist.com

This site offers a storehouse of arguments and Biblical passages used by Calvinists and Arminians alike.

William Lane Craig's book, The Only Wise God, is probably the best introduction to the topic of molinism for beginners of the subject. That is not to say the book is easy reading; it is not. But his clarity and abundance of examples brings out his points nicely such that any casual reader with some intellectual capacity can comprehend his work. There are several positive and negative points of this book. I will highlight each in turn.

Positive Points: (1) The book does a great job explaining God's knowledge of future contingents. He deals with a number of objections, such as those posed by the open theists. (2) He does a nice job explaining Nelson Pike's argument, laying it out formally, and then providing and critiquing three ideas that philosophers have suggested to avoid theological fatalism. (3) In answering the problem with a more reasonable answer, he ties it to questions about precognition, Newcomb's paradox, time travel, etc. He also answers one of the traditional fatalist arguments raised through history about necessity. (4) Lastly, he offers tables to make his points more understandable and he argues his view well.

Negative points: (1) Craig, though I highly respect him, makes some disappointing moves. For instance, he interacts with D.A. Carson, who provides a number of scriptural citations to suggest that libertarian agency is not biblical after all; that is to say that LFW is not what grounds moral responsibility as Craig believes. Here's an excerpt: "Carson counters that there are many cases in the OT where human thoughts and decisions are attributed directly to God's determining (2 Sam. 24:1; Isa. 9:13-14; 37:7; Prov. 21:1; Ezra 1:1; 7:6, 27-28; Neh. 2:11-15). These references, however, are not very convincing and do not even approach a universal determinism.". This is what is called a waving of the hand. I doubt that Carson would find his reply sufficient. (2) There is often this talk about a "genuine freedom." Craig assumes that libertarian agency is genuine when compatibilists will assert that Craig's use of language is an extreme begging of the question. If we in fact do not have the type of control libertarians claim, then it is not genuine at all. (3) I also noticed a loose use of "fatalism." Anyone who apparentely denied the principle of alternative possibilities was rendered a fatalist. Calvinists such as Jonathan Edwards and Paul Helm were noted, along with even Martin Luther. But later, fatalism concerns necessity such that what we will do, we must do. In other words, my writing this review is and has always been necessary. There is no possible world in which I am not writing this review or that this state of affairs could be exemplified. But the "fatalists" mentioned above do not attribute the acts of men as necessary such as the proposition, "God is good," is thought to be necessary. Rather, they denied alternative possibilities and thus libertarian ageny (c.f. "genuine" freedom) because they believed our actions were logically posterior to God's decree and that God's knowledge of our actions were logically grounded in his foreordination. Hence, in the beginning of the book when he does note such people , he is incorrect. When he actually discusses theological fatalism later , I think Craig is on target. (4) The last main problem is that the entire book assumes the existence of libertarian agency. If libertarian agency is incoherent as some philosophers have suggested (i.e. Saul Smilansky), or if determinism (physical or even theological) is true, then the entire book would be completely out of touch with the relationship that actually exists between human beings and God. It would, however, still provide interesting work *if* we were to have libertarian agency. Thus, this book only appeals most strongly to those who already share Craig's assumption.

Though I think Craig is wrong for both philosophical and theological reasons, even if he and Alvin Plantinga state there is no cogent philosophical response (an over-stating of the case in my opinion), I think his work should be read: especially by those who disagree with him. Craig's work has been highly influential, both on the popular and academic level. Despite my vast number of negative comments, as far as I can tell, there is no better place to start than this book for understanding middle-knowledge. I highly recommend it.

If the God of traditional theism is omniscient, then he knows what choices we'll be faced with in the future and how we'll act on them. For instance, if God has always known that I'll write a review of "The Only Wise God" on November 21st, then I cannot do otherwise -- I am "fated" to write this review! For if God has always known that I will write it and I freely choose not to, then God was ignorant of the choice I made. But God cannot be ignorant of my conditional acts, as ignorance is an imperfection. So the question still stands: if God eternally knows our conditional acts, how can true freedom exist? This is the question William Lane Craig attempts to answer.

Craig explains that God's foreknowledge and determination are two different things. For example, I know that spring will occur on March 20th, but I don't "cause" it. My knowing that flowers bloom during this season doesn't "cause" them to do so. Thus God knowing, in His omniscience, how we will respond to His grace does not determine our response. He simply knows the response we will make (being out of time) to that which was necessary for us to act either way (either accepting or rejecting His grace). So although God knew that I was going to write this review before I was born, He did not directly cause my free action. This is a very elementary distinction. If I had chosen to do otherwise, then God would have already known that. This is middle knowledge in a nutshell. Thank you William Lane Craig.

WILL THE REAL JESUS PLEASE STAND UP? (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998) is a transcript of the debate between William Lane Craig and John Dominic Crossan. The book contains responses to the debate by two conservatives (Craig L. Blomberg and Ben Witherington III) and two liberals (Robert J. Miller and Marcus Borg). Finally, Craig and Crossan each offer some concluding reflections on the debate.

Given that Craig and Crossan hold diametrically opposed views of Christian origins, this debate could have been an excellent opportunity to learn why each camp rejects the empirical claims of the other. Whereas the conservatives presented arguments for their positions (and point-by-point objections to Crossan's position), the liberals simply did not take the debate very seriously. Not only did Crossan fail to engage Craig on the specifics of his case, Crossan refused to engage in any historical argumentation. Instead, Crossan argued that the New Testament documents--including their accounts of resurrection--should be taken as metaphor. Now, even if that is true--and conservatives will obviously disagree--it was simply poor argumentative strategy on Crossan's part to neglect the empirical claims advanced by Craig. Given that Crossan denies the truth of each of Craig's four historical claims--burial by Joseph of Arimathea, empty tomb, post-resurrection appearances, and the origin of the Christian faith--I think Crossan did a disservice to his audience by failing to defend his objections to each of Craig's four historical claims.

To make matters worse, the two liberal commentators on the debate (Miller and Borg) *also* refused to interact with Craig's arguments for the historicity of the resurrection. Miller, in the introduction to his commentary, mysteriously declares, "[I]nstead of responding directly to Craig's argument, I will step back from it and analyze its format, message, and audience" (p. 77). Say what? Borg's commentary is slightly better; Borg argues that the original understanding of resurrection--represented by 1 Corinthians 15--"does not depend upon something having happened to Jesus' corpse" (p. 123). Yet Borg, like Miller and Crossan himself, declares as irrelevant whether the resurrection is literally, historically true.

Given their understanding of "resurrection," the liberals simply could not bring themselves to take Craig's apologetic arguments seriously. While that is certainly their prerogative, they never should have agreed to participate in this project if they were not fully committed to exploring the *full scope* of the topic. Someone needs to tell Crossan, Miller, and Borg that the concept of debate is based upon a *clash of ideas*; if they are not willing to directly clash with the arguments of their opponents; they should not agree to participate! If Crossan was only interested in debating whether Jesus' resurrection was a physical resurrection which depended upon an empty tomb, he should have refused to participate in a debate format where the truth of certain historical claims would be an issue. By participating in a debate but never really debating, Crossan has now managed to give the impression that he did not refute Craig's arguments because he can't refute Craig's arguments. This is, of course, false; there are excellent reasons for rejecting Craig's historical arguments. (See my forthcoming reply to Craig's arguments for the historicity of the empty tomb.) But the vast majority of Crossan's Evangelical audience will never hear those reasons because Crossan couldn't be bothered to state them, either in the debate itself or in his concluding comments.

Turning to the debater's concluding reflections, I was not impressed by the fact that Craig got to give his opening statement first *and* that his concluding reflections appeared last. Of course, Craig's and Crossan's concluding reflections were presumably written simultaneously and independent of one another, but in a debate where no one side had the sole burden of proof, Crossan's concluding reflections should have appeared last in the volume.

In conclusion, given the liberals' refusal to fully participate in this debate, I can't recommend this book to anyone, even as an introductory text. There are better introductory books available on the views of both Craig and Crossan.

Craig and Crossan both provide opening addresses, and rebuttals before the two debaters participate in open dialog with Buckley as moderator. Craig presents four lines of evidence which provide "adequate inductive grounds for inferring Jesus' resurrection." He defends all four (Jesus' burial, empty tomb, post-mortem appearances, and the disciples' belief in Jesus' bodily resurrection) by appealing to confirmatory evidence and the acknowledgement by the consensus of critical New Testament scholarship that these are all established historical facts. As amazing as it may sound, at no point does Crossan, or any of the four respondents (Robert Miller, Craig Blomberg, Marcus Borg, & Ben Witherington) even challenge the historicity of these facts. Nor do they challenge that these facts are accepted by the consensus of scholarship, nor that they provide sufficient grounds to infer the resurrection, nor do they suggest any alternate explanations for even one of these facts. I wish that the scholars who deny the resurrection would address these problems rather than avoid them; it's difficult to get excited about a debate when one side refuses to argue.

This was a great book and I agree with the general observations of the vast majority of the reviewers. That is, Craig won hands down. Crossan didn't really even enter the debate which surprised and disappointed some reviewers. But it's really not surprising at all. Crossan's arguments (or lack there of) come directly from the work of the Jesus Seminar. And Crossan's utter defeat illustrates that the Seminar's work is of little value in disproving the Gospels and the mainstream Christian interpetation of them as largely accurate, HISTORICAL accounts of Jesus' life.
Rather, the Jesus Seminar must be looked upon as an experiment in liberal theological thought. It was a chance for liberal scholars to come together and develop a consensus unburdened by critical peer review from their more conservative, and for the most part more mainstream, more distinguished peers.
The result was a new pardigm for interperting the NT. Briefly, the consensus was that it is all symbolism and metaphor. This new paradigm is a logical outcome based on the assumptions, membership, and methods of the seminar. But when brought out into the light of day, it is very awkward and even ridiculous.
The seminar serves a worthwhile purpose as an experiment and "anchor" at the extreme liberal end of the spectrum. But not much else.

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.