This prayer book is the best all around prayer book for daily personal (or even family)use. The Scriptures are addressed back to God and arranged by category (with direction to add certain categories of requests inbetween the sections). This adds structure to ones prayer life and breaks the monotony of "grocery list" praying. This one is a little longer than, "Praying the Scriptures for Spiritual Growth" or the "Simple Prayers" books; in my own personal devotions, it takes me about 7 minutes per daily prayer segment.

Boa has written several prayer books, all great, all solid. This is my favorite to date.

Many times when we pray we don't know where to get started, what to do, many times we just want a deeper prayer life.

This book will scripturally guide you through praying...not only the scriptures, but will guide you in praying for your world around you. It begins with praise and worship of Almighty God, leads you in a confession of Who He is, then guides you through personal renewal, petitions, intercession, and then a prayer of thanksgiving.

One of the things I liked best about this book was that it started out with each section, declaring the Word of God, then it guides you (differently each day) to pray for your leaders one day, your family the next, that you will be a faithful steward of your time and money, for God's wisdom...the list goes on and on.

Both this book and "Praying the Scriptures for Spiritual Growth" are two of the best prayer/devotional books I have ever used. If I could only keep two, these would be the two I would keep. Not only are they easy to follow, they are taken directly from the Word of God.

Face to Face is a wonderful tool to help you pray. Boa has assembled scripture into eight sections for each day. You pray through scripture for Adoration, Confession, Renewal, Petition, Intercession, Affirmation, Thanksgiving and Closing. It helps you focus and it gives a marvelous sense of the completeness of God's word. I do not recommend very many books but this is one that I would recommend to anyone. I have already given away 20 copies.

My husband has a considerable number of cooking and baking books in his culinary library. Thinking about what to buy for his birthday I casually asked him; "if you could only have books by one culinary author, WHO would it be?" Without any hesitation he answered, "Wayne Gisslen." If you knew my husband, you'd consider his response a FIVE-STAR recommendation worthy of anyone's consideration. Knowing that all Gisslen's tomes, more than one edition of some, were already at home in our casa, I decided on surprising him with a new sport coat.

When I challenged a Christian minister that Mormonism had as much proof as Christianity, he gave me a copy of this book. He was right. Mormonism never looked the same to me after reading it. (I wish I had seen a similar book on Christianity then!) This book is an excellent short summary of arguments against the assertions of Mormons. For those interested in origins or a possible sequence of events explaining how Mormonism came about, this book provides an excellent foundation. Davis' central theory that the BOM (Book of Mormon) was adapted from a manuscript stolen from Solomon Spaulding has been rejected for poor reasons by many researchers, and is often not even mentioned by other authors. I found this book comparable to the single book best analyzing the origin of Judaism written by Sigmund Frued, Moses and Monotheism; or the one best book on the origins of Christianity, The Dead Sea Scrolls, by John Allegro.

Compare this book with The God Makers, by Ed Decker and Dave Hunt. Their book is mingled with much pro-Christianity proselytizing. Davis, Scales and Cowdry give plenty of specifics which can be checked, and in a short book outline enough information to give people locked into Mormon beliefs solid points to begin breaking away, without advancing the cause of a competing religion. This book would make an excellent gift to an individual or a library. Now out of print, if enough orders come in, it would be an excellent candidate for reprinting, perhaps as a series of specific debunkings of major religions. It would fit in well with Ibn Warraq's recently published volume on Islam.

I have been studying with Mormons for the past eight months. It was very hard at first to see through the "armor" of their beliefs. "Who Really Wrote the Book of Mormon" is a great book which gives undeniable evidence to the origin of the Book of Mormon. Mormon claims and the inability to supply sufficent evidence to back up those claims is easily understood after reading this book. You might also like to read, "Mormons, How to Witness to Them", by John Farkas & David Reed. Please continue to pray for the Mormon believers that they will seek the truth.

I would doubtlessly recommend Ivanhoe to read. History may be often dull but Sir Walter Scott makes history extremely exciting by romanticizing his novel. It directly deals with hatred between the Normans and the Saxons, the discrimination of the Jews, chivalry, and politics--but it is a unforgettable tale of heroism, honor, and love. I felt that the characters were so fascinating and fun to read about. I was enjoying and cheering on the good characters like Ivanhoe, King Richard, and Robin Hood to beat the hated and evil villains. I liked the idea of love added in the story, like how Rowena and Rebecca were both in love with Ivanhoe. I even felt a little sorry for Brian de Bois-Guilbert who would do anything for Rebecca's love but is constantly rejected. I thought how it was appealing how the author questions Ivanhoe and Rebecca's feelings for each other. Suspenseful and action sequences also added entertainment to the story. This book may be a little too detailed for some readers, but I didn't mind. I felt that the details were brilliantly used to decorate the story in an outstanding fashion. The old English wording made me feel like I was actually in the medieval England. I have to admit that it took a great deal of persistence for me to finish this book and it was a challenge for me to read. However, I found Ivanhoe to be a wonderful pleasure. It is no wonder that Ivanhoe is such a well-loved tale!

I enjoyed this adventure yarn on many levels.

I was glad to learn about the Knights of Templer and that they were crusaders. I always wondered how Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon knew that and it is because of this classic.

I was surprised that it talked so much about Robin of Lockesley. The story of Ivanhoe seemed to be the same only told by Ivanhoe's friends and not Robin's.

I thought that the DeBracyn and the Knight of Templer Brian de Bois Guilbert were pretty evil guys which made the story interesting. They were weasels when they had their backs to the wall but did preform with honor when required like when Richard gets DeBracy.

I guess I did not understand the prejudice of the time because they treated the Jews like dirt and they were so sterotypical. I really thought that the Jewish girl Rebecca was going to end up with Ivanhoe instead of that Saxon Lady Roweana. I guess you have to appreciate the times that they lived in.

It was a different look the Richard/Prince John history.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but this book, by Sir Walter Scott, was the progenitor of what was to become a venerable tradition in English letters (and in other European literatures as well): the historical romance. There have been many after IVANHOE, and frequently with a finer eye to the period in which the tale is set (for IVANHOE contains quite a number of anachronisms -- even Scott acknowledged it), but few have done it quite as well as Scott. He uses an archaic English to give voice to his characters, but one which is readily absorbed because of the speed & quality of the tale. So, though these people certainly wouldn't really have spoken as he has them speaking, they yet sound as though they should have. Peopled by many 'stock' characters and situations, this tale was fresh in its time & still reads well today -- a testament to Scott's skills as a teller of tales and a sketcher of marvelously wrought characters. In this tale of the 'disinherited knight' returning home to find the world he left turned upside down, young Ivanhoe, after a stint with King Richard in the Holy Land, must fight the enemies of his king and kinsmen anew. Yet the hero is oddly sidelined for much of the tale as events swirl around him and the brilliantly evoked villain, Sir Brian de Bois Gilbert, in the pay of Prince John, struggles to win treasure and the beautiful Rebeccah, who yet has eyes only for Ivanhoe, a knight she can never hope to win herself. There's lots of action and coincidences galore here and Robin Hood makes more than a cameo appearance, as does the noble Richard. In sum, this one's great fun, a great tale, and the progenitor of a whole genre. All those which came after owe their form to it. Worth the price and the read.

As a medical student (who happened to have the author for a professor), this atlas proved to be a valuable resource. The sections provide an alternative perspective on anatomy that will be extremely useful when interpreting radiological films. A great teaching tool for gross anatomy.

This debate in the Counterpoint Series, whilst informative as a look at how 'Law & Gospel' can be viewed through various theological grids, lacks greatly in the area of historical and sociological analysis.

The book opens with three authors arguing for basic continuity between Law and Gospel : Willem A. VanGemeren starts with a Reformed perspective which emphasizes that the Law is the 'perfection of righteousness in Jesus Christ'. He precedes Greg L. Bahnsen who advocates the minority-held Theonomic view i.e. OT civil laws (especially the penal sanctions) are timeless and absolute and therefore should be enforced by the government. Walter C. Kaiser Jr., undoubtedly the biggest fish in the pond, then teaches that it is the 'weightier' moral matters of the Law which the post-OT Christian must obey (a'la Matthew 23:23).

The final two essays uphold that the relation between Law and Gospel is generally one of discontinuity and antithesis: Wayne G. Strickland (who is also the editor) presents a Dispensational view i.e. the OT Law was meant as a rule of life for Israel and is no longer binding on the church saint. Douglas J. Moo wraps up with a modified Lutheran approach which states that given the salvation-historical framework the Mosaic Law, being tied to the Sinaitic covenant, has been completely abrogated in Christ.

Taking a cue from Kaiser's very systematic responses, here's a listing of the issues over which the battle ensued:

a) Does the Mosaic Law put forth a hypothetical offer of salvation?

b) Is the Mosaic Law a unified whole which disallows any distinction between its ceremonial, legal moral/ethical aspects? Can the moral elements remain without the ceremonial ones?

c) Is Christ the 'end' or the 'goal' of the Mosaic Law? What about the Law & Prophets did Jesus say He came to fulfil, and which commandments did He warn everyone against breaking the least of (Matthew 5:17-20)?

d) Was Paul's charge against the Jews for their continued allegiance to the Law or for their misuse of it (i.e. their legalistic righteousness)? Does the 'law of righteousness' in Rom 9:31 refer to the Mosaic Law or not?

As mentioned earlier, my biggest complaint is the total absence of interaction with the work of E.P. Sanders and the issues prevalent in Second-Temple Judaism. There is no discussion about Paul's criticism of the 'works of the law' as possibly representing an ethnocentric barrier to inclusion into the people of God; as a Jewish denial of equality to Gentiles as co-participants in the eschatalogical age of God.

A far more interesting book (especially given the present theological climate), IMO, should contain dialogues with the works of Dunn, Wright, Stendahl, Nanos (but his contribution only appeared in '97, a few years after this book came out), Raisanen, Schreiner, Westerholm, Thielman and, of course, Sanders.

To be fair, Kaiser et al take into account the entirety of Scripture and their efforts are aimed at producing big 'systematic theology' pictures on how Law relates to Gospel, whereas the 'Paul & the Law' authors work almost exclusively with the Pauline epistles and Acts.

Nevertheless, although this book should still be a worthwhile read, that there was no mention of Sanders at all makes the authors, IMO, a bit less credible than they could be.

While this collaborative counterpoint effort has a number of negative aspects to it, I still found this book to be very helpful in assessing the relationship between the OT Mosaic law and the NT Gospel message.

First, the positives. Five contributors are asked to provide their views on this question. Of the 5, I found Kaiser to be the most persuasive, followed by Bahnsen and then Moo. All of the contributors do a good job of sufficiently nuancing the issue to reveal the many points upon which scholars depart from each other. I felt that each scholar made a solid attempt to deal with the whole counsel of Scripture as it relates to this question, which is a definite plus since this is not a given. Given this, the reader might well conclude that each view presented has strengths and weaknesses in light of Scripture.

I felt that Kaiser's main essay was the most persuasive, as well as his rebuttals to the other essays. I thought that Bahnsen, while regretably employing a rather harsh tone here that pervades many of his writings, was nonetheless accurate in many of his critiques of the other views. I also felt that Bahnsen did a very good job of arguing for a theonomic position that is widely rejected because of the discomfort such a position tends to create on our modern sensitivities. But in many ways, Bahnsen made a good case for this view. Both Kaiser and Bahnsen argued in favor of continuity between law and gospel and applicability of portions of the law on the believer today, although they disagreed with each other mainly over how much of the law is applicable today. Moo offered the antithetical approach, and while I don't agree with him, I thought his essay was well done, although not without its problems. Strickland offered the dispensational view, which I found unpersuasive and mostly incoherent. VanGemeren offered a continuity proposal that was not well written, nor were his critiques of the other views persuasive. In my view, his efforts here were the weakest of the five scholars.

There are a number of negatives that need to be pointed out. First, the book often gets very technical, and while this will be profitable for a more advanced reader familiar with theological terms, the beginner may have some trouble with this because many non-common theological words which are heavily used throughout each essay go undefined. Second, the diversity of views is overstated here. Ostensibly, this book is supposed to present five different views on this question. But really, VanGemeren, Bahnsen, and Kaiser are very close to each other in arguing the continuity position and disagreeing only in the details, while Strickland and Moo are very close to each other in arguing for discontinuity. So the diversity in approaches is not as diverse as it might seem on the surface. Lastly, there were a number of typos, particularly in Moo's essay, that should have been caught in the editing process. This negative is quite minor though.

Overall, this book is a helpful addition to the recent explosion of works that have been produced on the law and its relationship to the believer today. This book is rather lengthy (better than 400 pages), but there is a sufficient amount of meat here for the reader to chew on as a springboard for further study.

Not all the parties have weighed in on this subject. Especially my own confession, the Lutherans were not given a fair hearing. As one reviewer of the book said: "The Lutheran insights regarding Law and Gospel are caricatured, sometimes distorted, often ignored, but never truly given a fair hearing."

How can this be a fair and accurate representation, when the Lutheran position has this quick disclaimer "modified Lutheran" from a non-Lutheran? How can one then proceed to represent even a modified-Lutheran presentation and only cite Luther three times out of 129, and none from Walther? Three from Calvin?

This is like a Lutheran dominated book which has all Lutheran authors, then letting a Lutheran present the Calvinist position, but with the disclaimer "modifed Calvinist position."

For the Lutheran view, see C.F.W. Walther's, Law and Gospel. For a faith body that majors in distinguishing and not intermingling law and gospel, this interaction would have been interesting. Unfortunately, this is an interesting but nonetheless impoverished view.

Interesting. The first article, though, on Polk's New England tour, was dull and pointless. Wayne Cutler makes his point long before he ends the article. The best article was Miguel Soto's on the Monarchist's conspiracy in Mexico. Soto's work is probably an essential piece to a study on the politics of Mexico during the conflict. John Eisenhower also gives a interesting look into the relationships of Polk, Scott, and Taylor. However, even this article is lacking. Soto's article is the only purely essential piece. The others are just food for thought.