In this book, Craig lays out a powerful case for the Resurrection of Jesus. Using evidence only agreed upon by the consensus of critical NT scholarship, Craig puts together a powerful factual case, using the evidence of the Empty Tomb, the appearances of Jesus, and the origin of the Christian faith. It is important to remember, as Craig emphasizes, that our faith is not based on empirical arguments, but on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. However, it is important that Christians know these arguments so we can show to the outside world that Christianity is consistent with the evidence. Anyone who believes in God but not in Christ will be challenged by the evidence presented in this book to re-examine their thoughts on how God has revealed Himself in history. However, don't even waste your time reading this if you are already 100% closed to supernatural interventions of God. The evidence will not convince you, because your mind is already closed. However, I just want to note that Craig repudiated the Shroud of Turin later on in 1989, upon evidence being found that it was a forgery. I figured I'd mention that because Craig seems to accept the Shroud in this book. Also, I recommend the chapter on the Resurrection in Craig's book Reasonable Faith, because he takes the evidence for Jesus' Resurrection and applies to it 7 historical criteria used by real historians to see if if is better than other naturalistic hypotheses.

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 Moreover, Craig covers the appearances of Jesus after His resurrection and provides evidences from Scripture (actual historical documents) as to why these appearances are correct.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!

The late Dr. William L. Lane provided us with the most detailed work on Hebrews ever produced. It is very satisfying that this great work is from a solidly evangelical perspective. The introduction is magnificent. The work is technical and detailed, yet it is quite lucid for the informed layperson. If you at least know the Greek alphabet and can use an interlinear, you can follow the exegesis with great benefit. It is a goldmine for Greek students, pastors and teachers. This is the best work available on Hebrews.

This is the second volume of Lane's tremendous work on Hebrews. If the work of Attridge (1989, Hermeneia), was ground breaking, Lane's work is earth shattering! The best detailed and technical work available, yet it is quite lucid for the informed layperson. If you know the Greek alphabet and can use an interlinear, you can use this work with great benefit. It is a goldmine for Greek students, pastors and teachers.

For those of us that are interested in life beyond the original "Little House" series, this is a great book to own/read. I think that it captures the character of Laura and Rose because the stories and articles are by their own hand.

I really enjoyed the photos throughout this book because while Garth Williams' representation of the Ingalls family is lovely, it is nice to see what they really looked like. Even though they are in black and white you can imagine Pa's eyes twinkling.

Rose and Laura have very different styles, but both styles are very good. I especially liked Laura's articles because they paint a picture of farm life. The sections range in length so if you one have a few moments of reading time here and there it isn't necessary to worry about reading it in one sitting (though you may want to!).

Other things I recommend are the Little House series (of course!), and the series about Rose that was published recently (it has its slow parts but it was written by someone close to the family so there is a lot of accuracy). If you want to read more of Laura and Rose's writing this book is the perfect solution even considering the high price.

I loved the short stories by Rose Wilder Lane, (especially "Innocence") and Laura's pieces are also touching & well-written -- definitely recommended for the die-hard Ingalls-Wilder fan and for anyone interested in good short stories. Rose Wilder Lane will really impress those people who haven't read anything by her before.

This was the book 10 years ago that introduced me to the fact there was more out there beyond the Little House books written by my favorite author and her daughter. After reading her "Missouri Ruralist" writings, it puts the theories of Laura not really writing the Little House books to rest. It also introduced me to the thrilling storytelling of Rose; so much so, I broke my cardinal "no lending of Little House books" rule to disasterous results. I'm glad to finally have a replacement.

Rose's interview with her father drives me nuts! You will find yourself wishing, after reading this and other snippets on "the man of the place" that Laura and Rose would have spent more time writing about him.

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.

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.

Unfortunately this reviewer reveals his presuppositional bias against Christianity early on. However, that's not why I felt the need to comment. Where the review says:

"Admissions such as these, where Craig admits that REASON itself is not sufficient to establish the truth of Christian claims, shows the title of the book is a complete misnomer-- Reasonable faith does not rely on mere emotional 'wishing-to-be-true,' nor does it rely on the type of veiled threats embodied in the suggestion that you should accept God because you will be "held accountable" if you dont't. "

completely shows that the reviewer missed Dr. Craig's point in writing the book. The premis of the book is that the Christian faith is not a "blind leap of faith" but a small step of faith in the direction that the evidence all points. Christian faith is reasonable in as much as it doesn't goe against reason. However, you cannot prove Christianity 100% for that would eliminate the need for faith and "without faith it is impossible to please God". In this book Dr Craig show that the Christian faith, though still faith, is faith based on facts and not just "mere emotional 'wishing-to-be-true,'".

I read this book under the recommendation of two noted apologists. This book neither toys around with apologetics nor gives brief, watered-down arguments; rather, it gets to the meat of the subject and goes in depth. This book is well suited for college/graduate apologetics courses and for any Christian who is willing to take a serious, in-depth look at Christian apologetics. The book is academic in nature and not a typical self-help, devotional read... although while reading this book I do feel my relationship with Christ grew out of my deeper understanding of many things.

Craig explores and explains well the relationship of faith & reason, the existence of God, the absurdity of life without God, miracles, arguments concerning problems of historical knowledge, reliability & historicity of the New Testament scriptures, and the claims & resurrection of Christ. Each chapter gives views contrary to orthodox Christianity and then Craig analyzes each in turn. I especially appreciated his treatment of miracles and the problem of historicity.

At the end of each chapter is a summary and a personal application section. The personal application questions helped me to keep in mind the real reason why I was reading this book. This book could be used in a small group Bible study, but I would not recommend it to those who are not willing to put forth some effort.

The last chapter is brief, but very important. Here Craig reminds us that the best arguments in the world really come second to how we live our lives as Christians and how we interact with the people around us. This, he says, is the "ultimate apologetic."

This is a wonderfully written book.

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.