When you hear a Chinese speaker use a word and you want to look it up fast, this is the best dictionary for the job. I have both editions of the Oxford, but looking up words in ABC saves me time since it's strictly alphabetical. I recommend the pocket edition which you can take anywhere. It has the same entries as the desk size exactly, just reduced in size. Of course, it would be more useful if it also had an English-Chinese section. The publishers have announced that they have several other dictionaries based on this one in preparation: ABC Chinese-English English-Chinese Dictionary in both pocket and reference editions, ABC Comprehensive Chinese-English Dictionary in pocket and reference editions, Chinese Proverbs, Chinese Etymology, and others.

(re: orig. paperback ed.) When you hear Chinese, this is THE ideal book to find the term you heard, by looking up the pinyin alphabetically. It is reasonably complete, but is missing some common terms and contains some obscure words. Overall, it is extremely useful, carefully compiled and proofread, and a good value. It balances completeness and conciseness quite well, so it's a great paperback to carry around, if a tad heavy; the superbly improved and more complete desk reference version (ABC Comprehensive CED, reviewed separately) is highly recommended for your study desk.

A big bonus is that all terms with the same or similar pronunciation are grouped together, so you can compare them and make a more informed guess as to what you probably heard. The most common term is often marked with an asterisk -- very helpful! The pinyin lookup is not as useful when reading unknown characters, although radical indices *are* included, so, contrary to another review, you *can* look up characters when you don't know the pronunciation. (And compared to some other books like Harbaugh's Chinese Characters: A genealogy and dictionary, the definitions are much more complete and professional.) But when reading characters I know how to pronounce, I find this ABC is the fastest way to find definitions of compounds, so my three copies are well worn.

The compound entries are in simplified char. only. Single character entries (which DO exist, contrary to an earlier review) are in both forms, which suffices for users of traditional characters most of the time; but unfortunately, these do not always include some characters which occur only as part of one or more particular compounds, such as the liao2 in zhi4liao2, to cure or treat (#=tone; don't worry, the ABC has proper tone marks). As a result, there is no way to find out whether this liao has different simplified and traditional forms, or what the latter form is. This has been remedied in the Comprehensive version.

Equally egregious is the failure to properly distinguish between the different traditional forms which share one simplified character; for example the li4 in li4shi3, history and nong2li4, lunar calendar are dealt with jointly as one simplified character, and the same traditional form is shown for both, which is incorrect. Instead, these should be listed as two different char. with the same simplif. form; thus, it fails to show the proper way to write nong2li4 in Taiwan. Again, the Comprehensive rectifies this.

There are some usage examples, albeit not extensive, and in pinyin only. The addition of more examples, more usage notes, and syllabic separation where needed (e.g., is zhengan zheng'an or zhen'gan?) would all be welcome in future editions. There is some slang and many colloquialisms, but not enough of either. Again, the Comprehensive rectifies this.

To some extent, differences in usage between the PRC (e.g., chu1zu1 qi4che1 for taxi) and Taiwan (ji4cheng2che1) are noted, which is greatly welcomed, but there are many more differences which have not been noted, including pronunciation differences, like the PRC's la1ji1 (trash) vs. Taiwan's more colloquial le4se4), or tonal differences, such as the 2nd tone in Taiwan for qi1, period of time. (Yes, the Comprehensive fixes this.) Still, overall, a great book. If you only have 4 Chinese-related dictionaries, this should doubtless be one of them if you'll carry it to class; if it will stay on your desk, invest in the Comprehensive version instead; it's absolutely worth the price!

If you know how to pronounce the word (character or character cobination) you want to look up, this is the dictionary you need.

It is composed of alphabetically sorted Pinyin entries, with simplified characters.

I have five chinese-english dictionaries at home, but this is the only one I use now.JStock

Troubling as it is for 21st Century Christians to ponder what will be the fate of those who do not hear the Gospel of Christ before their physical death, Sanders does not answer with sound Biblical exegesis.

Rather, he reads his own thoughts into Scripture. Especially must they contend that God saves some by general revelation. Their whole case hinges on that fact. While never revealing what in general revelation God uses to save, Sanders errors greatly by finding two classes, one in the OT and the other NT to show how he believes those who trust in the God with the level of revelation given, they will be saved. These are the examples of faulty exegesis on Sanders part. The OT believers who are saved, e.g. Abraham, as Paul states believed not in the general revelation given by God to all sinners but to the special revelation (typology) promises of the Messiah. This is the OT means of grace.

For further dialogue on this topic, check out "What About Those Who Have Never Heard?" by Gackre, Nash and Sanders, and see my review of this book.

John Sanders' "No Other Name" is a scholarly, comprehensive survey and critique, written primarily for evangelical Christians, of historically-held Christian positions on the destiny of the unevangelized. By "unevangelized" Sanders means those who never come to know or understand the Gospel message of salvation by faith in Jesus Christ before their death, for whatever reason. He includes those who are simply incapable of understanding, such as young children and the severely mentally disabled; those who have never had the Gospel presented to them, as in all indigenous peoples before missionary contact; and those who may be aware of such "buzz words" as "Jesus" but who never come to an understanding of what the Gospel message charges upon them.

Sanders begins by placing the issue in context: arguing for why it even matters (for example, because of its apologetic importance - people are going to ask and Christians need to have a reply at hand) and describing the controversy it has elicited in modern times among evangelical Christians. He then proceeds to present the two extreme positions on the issue: exclusivism (which he calls restrictivism) and universalism.

Restrictivism is the position that only those who come to know and understand the Gospel during their lifetimes have the opportunity to be saved (whether they actually are, of course, is based on whether they accept the message in faith). Thus by necessity, since they either do not know or do not understand, all the unevangelized are lost to "Hell" (Sanders leaves what that means out-of-scope of the discussion). In a pattern that is repeated with each position, he discusses the Scriptural and theological case for restrictivism, its proponents throughout history (for example, Augustine), and offers a critique, itself based in Scripture and theology.

Universalism, in contrast, is the position that everyone is (at least eventually, perhaps after some "time" beyond death) saved. Thus the destiny of the unevangelized - in fact, everyone's destiny - is at least eventually to be united with God. Universalism is a position that evangelical Christians today would probably almost uniformly find unorthodox and heretical, but Sanders gives it a fair shake (though ultimately rejecting it - and restrictivism for that matter).

After presenting these extremes, Sanders turns to what he lays out as a "wider hope". He discusses universal evangelization - the idea that God miraculously sends a messenger (angelic if not human) to all during their lifetimes, so that all have the opportunity for salvation (whether there's any empirical evidence for this empirically-testable claim is not really discussed - to my knowledge, there is little or none, despite popular evangelical "urban legends" to the contrary). He discusses eschatological evangelization - the idea that God presents the Gospel at the point of death, or after death, to those who are otherwise lost (curiously, the Catholic concept of purgatory is not presented - perhaps because Sanders knows his audience is primarily coming from the Protestant tradition).

Finally, inclusivism is presented. This is the view that God judges all according to their faith response to whatever true revelation they had during their lifetimes. For the unevangelized, this is general revelation - the deep intuition all humans curiously seem to have about a supreme being and a moral law (see the opening chapters of C. S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity", for example). Thus although Christ's atonement remains the basis for anyone's salvation, explicitly knowing and understanding that is not necessary for salvation. Rather, God judges the heart according to the knowledge it had, and an overall faithful response is "credited as righteousness". Nonetheless, responding to general revelation is a precarious path to God - sort of a "plan B". Coming to know and understand the Gospel during one's lifetime is God's preferred approach, not just because of its ability to save, but also because of its ability during our lifetimes to sanctify, give assurance, and come to fuller knowledge.

For conservative Christians who have been raised with restrictivism and have had the lid screwed down tight on the container of all the other views historically held, "No Other Name" will either be enlightening, or a very tough pill to swallow. Never mind that John Wesley and that icon beloved of modern American evangelicalism, C. S. Lewis, were inclusivists (as Sanders documents), I can hear some conservatives saying - its heresy nonetheless. To Sanders' credit, "No Other Name" at least challenges such people to more-charitably regard the diversity of opinion on this issue.

Without using Amazon as a platform to prooftext as some reviewers, let me say that Sanders honestly, carefully, scripturally, wrestles with the question of the fate of non-Christian Persons!!!

What I liked most was the historically careful treatment he provided of other views than his own as well as to show the fallout of different positions (theologically, philosophically, and existentially). Not arrogant, but careful, it deserves a wide readership.

This book contains no-holds barred debate among advocates of 3 answers to the question, "Is Jesus the Only Savior?" John Sanders defends the inclusivist belief that conscious belief in Jesus is not necessary for salvation while another author claims that salvation is possible after physical death. Ronald Nash defends the belief that Jesus is the only Savior, a position he defends in greater detail in his book titled "Is Jesus the Only Savior?" also available from amazon.

Three differing views of the fate of those who experience physical death without hearing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is fascinating, but limited. Again, as it seems to be, not all Christian views are presented.

Certainly, we who hold the Lutheran confession would side with Nash, who easily out of the three represented does the most exemplary job of using God's Word correctly. Nash is correct in his chastisement of his two opponents for not lack of good exegesis of the Bible. It is truly sad but commonplace to find such poor, hurried exegeis as exemplified by Sanders and Fackre.

It would have been good to have one argue: univesal grace, grace alone, the means of grace, and the mystery of why some saved and others not? This would have given the complete Biblical picture. This is not demonstrated by any of the three in this book.

However, as exemplary as Nash is with his defense of restrictivism by not only showing the proper exegesis and hermeneutic of the other two sides, he has some glaring weaknesses himself. As those of the Reformed are bent to do, they always want to let logic and reason dominate, rather than letting God's Word suffice.

Or as Luther would say, "What is not spoken of in God's Word must be left to the heavenly academy for resolution." We do not have all the answers to all mysteries in God's Word!" As Moses said so profoundly on his deathbed, "The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever." (Deut. 29:29)

Nash suffers, as Sanders catches him, on Double Predestination. Calvinists cannot say that Christ died for all, but only for the elect. This is the classic error of Calvin. As well, they hedge the truth of God's Scriptures of the Real Presence in the Sacrament. Sanders does not confess the B.C. Means of Grace as St. Paul does in 1 Cor. 10:1-11, that Christ was present with them, but most did not have faith and were disallowed into Promised Land. This typology extends throughout OT, allowing OT saints the same (Romans 4) as we NT saints, faith in Promised Messiah (Christ).

However, to deny infant sin (Age of Accountability) that Nash puts forth is unbiblical (Ps. 51:5) Furthermore, Nash is wise to attack inclusivism on premise that grace is with all until rejection of Christ and Gospel, and he shows forth Biblical attack to destory this false teaching.

Nash certainly is far and away the more faithful Biblical presenter, aside from the errors already identified. Further, he does not profess Christ's descent into hell as for what it was: Christ's victorious announcement of victory over the demon angels, nor is he correct is declaring Luke 16:19ff as being a parable. It does not necessarily have to be interpreted as parabolic, see Art Just's Commentary, Volume II, pg. 630ff.

Cudos to Nash for calling the other two's hand for not showing the Biblical evidence for their positions, while discounting his opponents Biblical proofs and offering restrictivist passages, Nash has provided the debate with the sure foundation of what God says about this controversial topic.

Contrary to Sanders and Fackre, Nash did an excellent job refuting both inclusivism and PME, and presented his case for restrictivism well. Though I don't agree totally with Nash's restrictivism (since I hold to unlimited atonement), he does a good job presenting a very persuasive case for the traditional evangelical understanding of the destinies of the unevangelized. Sanders' inclusivism leads to the heresy of works-salvation (unbelievers who positively respond to God's light and walk in His ways will be saved even without knowledge of Christ). Such heresy leads to another heresy: that Christians also must do good works to earn or maintain their salvation. His interpretation of Romans 2 on pp. 46-7 is horrible (he follows the interpretation of the "new perspective" that Paul was not opposing Jewish works-salvation but Jewish nationalism). ... Overall, a good book for those who want to be convinced of the truthfulness of restrictivism.

The Openness of God attends closely both to the broad biblical text and Christian piety when offering a much-needed "open" alternative to deterministic Calvinism. Through an easy reading, multi-dimensional, textual format, Rice, Sanders, Pinnock, Hasker and Basinger offer a more or less comprehensive evangelical, "free-will" theism that corresponds closely with the theology of many scholars in the Arminian, Wesleyan, and Charismatic traditions. This should be a required text for seminarians of all stripes. Perhaps the book's only drawback is that its authors sometimes misrepresent process theology and thus fail to adequately consider more of the theological alternatives offered by process thought. Otherwise, this is the kind of book you will want to give a friend who has been exposed to just enough classical theology to want to write off theology altogether. This is good medicine for former evangelical intellectuals who may have left the fold disillusioned by the Calvinistic brand of evangelical theology. Take, eat, digest, and flourish!

If you've ever wondered what the point is of praying to God if he has already decided what to do, you need to read this book! As Pinnock and others argue, you can thank the Greek Philosophers for that mentality. This book does an excellent job of detailing the 'Open View' of God, or 'free will theism'. The authors point out that the God of the Bible seems to be genuinely affected by and involved with creation. He is above all, Love, and not merely self-sufficiency. The authors effectively argue that God, while ultimately in control, took some risk by creating beings with genuine free will. He has chosen to limit himself by engaging in genuine "give and take" relationships with his creation in a real time environment. This book gave me a healthier view of God, as well as pointed out an urgency of prayer and evangelism because they genuinely DO make a difference!

After reading and studying The Open View of God I cannot say much, except that it was refreshing! How unfortunate it is that Sproul has sprawled so far and Reformed philosophy is so pervasive in the populist theology world today. Thank God He still is enlightening beyond the Reformation!

The Open View challenges the classical-Philosophical view of God preached and taught by so many in a systematic and decisive way. Our traditional understandings of immutablity, providence, sovereignity, and immpassiblity need to truly be re-examined in the light of our practice/experience and, as the authors so argue, in the light of the Biblical text. Aristotle is put in his place, sorry, but the un-moved mover is not the God of the Holy Writ. To be ever changing and relational is to be Divine. I Give this Book a strong 10!!

This book is poorly written and won't be very useful to most readers. The authors are not, by any measure, distinguished scholars, and that is unfortunately reflected in the quality of the work. The economic analysis is extremely weak, not very relevant and not very thoughtful. Readers would be much better served by referring to journal articles published in this area and completely avoiding the text.