I ran across this ebook by accident, but soon realized I’d stumbled upon an unexpected gem.
In this remarkable book, Fox takes a considered look at some controversial theological issues in Christianity today. As a springboard, he examines the teachings, both overt and subtle, put forth in a number of popular books including Harold S. Kushner’s "When Bad Things Happen to Good People"; Dan Brown’s "The DaVinci Code"; and "Love Wins" by Rob Bell. He compares the concepts these books present with what the Scriptures teach.
He subjects the premises of a few theological books to the same scrutiny: Francis A. Schaeffer’s "How Should We Then Live?" and "The Great Evangelical Disaster"; also, "Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue", edited by E. Ray Clendenen and Brad J. Waggoner; and "God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God" by Gregory A. Boyd.
From the outset, the author acknowledges the underlying issue in any such discussion is the inerrancy and reliability of the Bible. We can talk about God, quote scripture, approve of biblical principles, and expound on Jesus’s teachings until the cows come home. But none of that matters unless the Source is seen as authoritative. If we consider the Scriptures to be open to creative interpretation, we can espouse all kinds of heresy and call it all Bible-based.
Standing firm on the authority of the Scriptures, the author employs logic and reason to show why some prevalent teachings are found to be false according to what God has revealed to be true. He also demonstrates how the very dangers warned of in Schaeffer’s works are now coming to pass.
I found the first few chapters, though serious in nature, to be clearly written and smooth going. I thought I’d enjoy the discussion of Calvinism v. Arminianism as well, as I’ve done a good bit of scriptural research on that controversy. However, once the author delved into the physics of time and space, I struggled to keep up. Ambiguity wasn’t the problem, for in all things, Fox makes his meaning clear. But perhaps because my formal education ended in 12th grade, my clumsy mind strains at those academic levels.
The same goes for the author’s treatment of open theism. I got the drift of it, and I don’t disagree with the author’s position. But toward the end I wearied of the detail and skimmed the rest.
Perhaps I’m simple, but one thing niggled at me as I struggled through all that scholarly stuff: That is, Truth doesn’t require an "Ism" to explain it; as God describes Himself as "I AM," so Truth simply "IS." We don’t need to fully understand it all to fully believe, and it seems a bit wasteful to spend so much time, energy, and study trying to fit the Omnipotent God in a cubbyhole of our convenience. Let Him sprawl all over; He IS all over. What kind of God would He be, anyway, if the likes of us could understand Him?
The author himself put it this way: “It is madness to define God by our ignorance – we should simply admit we rarely know enough to put limits on God and be careful about opining about what he cannot do.”
He also made a very good point where science and faith are concerned:
“Clearly, modern science has a variety of views concerning time, space and fundamental properties of particles, some of which would be fatal for openness theism. Strangely, it does not seem to work the other way. God and his attributes, as taught in scripture and as articulated by classic theology, do not seem to be threatened by the special or general theories of relativity, quantum theory or chaos theory.”
Though he applies this to open theism specifically, the statement is true in every branch of science and philosophy. Bible believers – that is, people who hold every word of God as true and reliable – have no reason to fear scientific discovery. The physical evidence always corroborates what God’s already told us; it’s certain interpretations of the evidence (not the facts themselves) that contradict the Scriptures.
The author does a good job with this subject matter. He considers all positions and gives opposing views their say. He documents references and inferences with footnotes, explanations, and citations. And he doesn’t tell anyone what to believe; rather, he spreads it all out clearly so the reader can form his or her opinion.
My opinion is this: where Truth is concerned, the Bible is my authority, not any work of man. But if you like a side of scholarly discussion with your Bread of Life, this should satisfy you.