Reviews for God, Reason, and Theistic Proofs

The average rating for God, Reason, and Theistic Proofs based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2014-02-18 00:00:00 Gerald Barnes In this book, Stephen T. Davis deals with important philosophical questions attempting to provide to the reader good insights to prove the existence of God. Davis asks questions as: Can we truly demonstrate the existence of God using human reason alone? Just how do we demonstrate the existence of God? Why try? Which, if any, of the various theistic proofs are persuasive? Davis examines a cross-section of theistic proofs that have been offered by theologians and thinkers from Anselm to Paley, explaining in clear terms what theistic proofs are and what they seek to accomplish. The way Davis deals with the ontological argument for the existence of God, as well as the cosmological and teleological arguments, and also with the position known as fundamentalism, and the argument from religious experience fearlessly shows the strength of the book in dealing with such issues. The key question for me is how critical is to proof the existence of God to man in our society today if this proof would not lead him to a personal relationship with God Himself? Just knowing that God exists is not better than knowing that molecules and hyenas exist if man still lives his life as if God wasn't there at all. I think that this book helped me to see that apologetic cannot be just a defense of the Christian faith but the clear, logic and prayerfully presentation of the Gospel with a strong intent to lead man to a changing of mind, heart and life, to become a new creation in Christ. I then that I have to devout myself not only a good presentation of the gospel but above all I need to devout myself to know God and to make Him known through my personal experience with Him as well as through logic and reason.

Review # 2 was written on 2019-10-29 00:00:00 Matt Mizell The meaning of the phrase, "the image of God," has baffled theologians, philosophers, and exegetes alike from the days in which Irenaeus set ink on parchment to the post-modern collection of commentaries and dissertations. Students of the text and of humanity have struggled with the context of the imago Dei yet ventured to expound what the meaning might be and implicate. J. Richard Middleton, associate professor of Biblical Studies at Roberts Wesleyan College, joins the centuries long debate to provide a worthy contribution for the discussion and exegesis of the imago Dei in Genesis 1. In The Liberating Image, written for the completion of his Ph.D. at the Institute for Christian Studies in Toronto, he seeks to explore the meaning of the text within its ancient literary context, evaluate the background of the imago Dei in contrast to possible social contexts, and to consider the ethical implications of the image. In the first part of three, the author surveys the historical theology of the imago Dei from the church fathers to Karl Barth to modern Old Testament scholarship and discusses the challenges one faces when endeavoring a study of the concept, from the lexical meanings of words to the joining of the imago Dei with other difficult phrases (such as the "Let Us" section of Genesis 1:26). He also endeavors to survey and explore the symbols used throughout Genesis along with some of the implications as they are carried out and interpreted in other OT passages. Part two ventures away from the immediate context of the passage into the social context of the ancient Near Eastern world. Middleton explores the usage of the imago Dei ideology in ancient Egyptian literature as well as the inscriptions of the Mesopotamian world. He concludes, "As imago Dei, then, humanity in Genesis 1 is called to be the representative and intermediary of God's power and blessing on earth." Middleton also assesses more of a Mesopotamian influence upon the text than that of the sway of ancient Egyptian culture. From these conclusions regarding the definition for the imago Dei and the Mesopotamian influence, he moves further into the ancient ideology of the Mesopotamian world of creation myths and Babylonian royal ideology. Finally, with careful balance, the professor explores how the concepts and ideology of this ancient world influenced the structure and teaching of Genesis 1-11, the OT context for the imago Dei. Part three is a daring investigation of the ethics of the image. Great length is given to discussing the ancient "combat myths" of Babylon and Assyria and the implications such a hypothesis would have on the imago Dei in man if the Creator is a violent God who has called man to serve as his ruling representatives. If the creation account is a Hebrew form of the combat myth, then the violence seen throughout the primeval history of Genesis 1-11 is an illustration of man representing a violent God. However, the opposite conclusion would lead to an interpretation that explains how the image (i.e. man) failed to accurately represent the creator by violating his purpose through rebellion, murder, violence, and tyranny. Thus Middleton returns to the text of Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 to demonstrate that the God of Hebrew Scripture stands opposite of the Assyrian warrior gods. He is a God of generosity who liberates man who is created in God's image as his representatives over creation, to follow his examples of gracious self-giving and love. Middleton's masterful examination of the imago Dei may prove to be a contribution to the theological community which will spur further discussion and solid exegesis of the Genesis 1 passage for many years to come. With clarity and appropriate brevity, he summarizes the historical views and interpretations of the imago Dei. The greatest strength in his summary is his ability to compare and contrast the different positions, leading to a presentation of his own conclusions. His lexical study, while not adding much of anything new to what has already been contributed by others such as James Barr, Bamberg Stendebach, and Edward Curtis, still accurately portrays the meaning of the words in question and gives due consideration to the context of Genesis. The worth of his examination of the Genesis passages follows in the same manner as his lexical study. However, Middleton does show great awareness of and respect for his predecessors' contributions before him to the study of Genesis and the imago Dei. The greatest influence Middleton contributes to the discussion of the imago Dei is in his presentation and evaluation of the ancient social context for the phrase. He carefully considers other usages of the phrase in Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature and digs further than the immediate surface of other ancient texts to evaluate the ideology behind the phrase itself. Compared to the other views he surveyed in chapter one, Middleton closely follows the recent interpretation of Old Testament scholarship. His allegiance to this "new" view (presented over the last century) should encourage the reader in that recent discoveries as well as creative thinking are being used. At the same time caution should be shown, which Middleton welcomes and encourages, due to the brevity of time which has taken place in which others may more carefully evaluate this analysis. After defining the imago Dei as including the concept man as representative, Middleton assesses the ancient literature and concludes that a Mesopotamian influence upon the biblical writer is more predominant than that of Egypt. He also concludes that the first creation account serves more of a prelude to Genesis than as a contrast to Genesis 2-3. It is at this point that the author departs from the Egyptian literature which he explained so well in his study of backgrounds to focus on the creation myths of Assyria and Babylon. He draws out commendable implications throughout the rest of his study from these conclusions, but here lies the greatest weakness of his research. If the culture and literature of Egypt bore more influence on the text of Genesis 1 than the text of Genesis 2-11 (which modern Old Testament research may be now implicating), then Middleton's conclusions, and thus the implications he makes for the imago Dei, have been further removed from the original historical context and literature. In spite of this concern, Middleton carefully and daringly considers what the implications of the imago Dei should be for those living in this post-modern age. He does well in contrasting Genesis with the combat myths of the ancient near east and challenging his reader toward enjoying the liberating teaching of the image of God. The Liberating Image is a valuable read for any student of the Genesis creation account and any scholar studying the imago Dei.