The problem with the book is that it is fundamentally fundamentalist. And that is exactly who Dawkins et al are really in conversation with, so the book just feeds fire with fresh fuel. If that is your thing, you’ll like the book.

In any case, it’s not just the anabaptists that reject penal substitution, it’s also the bulk of the universal Church for the first 1000 years of Christianity and even today (with some important caveats) the Orthodox Churches, which are closest to the original Faith in most respects – Christology, Trinitarianism, etc. There are a number of useful and important books by Protestants that highlight this: Aulen’s Christus Victor, Turner’s Patristic Doctrine of Redemption, etc.

Ironically, as Dostoevsky is invoked in this chapter, I’ll simply point out that, while he may have believed in the redemptive power of suffering, he most certainly did not espouse a theory of penal substitution (let alone the alleged goodness of human or divine punishment). Any reader of Brothers Karamazov knows this – but one can google for an online copy and read the teachings of Fr. Zosima to get a feel for Dostoevsky’s Christian vision.

I guess the Bible alone isn’t enough to “bring down all arguments against God,” but instead it’s always some OTHER book some believer has to write to “bring down all arguments against God.”

I guess Bible-God needs help.

Holy Scripture: A book sent down from heaven. Holy Scripture contains all that a Christian should know and believe provided he adds to it a million or so commentaries.

Secondly, Aren’t all of the authors in Copan’s book “inerrantists” in one form or another (Ben Witherington doesn’t like the term but comes close to being one)? Let’s see Copan’s authors debate the “inerrancy” of the Bible with other Christians.

This new book is an excellent compilation of high quality essays by the most significant Christian apologists working in the field today. It demands a serious and considered response by non-believers.

Accordingly, I have started to write a detailed ‘in-progress’ critique at the following address:

http://contendingwithchristianitysapologists.blogspot.com

Comments are very welcome.

Best wishes,
Sola Ratione

I’m interested in reading the chapter on Penal Substitution, since certain strains of Anabaptist thought that seem to outright reject it (not including Scot McNight, he’s stuck with it) have become very popular within the emergent church today. Plus, like Craig said in one of his podcasts over the doctrine of penal substitution, he hasn’t really seen a philosophical workout on the doctrine. The last doctrine section could really be called a friendly response to some in the emergent church like McLaren who seem to at least struggle with accepting any type of hell, and also penal substitution, and foreknowledge of God.

Thanks putting this together, Dr. Copan and Craig!

The Greg Ganssle chapter sounds interesting – if it is not merely sarcastic. I find it most enlightening when authors address the strengths of their opponents rather than piling on to the weaknesses (or strawmen). Also interested in what perspective Steve Porter might have on Penal Substitution. Finally, Lane deserves his props for going up against Lewis’ trilemma.

Yay! An article from Steve Porter, who goes to my church in Long Beach! I just saw him at the neighborhood 4th of July parade.
HAPPY 4TH !

Thanks Paul!

May the book be used to bring down all arguments against God.