Rating: 
Summary: Spectrum too scattered for Christian truth?
Review: A friend loaned me a copy to read. Glancing at the chapter headings, I was amazed at the wide range of viewpoints in the book. I was even more amazed at them all being called true, equally acceptable, within the range, in bounds/not out of bounds, across the spectrum, etc.How can this be? The more I read, I found a literal hell and a non-literal one? Inerrant Bible and Infallibilist(?). God knows all free decisions in advance and/or He does not? And so on. To me, it seemed a bunch of theospeakish doubletalk. How can the same Bible teach opposing truths? How can it speak out of two sides of one divine Mouth? Jesus taught, Thy Word is Truth, not 'truths'. Is this what scholars and seminary profs and pastors in some churches are actually buying into? That there are so many versions of Bible truths to choose from each equally healthy for the soul? This books scares me. It seems to show how splintered the church has become, not even being able to take one position, one stand, one correct interpretation on Major Doctrines of the Bible. I understand in minor areas room for disagreement, but this seems to go way overboard for an average Christian like me. I learned in college: In essentials, Unity; in non-essentials, Liberty; in all things, Charity. This book seems to call into question even the Essentials as O.K. for Liberty of positions, all equally true and biblical. How can this be? The Spectrum of this book's opinions is too scattered. In a day when we need a Laser beam of God's truth, some authors have created a Prism that scatters God's light into pretty colors and Kaleidoscopic images. But where is "Thy Word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path?" I gave this book one star to show how concerned I am about what is happening to Bible truth and Essential Teachings in our day.
Rating:
Summary: Truly disturbing trend in understanding of Bible Doctrines
Review: After reading this very misleading book, I came to these conclusions - 1)The church is in trouble as rarely ever before in understanding what the Bible has to communicate about the reality & eternal torment of hell, the inerrancy of scripture, the attributes of a God Who knows for certain all free futures in their entirety, among other important teachings people seem to have lost 2)Many otherwise sincere Christians and theologians are confused as to what constitutes Bible truth. "Academic Freedom" seems for many to trump sound doctrine. There is a "smorgasbord theology" approach to all things Jesus commanded. Even scholars with their ThD's are swept up in the deception that multiple versions of key doctrines are tolerable, even if mutually exclusive or contradictory or modernist philosophy-based 3)Unbelievers are then also seriously misinformed by inconsistent witness if the wide range of opinions in this book can all be called 'Evangelical Christian Major Beliefs'. I was almost in tears as I went through chapter by chapter. Doctor Greg Boyd writes so convincingly of his misguided teachings as to make them palatable to unwary readers not grounded in principal doctrines of God's error-free Word. I do thank God for the genuine traditional truth the book communicated, especially about the Gospel of Jesus. But to have truth mixed in with false ideas and scholarly misbeliefs and labelled 'This is alright to believe as long as you are sincere' is sad, so sad. Prayer to the Lord: Please forgive these authors, for they know not what they do in blending the wrong with the right, the false with the true, the opinions of men with the certainty of God. Sanctify them by your love and truth. You are Love and Your Word is Truth. Amen. Please read Josh McDowell's book ANSWERS and Hank Hanegraaff's newest book on crucial doctrines for what the Bible and the Bible alone says. SOLA SCRIPTURA!
Rating: 
Summary: Pastor Boyd
Review: Excellent book detailing the four main viewpoints of foreknowledge/predesitnation. Easy to read and comprehend. For that I give it two stars. Recommended for those studying the topic. It really does not get overwhelming for the lay person. One warning: Pastor Boyd's "open theology" viewpoint leaves me absolutely awestruck that such a learned man could be so in error. Pastor Boyd is selling a man-centered viewpoint of God that plays perfectly into the selfish, "Me-First" generation of growing evangelical Christians. It sure has translated into large crowds in his church. His mantra is: "I have choice... and God doesn't know who is going to be saved." Ultimately, such teaching leads a "seeker" or an immature Christian to have a far too small picture of a sovereign God and a much too large sense of human control and power than the bible teaches. Christians are merely the clay. God is the potter. (2 Cor. 4 and Romans Ch. 9) Boyd lifts sections of Old Testament scripture where God rhetorically asks questions such as "I didn't know man could be so wicked" and "I never imagined man could do this" and builds a theology around non-literal speech. See Isaiah 4:4-5 for an example that Boyd likes to use: God said He didn't expect bad grapes to grow where he thought good grapes would grow. Boyd's conclusion: God doesn't know the future. Baloney. The author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, is merely getting the reader to think. By taking isolated verses out of context, Boyd fails to accept the bible's consistent message of how God has revealed His complete omniscience, if no other place, through continual, countless examples of fulfilled prophecies. If God doesn't know the future, how did Zechariah know that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? (Zechariah 9:9) 450 years before it happened !! There are hundreds of more examples in the bible of God detailing history before it happens and the events happening. Daniel Chapter 11 was exactly fulfilled in the years before Christ's first coming. Boyd chooses to ignore the obvious lessons of prophecy and pick on the Holy Spirit's poetic speech upon which to build his doctrines. Boyd is growing a mega-church here in the Twin Cities area ala... Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. Like Saddleback and Willow Creek, the church growth is through worldly seekers attracted because of an incomplete picture of God and a drastically superinflated picture of man. (These mega-pastors know that a solid, true biblical message will be largely ignored so they have gone off and invented an approach that will play to the crowd. They are more like used car salesmen than biblical pastors!! ) This distorted approach to evangelism fits perfectly with Revelation Ch. 3 and the Church of Laodicea which is neither hot nor cold. These kind of churches hold a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. Such messages tickle people's ears but are rubbish, dung. Paul warned against such teachers who preach to people with itching ears. (2nd Timothy 4:3-5). Buyer beware of Open Theology. Broad is the way that leads to destruction. Few find the narrow way.
Rating:
Summary: Pastor Boyd
Review: Excellent book detailing the four main viewpoints of foreknowledge/predesitnation. Easy to read and comprehend. For that I give it two stars. Recommended for those studying the topic. It really does not get overwhelming for the lay person. One warning: Pastor Boyd's "open theology" viewpoint leaves me absolutely awestruck that such a learned man could be so in error. Pastor Boyd is selling a man-centered viewpoint of God that plays perfectly into the selfish, "Me-First" generation of growing evangelical Christians. It sure has translated into large crowds in his church. His mantra is: "I have choice... and God doesn't know who is going to be saved." Ultimately, such teaching leads a "seeker" or an immature Christian to have a far too small picture of a sovereign God and a much too large sense of human control and power than the bible teaches. Christians are merely the clay. God is the potter. (2 Cor. 4 and Romans Ch. 9) Boyd lifts sections of Old Testament scripture where God rhetorically asks questions such as "I didn't know man could be so wicked" and "I never imagined man could do this" and builds a theology around non-literal speech. See Isaiah 4:4-5 for an example that Boyd likes to use: God said He didn't expect bad grapes to grow where he thought good grapes would grow. Boyd's conclusion: God doesn't know the future. Baloney. The author of the Bible, the Holy Spirit, is merely getting the reader to think. By taking isolated verses out of context, Boyd fails to accept the bible's consistent message of how God has revealed His complete omniscience, if no other place, through continual, countless examples of fulfilled prophecies. If God doesn't know the future, how did Zechariah know that the Messiah would ride into Jerusalem on a donkey? (Zechariah 9:9) 450 years before it happened !! There are hundreds of more examples in the bible of God detailing history before it happens and the events happening. Daniel Chapter 11 was exactly fulfilled in the years before Christ's first coming. Boyd chooses to ignore the obvious lessons of prophecy and pick on the Holy Spirit's poetic speech upon which to build his doctrines. Boyd is growing a mega-church here in the Twin Cities area ala... Rick Warren and Bill Hybels. Like Saddleback and Willow Creek, the church growth is through worldly seekers attracted because of an incomplete picture of God and a drastically superinflated picture of man. (These mega-pastors know that a solid, true biblical message will be largely ignored so they have gone off and invented an approach that will play to the crowd. They are more like used car salesmen than biblical pastors!! ) This distorted approach to evangelism fits perfectly with Revelation Ch. 3 and the Church of Laodicea which is neither hot nor cold. These kind of churches hold a form of godliness but deny the power thereof. Such messages tickle people's ears but are rubbish, dung. Paul warned against such teachers who preach to people with itching ears. (2nd Timothy 4:3-5). Buyer beware of Open Theology. Broad is the way that leads to destruction. Few find the narrow way.
Rating: 
Summary: Ye gads!
Review: How very frustrating this becomes. Within two days of my pointed observation regarding the purpose of this book, another review again targets it for reasons beyond that very purpose. I now feel as if it's almost pointless to try further elucidation of its value, but I might as well try again. Firstly, Ms. Ashton suggests that Across the Spectrum reveals severe divisions within the modern church, resultantly causing the actual Biblical truth to be scattered. Quite frankly, such an opinion betrays a severe lack of knowledge about church history. Of all of the views presented in this book, *none* are younger than two hundred years, and most have been passionately debated for well over a thousand years. I seriously doubt that modern culture has caused this diversity of opinion when the opinions themselves predate that culture by hundreds upon hundreds of years! These same types of theological argumentation can furthermore be traced directly to the generation immediately following the apostles--such debates were the very reason for the canonization of the New Testament. Contrary to Ms. Ashton's belief, the "splintering" of the modern church does not exist due to these beliefs, and the church has never been fully united on any *one* of these issues. Secondly, Ms. Ashton refers to many of the arguments for various positions as "theospeakish doubletalk" that call into question even the essentials of Christian faith. Again, this raises questions regarding the reason behind her position. The Christian position, as defined by the Nicene creed (generally accepted by nearly all denominations as the uniting Christian beliefs), describes only a few *necessary* beliefs: Christ, the Son of God and one with both the Father and the Holy Spirit, became man, was crucified to redeem mankind of its sins, rose on the third day, and will return to judge mankind. *That* is the uniting Christian belief, and none of the positions in Across the Spectrum call these claims into question. Ms. Ashton's identification of Christian "essentials" is completely off-base. Finally, I do not intend to criticize or belittle, but I simply cannot stand idly while individuals criticize a book and its author on the basis of perceived flaws and ideological motivations when those very criticisms have no sound basis. Again, this book is intended as a RESOURCE to better understand differing theological perspectives, and succeeds very well. It does not advocate one position over another, it does not call into question core Christian beliefs and it most certainly does not intend to "convert" you to one perspective over another. Perhaps once more people begin to realize this, they will give Across the Spectrum a more fair reading.
Rating:
Summary: An excellent resource for comparative theology
Review: I find it extremely ironic that the majority of reviews for this book address Gregory Boyd's personal beliefs--views that quite frankly have little to do with this particular work. It is first and foremost designed to be a comparative theology resource, and as such, it functions extremely well. As pointed out in the introduction, the authors do *not* intend to advocate one view over another, and each perspective is given fair and impartial examination. At no point do Boyd or Eddy adopt a personal stance or advocate a certain belief. They rather maintain objectivity throughout, a fact that is apparently overlooked by other reviewers. Again, this book is merely designed to give background on differing theological views and the evidence for such views, and it succeeds quite well in that regard. The aforementioned criticisms of this work derive from ad hominem attacks on Boyd. Regardless of the beliefs we may hold, such personal attacks belie both insecurity and inconsistency with genuine Christian beliefs. Read the book and judge for yourself.
Rating: 
Summary: Useful tool for group study
Review: I read and discussed this book with three colleagues at work, all of us evangelical Christians, and we found it a very useful educational experience. Unlike what is implied in so many of the reviews found below, the authors present each position objectively. It is important to read each position carefully and to study the scriptural passages cited. One must do the spadework of checking each citation because sometimes the references to particular verses do not really support the proposition for which they are being asserted. I guarantee you that careful and diligent study of this book can be a profound and eye-opening experience. If we wish to be effective in defending the evangelical faith, then we must have a rich understanding of the traditional view and a working knowledge of alternative views. Burying your head in the sand is not an effective strategy. Read this book, but do so with great care to study the underlying scriptural references, and you will be a much stronger advocate for the faith.
Rating:
Summary: Cafeteria Christianity
Review: I read this book carefully, some sections repeatedly. It seems to cater to the "cafeteria christian" mentality of our day: pick and choose which menu items are most palatable and fill your tray to taste. Whether it is healthy, balanced, nutritious or choosing wisely is beside the point. Some reviewers are taken with the options of differing choices to select from. Liberal positions are given an "objective hearing" right alongside traditional/conservative ones. but there is no listing of calories, fat content, carbs, sodium or benefit-value for the consumer. "You makes your choice and takes your chances!" Isn't there inherent danger in condoning liberal views as equally digestable for the Bible student? Is this how the Lord instructed Moses to teach the people? "Here are 10 commandments, with 10 other counter-viewpoints; you decide which to abide by and how best to interpret them." Is this how Jesus instructed His disciples? "Go make disciples, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you (based on your personal take on things, how you interpret my teachings with or without a literal hell. Just be sincere and tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Accept one another's opposing beliefs, since exactly what I said is not as important as the spirit of what you think I meant...)" Is this how Paul instructed His leaders? "You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine (what sounds good to you as long as you're sincere and have the best of intentions. Don't criticize others who may have doctrine that sounds different. They have every right in the body of Christ to theological diversity even in some essentials. Let's not be so narrow, but make room for anihilationists, too. Their voice must be heard for the church to grow and be more tolerant and inclusive.)" G.K. Chesterton said, "The purpose of having an open mind is to be able to close it again on something solid." A poet quipped, "Beware of being so openminded you become scatterbrained!" There is too much junk food and jello on the tray of this book. Discerning diners, watch what you eat! Bon apetit!
Rating:
Summary: It seems to treat Christian Faith like an academic subject
Review: I read this book carefully, some sections repeatedly. It seems to cater to the "cafeteria christian" mentality of our day: pick and choose which menu items are most palatable and fill your tray to taste. Whether it is healthy, balanced, nutritious or choosing wisely is beside the point. Some reviewers are taken with the options of differing choices to select from. Liberal positions are given an "objective hearing" right alongside traditional/conservative ones. but there is no listing of calories, fat content, carbs, sodium or benefit-value for the consumer. "You makes your choice and takes your chances!" Isn't there inherent danger in condoning liberal views as equally digestable for the Bible student? Is this how the Lord instructed Moses to teach the people? "Here are 10 commandments, with 10 other counter-viewpoints; you decide which to abide by and how best to interpret them." Is this how Jesus instructed His disciples? "Go make disciples, teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you (based on your personal take on things, how you interpret my teachings with or without a literal hell. Just be sincere and tolerant of opposing viewpoints. Accept one another's opposing beliefs, since exactly what I said is not as important as the spirit of what you think I meant...)" Is this how Paul instructed His leaders? "You must teach what is in accord with sound doctrine (what sounds good to you as long as you're sincere and have the best of intentions. Don't criticize others who may have doctrine that sounds different. They have every right in the body of Christ to theological diversity even in some essentials. Let's not be so narrow, but make room for anihilationists, too. Their voice must be heard for the church to grow and be more tolerant and inclusive.)" G.K. Chesterton said, "The purpose of having an open mind is to be able to close it again on something solid." A poet quipped, "Beware of being so openminded you become scatterbrained!" There is too much junk food and jello on the tray of this book. Discerning diners, watch what you eat! Bon apetit!
Rating:
Summary: Violates letter & spirit of historic creeds and confessions
Review: If an author's plot is worthy, it will stand on its own merits. In this case, the plot is unworthy. It totters on its demerits. What Mr. Kuruzovich is innocent of is the crucial fact that historic evangelical confessions were clear in affirming cardinal truths while rejecting heretical alternatives in the same document. Never did they use the approach of this book in placing Right and Wrong side by side with no verdict. They always boldly declared (even at the risk of life & limb) this is right/acceptable; this other is wrong/unacceptable. Essential doctrines encompass much more than the skeletal Nicene or Apostles' Creeds. Anyone like myself, a student of Reformation History, only has to look at the documents and see how the Protestant churches contrasted Biblical truth with the heterodox positions. Orthodoxy was upheld as correct. Unorthodoxy was condemned and rejected as invalid and incorrect in no uncertain terms. For one of the few times in church history, a book like this has dared to place Orthodox and Heterodox on the same pages and label both/either correct. Nothing is flagged as incorrect. It's fine to affirm or reject an error-free bible? Both will fly across the sky in Heaven's eye? What would the Church Fathers and Reformers think of us watering down their unambiguous stand for Jesus' own truth? How far have we fallen?
| 
