This isn’t a book review. It’s going to take me a while to work through this tome. Quite a while, in fact.

One of the problem with many tomes (like Gould/Eldredge in The Structure of Evolutionary Theory) sometimes it’s difficult to find the starting point and especially the end point. Of course G/E had as their starting point a correction to Mayr’s synthesis but there really isn’t a conclusion except that, perhaps, the whole of the work is the answer.

Likewise Moreland & Craig have a philosophical starting point. It’s not just that they would like to see thinking (philosophizing) Christians, but they’re also challenging many of the ancient philosophical structures that plague our world today.They affect not only the greater world around us but even, at times, our theology. Vern Poythress began a discussion of this in his book Understanding Dispensationalists. A segment of his work could serve as an appendix or addendum in this Moreland/Craig effort.

Still, I have a developing concern about this work. But it’s not a conclusion that I’ve solidified yet, so don’t take it as gospel. I’m trusting that their developing philosophical theology does not end up pandering to the very Platonism that they’re challenging. That is, are they going to end up with a theological structure devoid of exegesis? Will it end that revealed truth is subject to our perceptions of truth? This is one of the problems with a highly-inductive solution. It becomes impossible to challenge Platonism by pandering to it. This was one of Kevin Diller’s challenges in Theology’s Epistemological Dilemma and the challenge remains.[1]

But, please, this is an impression at this point and not a conclusion. I hope I’m wrong. But I’ll keep reading. It may take a few months but an analysis will follow

Btw, I respect these two men. This is a discuss of ideas and structures, not of personal morality, fitness, or other personal ethical concerns.


[1] “The deployment of natural theology in the service of apologetics fails because instead of challenging human rational self-sufficiency, it panders to it.” (205)