Letters from a Skeptic: A Son Wrestles with His Father's Questions about Christianity

by Gregory A. Boyd

Greg Boyd and his father, Ed, were on opposite sides of a great divide. Greg was a newfound Christian, while his father was a longtime agnostic. So Greg offered his father an invitation: Ed could write with any questions on Christianity, and his son would offer a response.

Letters from a Skeptic contains this special correspondence. The letters tackle some of today's toughest challenges facing Christianity, including

Do all non-Christians go to hell?
How can we believe a man rose from the dead?
Why is the world so full of suffering?
How do we know the Bible was divinely inspired?
Does God know the future?

Each response offers insights into the big questions, while delivering intelligent answers that connect with both the heart and mind. Whether you're a skeptic, a believer, or just unsure, these letters can provide a practical, common-sense guide to the Christian faith.

Genres: Christian, Nonfiction, Christianity, Religion, Theology, Faith, Spirituality

259 pages, Kindle Edition

First published December 14, 1993

About the author

Gregory A. Boyd is the founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minn., and founder and president of ReKnew. He was a professor of theology at Bethel College (St. Paul, Minn.) for sixteen years where he continues to serve as an Adjunct Professor.

Greg is a graduate of the University of Minnesota (BA), Yale Divinity School (M.Div), and Princeton Theological Seminary (PhD). Greg is a national and international speaker at churches, colleges, conferences, and retreats, and has appeared on numerous radio and television shows. He has also authored and coauthored eighteen books prior to Present Perfect, including The Myth of a Christian Religion, The Myth of a Christian Nation, The Jesus Legend (with Paul Eddy), Seeing Is Believing, Repenting of Religion, and his international bestseller Letters from a Skeptic.

Reviews

[Glen · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have read a few of the "1-star" reviews critiquing the book for its authenticity and Boyd's open theism views. I feel they were hyper critical and predisposed to negative feelings towards Boyd's work.

While I am not bent towards open theism, Boyd's views in this book do not impede the healthy dialogue between Boyd and his father. Their dialogue appears to be authentic. One reviewer said a 'true skeptic' would not take the words of Boyd so easily. I differ because it was a father-son relationship at work in the dialogue.

This book is worth reading. Even if you disagree Boyd's open theistic beliefs, his apologetic technique is well worth reason the book for.

[Lance · Rating 1 out of 5]

I first read this book in the 90s when I was a fresh atheist and someone gave it to me. What I remember is that it seemed to make some decent points (and some bad ones), but the subject of the evangelism converted suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere on what I didn't think was a very interesting claim.

Almost 15 years later, I saw it again, so I was curious how it would seem after I've spent the last few years becoming a much more involved and informed atheist and skeptic.

Since "Skeptic" is in the title, I expected that sets of concerns to be the main perspective - answering the epistemological question of evidence and the means of knowing. Here are my reactions to some of the chapters based on what I found instead of that:

#1 Harm of Christianity
Hmmm... Not epistemology. That's fine, it wasn't the first thing on the dad's mind. The answer, of course, relies on free will and the "No True Scotsman" defense. Lame, but predictable.

#2-3 The problem of evil
More free will. This is pretty annoying. Greg's just taking the existence of free will for granted.

Gee, you're a nice son, taking advantage of the likelihood that your salesman father wouldn't know about neuroscientific and philosophical advances, wouldn't know about determinism, and wouldn't know that the appearance of free will isn't good evidence for the assertions Greg makes about the existence of free will. Way to take advantage of your Dad's ignorance.

#4 God's omniscience
Greg's going out on a limb here that I see others call heretical. For a skeptic like me, this of course just brings out the epistemological problem of theology - there's no empirical way to know if Greg or orthodoxy is right, even assuming the rest. Such fun.

#5 Problem of suffering (natural causes)
This is ridiculous. Why are there earthquakes and famines? Why, it's demons, of course!

Does Greg not know about Plate Tectonics and meteorology? Or does he for some reason think there are more demons in California and Haiti than in Quebec and Kansas?

Utterly, utterly embarrassing. And for the dad to let this slide makes me question what type of skeptic he was.

And no epistemology yet.

#6 Satan
Here we get the obligatory appeal to quantum mechanics. Apologists, please stop this. Just because you don't understand a complex scientific idea doesn't mean you can assume it means that anything is plausible. It's not a magic band-aid for a bad argument.

Also, yes, it's amazing that there are radio waves that we can't see. However, we have physical evidence such things exist (radios, tv, etc.). There's nothing equivalent for supernatural entities, so it's an invalid analogy.

#7 God's Omnipotence
Not a very interesting chapter, but this brings up something interesting.

Greg sure seems to know God's mind. God wants this. God controls that. God allowed this. How does Greg know?

#8 Why believe?
I guess Papa had the same problem I did, because he finally asked for a reason to accept all the theology, asking what evidence Greg has. Let's get some epistemology on!!!

And Greg's answer is appallingly bad:
A. Humans are in three parts (mind, heart, and soul) that make us persons.
B. Our environment must be compatible with us:

we hunger, and behold, there is food. We thirst, and behold, there is water. We have sex drives, and behold, there is sex.

C. Since the universe satisfies those needs, then it must also be like us and be personal:

unless our environment is ultimately itself personal, unless the ultimate context in which we live is self-aware, rational, loving, moral, and purposeful, the our cosmic environment does not at all answer to our personhood... (w)e are the product of a cruel, sick, cosmic joke.

Each of these assertions are horribly illogical and/or unsupported by evidence:
A. We know minds and hearts exist, but there's no evidence for the soul. And all the actions he attributes to the heart and soul are actions of the mind. This is actually a minor point in his argument, but it's completely wrong.
B. Food and water do not exist because we are hungry and thirsty - we are hungry and thirsty because we need energy and hydration. Sex does not exist because we're horny - we're horny because we evolved as sexual beings. We are who and what we are because we're adapted to the environment, not the other way around.

This reminds me of the old saying by Douglas Adams:

. . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, `This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.

Madness.
C. Even if Greg were right about part B that some of our needs being met proves that the universe is suited to us, there's no reason to extend this to our other needs. None whatsoever.

That he assumes our universe must be personal because we are is called the Fallacy of Composition. It's like saying that I must be invisible because the atoms that make me up are.

And the end of it really just ends up as wishful thinking - since Greg doesn't like the implications that come to mind for a God-free universe, there has to be a God.

That's bad logic, not evidence.

In fact, there's not a shred of anything anything that a skeptic would consider empirical evidence to answer a question of epistemology. Just sloppy ideas and wishful thinking.

I almost stopped reading, this was so painful.

#9 Life by chance
Papa called him on the wishful thinking - good job!

Unfortunately, something came next from the "skeptic and atheist" that invalidated the whole premise of the book:

But again, I'm not denying some kind of force greater than outsides lying behind the universe. I've always though there is too much design in the cosmos to be all by accident.

What???

The "atheist" and "skeptic" targeted by all this, whose conversion was supposed to be a model of how to convert me, came into all of this believing in a higher power and accepting the Argument from Design? He wasn't an atheist - he was a deist or a weak theist or something like that (there's not enough detail to know for sure).

I guess to Greg it's all the same (his dad's heading to hell either way), but it makes a big difference if it's to be a model for addressing people like me.

I guess this just means it's another book By Christians, For Christians, because it's useless as an evangelical tool for someone like me.

Oh well.

Anyway, the point of this chapter was that everything couldn't come by chance. Since Papa already accepted this argument, the burden's really low for Greg, but Greg still really messed this up.

1. He makes bold assertions that have no basis:

the only way we can understand why our minds can understand physical reality in the first place is by believing that the physical universe is "mind-like".

Really? Why? Who says? I know he asserted this in the previous train wreck of a chapter, but there's nothing to support this claim. Something this broad needs to be a conclusion built to, but he just throws it out as truth. And there are millions of scientists and secularists out here who prove it wrong.

2.

chance can't produce organisms like our minds that can know and work out mathematical formulas

Again, why not? But separately, this exposes that he either doesn't understand or lies about evolution. Evolution isn't a process working by just chance. Yes, randomness is an input to the system in the form of mutations, but evolution is guided by natural selection. It is not a process that works just by random chance.

There's a fitness that comes from being capable of the abstract thought necessary to produce mathematical formulas. That fitness wasn't directly for math (it was probably for problem-solving in the savanna), but descent with modification and selection pressures drove us to intelligence.

3. Later, he just asserts that having moral standards against genocide and rape requires that there is a moral law in the universe. Of course, this is a standard Christian belief, but Greg has provided no evidence for it.

This chapter is full of this sort of nonsense. Greg uses the word "must" many times, and usually it means "this had better be true in order to support my conclusion" instead of "this conclusion is forced by the evidence and logic".

Ugly.

He also pushes back on the observation that the previous chapter was wishful thinking by... providing more wishful thinking.

#10 Prayer
The question was about the general impotency of prayer that specifically mentioned Greg's mom. Greg ignored the general question and essentially said "as much as it hurt us to lose Mom, it must have hurt the perfect God more."

Completely not answering the question while assuming characteristics and feelings of God.

#11 More prayer
Now Greg says that of course we can't tell that prayer works, because that would turn God into a vending machine. But prayer works anyway.

Oh, and if your prayer not to be slaughtered isn't answered, it just shows that your vision of the universe is myopic.

Eleven letters, and still not one answer based on anything useful.

#12 Aren't we ants
More bald assertions about the perfect nature of God. Still no reason to believe it.

#13 The Gospels
Here Papa sorta asks about the validity of the Gospels as a way of tackling the circular nature of belief (I accept the Bible because God told me so, and I accept God because the Bible tells me so).

Greg's response is to go into the critical-historical analysis, and he says that it validates the Gospel.

Riiight.

It looks like someone was really glad his dad hadn't read any Bart Ehrman or Robert Price or Thomas Altizer. He's playing incredibly fast and loose with historical analysis. It takes careful reading to see that he admits that the Gospels aren't known to be written by eyewitnesses, but he's happy to leave that impression, etc.

Too bad Papa didn't know that this letter was full of it.

#14 Gospel Contradictions
Greg brushes aside contradictions (which are legion) without addressing them. He also brushes aside Papa's question about liberal scholarship by mischaracterizing his question and laughing at it.

Sorry, Greg, there are real contradictions and real scholarship that disagrees with you.

Of course, none of these details matter to a skeptic who hasn't first seen evidence that God exists.

#15 Gospel authors
Greg here says that the Gospels would still be credible if written decades after Jesus' death by non-eyewitness forgers. That's a convenient position to take, but it's not true - being forgeries would be really bad for credibility.

Otherwise, in this chapter he says a lot about biblical authorship that other scholars credibly disagree with. He's forcing authorship of the Gospels into the 60s (which is not consensus) and then says that 30 years isn't enough time for legendary accretion. That's a ludicrous claim for belief systems in a barely literate society.

Papa really needs to read some Ehrman to get another perspective, but even a quick look at wikipedia will show that Greg's exagerrating his case.

A lot.

Also, at this point, Greg says

Dad, you and I have gotten to the point in our discussion where we've agreed that God does exist, and that He is a personal being who knows, loves, and cares about us more than we could care ourselves

I think Greg is again exagerrating his case, but it's an effective emotional ploy. Unfortunately, he's probably right that he's made a lot of progress without actually demonstrating his case at all yet.

#16-17 Resurrection and Jesus' Divinity
Papa brings up a good skeptical point: everyone who dies stays dead, so any explanation other than resurrection is more plausible (confusion, theft, prank, etc.). What's the response?

Greg massively changes the burden of proof. Since Papa accepts (for whatever reason) that the Gospels are "generally reliable", Greg says that the burden of proof is now on a resurrection denier disprove it. Sorry, no. A resurrection is an extraordinary claim, and thus it requires extraordinary evidence.

Imagine I wrote a truthful story about my senior year in college, but then I inserted a fanciful UFO abduction tale involving unicorns. Would the verifiability of the rest of the book change the burden of proof on the part that's extraordinary? No, not at all.

He then repeats the bizarre notion that decades wasn't enough time to create legends (to see how silly this is, look how quickly Scientology grew even today), and he repeats his mischaracterization of the state of historical-critical analysis.

Greg says that the resurrection was testified to by independent sources, but this is problematic given that the non-eyewitness authors aren't known, and that three of the Gospels are based on one previous account! He says dissenters could have produced a body if it weren't true, but that ignores that the Gospels came out decades later.

I could go on, but it's more of the same that Richard Carrier amply demolishes.

At this point, we're in the realm of theology and not apologetics. They might as well be debating whether the invisible pink unicorn likes oats or hay for all the relevance it has at this point - Greg never makes a solid evidence-based argument that his nonsense is worth considering, but they're its fine points. It's useless for me.

So, I'm going to skip ahead now to the last chapter, because that's the only other time that anything like a skeptical question is brought up again.

#29 How to know for sure
After 65 more pages of unsupported Theological speculation, we're back to a real question: How can I know for sure?

How will Greg respond? Will this evoke evidence? Will we have a good story of epistemology now, finally?

Of course not.

Greg tells his Dad to accept it on faith.

He says they agree that Greg had demonstrated that Christianity is the worldview best supported by evidence, and that should be some solace. But it's no solace for me since I see no evidence in this book whatsoever.

Greg says that not believing is a leap of faith, too, which is a common but silly claim. Is it a leap of faith to demand more evidence before accepting the existence of the Easter Bunny? Or Santa? Or a dragon in my garage? Or Thor? Of course not. To an atheist, Christianity isn't unique or special, it's just another claim, and the proper position without sufficient supporting evidence is rejection.

There's a bit of Pascal's Wager here, and that's just pathetic, too. Should I accept Islam instead because its hell is worse? What if God rewards with heaven those who used logic to come to doubt her? I could come up with any number of other heavens and hells, and there's no reason to play it safe to avoid the Christian hell.

Conclusion

This book is a way Christians convince themselves that they have rational, evidence-based arguments that work. Perhaps the arguments presented here worked on one unprepared non-atheist, but they aren't going to work on an informed skeptic or atheist. There's nothing interesting here, and there are no arguments that an informed atheist hasn't heard and defeated a hundred times before.

Don't waste your money.

[Paul Dubuc · Rating 4 out of 5]

Greg and Edward Boyd have have given us a great blessing in publishing their correspondence on the nature of Christianity. This book is unique among the many apologetic sorts of books I have read for a few reasons:


1)It's honest. Ed Boyd doesn't go easy on his son about Christianity. The questions are thoughtful, penetrating and genuine, not straw men set up to be easily knocked down. Greg Boyd's answers are equally thoughtful and well stated. He doesn't overwhelm with theological language but does a very good job of explaining difficult ideas in simple language. He honestly admits to uncertainty in places, but does a fine job of showing that uncertainty need not be a serious impediment to genuine faith and rational belief. I have never seen so many difficult questions about Christianity answered so well in so little space.


2)It's intimate. This is a discussion between a father and son who genuinely love and respect one another. It's a model for how important, ultimate issues can be debated in a very constructive manner.


3)It's powerful. Ed Boyd's conversion is more than a mere acceptance of certain religious beliefs. It is a powerful testimony to the power of God to change a human life wonderfully "from the inside out."


Many have objected to parts of Greg Boyd's theology. For example one review I read goes so far as to say this isn't really a Christian book because of Boyd's "Open Theism." (See his other books for a more detailed treatment of his theology.) Though I have some questions about this position myself, I think Boyd is a genuine evangelical Christian theologian who is wrestling honestly with how to make the best sense out of the whole Bible's portrayal of God. This reviewer's objections seemed one-sided. There are plenty of places in the Bible where God is portrayed as being shocked (even surprised?) at human behavior. He changes his mind. He is passionate and emotional (if the prophets are to be believed and Jesus is really God incarnate). God doesn't fit in a neat little conceptual box and Greg Boyd is honest about that. He deserves a fairer more open-minded reading than many of his critics give him.


If God is the most powerful being in existence, he can do anything; even limit himself in some respects (not all) with regard to his knowledge of the future. To some people this implies a diminshment of God. If so, it is a self-diminishment--no other being has done it to him--and he is still is the most powerful being in existence--no one else has more foreknowledge than he. So how is God diminished? Is God unable to right any wrong just because he didn't "know" it would happen beforehand (because it wasn't part of reality before it happened)? I don't think so. I think Boyd makes a good point when he suggests that the conception of God that many Christians have may owe itself more to the ancient Greeks than to Christianity (or the Judaism from which it sprang) and biblical teaching.

Greg Boyd is a passionate, whole-hearted Christian with the Highest regard for the Bible. That comes out very clearly in this book. I highly recommend it.

[Kris · Rating 2 out of 5]

Basically, in the end, I'll admit it's a good resource for atheists investigating the faith. It's very light and very short. It would be helpful for some people wanting to casually pick up an easy apologetics book.

But it wouldn't be a go-to for me. There are much better apologetics works out there. There's far too much left unsaid, and the arguments he does make leave much to be desired. Doyle gives only very basic answers. Though I suppose that's all he set out to do in the first place.

His answer to the problem of evil is particularly frustrating. Doyle gets sidetracked with weak side arguments and mentions absolutely nothing about the fall of man in that section, and how sin entering the world affects nature. He also concedes some points in other areas I would not have let go. He makes historic Christian beliefs sound weak (like young earth Creationism, belief that certain stories in the bible are literal, and the importance of baptism and the Eucharist).

But I must remind myself of this book's purpose. It's meant to be basic and it remains basic. There were many points in it that I appreciated and overall it is structured well.

[Johanna Ediger · Rating 2 out of 5]

Completely unconvincing to someone with a basic understanding of logic and the scientific method.

[Akash Ahuja · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book does a good job of apologetics, the only bad thing is that I didn't enjoy reading any part of it. If you're looking for a general overview, and you already know a good bit about Christian theology, pick up something else. This was much easier to understand than a book like Mere Christianity, but was also much less fulfilling.

[Ivan · Rating 2 out of 5]

The bottom line: While much good is contained in this book (there really is!), I would not give it to an unbelieving friend. If given the chance, I would remove several of the chapters (e.g., 4-7, 11, 24, 25) and would be hesitant to recommend others. I’m grateful for the fact that God worked through these letter exchanges; however, I am deeply troubled by several of the answers proposed.

The book, Letters from a Skeptic, is a compilation of letter exchanges between a son and his father regarding questions about God, Christianity, Jesus Christ, the Bible, and many other related things. The subtitle sums it up very well: "A Son Wrestles with His Father’s Questions about Christianity." The son (Greg Boyd) had been a Christian for 14 years up until he revisited the subject of Christianity and began corresponding with his father (Ed Boyd) about the faith. All those years Ed had only been reticent in engaging in conversations with his son about God and faith: “My father never showed any openness to the Gospel. He harbored only resentment toward the church and was outspoken in his animosity toward what he called ‘born-again types.’”

As an indirect purpose, the book is tailored to both encourage believers to have honest, coherent answers questions that arise, and even serve as a guide for skeptics with all their questions.

As one might guess, the father's greatest qualm is with the "problem of evil" and suffering and the Bible’s claim that God is all-loving and all-powerful. Living in a fallen world, we perpetually face the effects of sin around us, and most strikingly we face the sin within us. All this leads us to desire honest, definitive answers that best provide answers to our deepest questions.

Crucial to the discussion is the resurrection of Jesus Christ. This inevitably becomes the bedrock of our faith as Paul makes so abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 15. Ed Boyd honestly states, “Every dead person I’ve ever known has stayed dead!” (No wonder Greg takes an entire afternoon to write a 9-page response!)

Greg Boyd's response is lucid, thorough, and honest to the evidence. No wonder his father comments, “This obviously is no ‘blind leap of faith’ you’ve been making.” Especially helpful is the fact that the Resurrection narratives contain such specific details (e.g., name-dropping of persons) and even counter-intuitive events (Mary Magdalene—a woman[!]—is the first to arrive to the empty tomb—all this taking place in a society where women were viewed as “incurable liars”). The edifice of evidence constructed is truly compelling. Greg does a masterful job in this letter in a clear and winsome way.

My assessment of the book? I was greatly impressed with the straightforward questions by Ed. He felt comfortable in not having to erect a façade (he is talking to his son after all!). All his questions revealed a mind (and heart) that was hungry for answers. As time progressed Ed saw more and more the utter simplicity of Christianity’s answers. Though at times it was emotionally hard to grasp some of the answers, he in the end understood (or at least began to understand) that Christianity is not a mindless leap in the dark. However, it is a leap—a leap into the arms of a loving God who is fully good and in control and has ultimately revealed himself in Jesus Christ as the sacrifice that took our sin and offers forgiveness by faith alone.

Worthy of attention and full of sound, biblical wisdom are the final four chapters (26-29). I especially appreciated his answer to the question, “How can another man’s death pardon me?” This lies at the heart of what it means to be a Christian—this indeed is good news!

While I benefited greatly from reading this book, it seemed many of the answers Greg offered were sorely lacking at best and anti-biblical at worst. On the subject of God’s foreknowledge, he writes, “So God can’t foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decisions.” Psalm 139 flies in the face of such a remark. I wasn’t surprised when his father took note of it: “It seems like your view of God is much more ‘human’ than what I’ve always thought God was supposed to be…. I admit your view sounds better than the standard one…but I wonder if your view is just your own creation.” This “open” view of God, I believe, diminishes the very biblical presentation of a holy and sovereign God.

As Bruce Ware has written elsewhere,

"What is…lost in so many places and in so many ways is the infinite supremacy of God, and this loss is unimaginably great. Nothing less than the uncontested deity of God, his absolute lordship over all space and time, his universal, unrivaled, and inviolable sovereignty, his flawlessly wise and meticulous providence, his undiminished and infinite perfection, and his majestic and incomparable glory."

I wept as I finished reading “A Tribute.” I’m still amazed at how God redeems sinners (including me!). The Ed I read about initially was strong-willed, sassy and skeptical; the Ed I read about in the epilogue is a tenderhearted man, full of joy at the fact that his skepticism has melted and faith has been birthed within him, blooming to such degree that even his dog notices! What a glorious thought! It never gets old. I can resonate with Ed: “The angels whom you say rejoice over this sort of thing are probably giving each other high-fives!”

That said, I believe that many of Greg’s answers to his father’s enquiries are problematic. I believe he muddles the orthodox view of God’s complete omniscience and sovereign rule over a morally responsible and culpable world. Further, his view that “God necessarily surrendered a degree of His power” reveals a God who is not the one revealed in Scripture who “works all things after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11). This is no mere wrangling with words — it goes to the core of who God is! Often the errors are subtle and creep up, couched in seemingly humble words. I do not doubt the sincerity of Greg Boyd or his love for God. I simply believe he is not very helpful when it comes to offering solutions to the biblical tensions of evil and suffering as it relates to God’s omnipotence and foreknowledge.

[John · Rating 1 out of 5]

I read this during my time at Bethel University (College at the time) where Greg Boyd was a popular professor of Bible. Boyd's brand of Open Theism was a very widely discussed point of controversy during my four years at Bethel. John Piper, pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis and others were opposing Boyd's Open Theism and there was a contingent of people in the BGC (now Converge) that were attempting to oust Boyd not only from Bethel, but from the BGC itself.

I attended Bethlehem and was one of the student critics, but decided to read this book in an attempt to fully understand what Boyd believed and was teaching.

I was appalled at the book. I admired Boyd's attempt to convert his father, but whatever admiration one may have for that is overwhelemed entirely by the heretical teaching Boyd made central to his argument for God.

Boyd actively teaches that God is not sovereign, that he allows humans to use their free will. God will then react to human decisions to bring about the good he has promised. But it is essentially man that is sovereign--not God. God is a contingent being in Boyd's theology.

The book is full of emotional and philosophical appeal. The Bible is made to fit into Boyd's theological grid, rather than understanding God's sovereignty according to the Bible.

This is an appalling theology and and awful book. I would not recommend this book to anyone. If you want to learn about Open Theism, read the critics of it. Don't waste your time here.

[Miriam Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is quite possibly the best book I’ve listened to this year! It’s raw and engaging, yet full of so much love. Before I was even half way done, I had ordered a physical copy for my bookshelf.

[Gabrielė Bužinskaitė · Rating 3 out of 5]

“Love must always start free—but its goal is to become unfree. To be unable not to love is the highest form of freedom in love. ”

[Craig Hurst · Rating 3 out of 5]

As this review will bear out I have mixed feeling about this book. I do not hold to any form of Open Theism/Flexible Sovereignty and I honestly have a hard time seeing it as a faithful interpretation of Scripture and within the evangelical stream of orthodox belief.

DISAGREEMENTS:

My biggest problem with the book is Boyd's view of God, namely his view of God's omniscience. Boyd does not hide the fact that for him God's omniscience is limited to only what has happened because out of love God has given man free will to make choices. Therefore, if man has free will God cannot out of love predetermine his choices (though He can for some in order to bring about certain predetermined events)and so God does not know mans choices until they are made. God cannot know the future because it has not happened yet because it is contingent upon mans free undetermined choices. God takes a risk in this and He limits Himself giving man some of His power in that we control the future with our choices.

What frustrates me is that Boyd constructs a merely philosophical argument for his view of God's omniscience and man's free will but does not (and cannot in my opinion) make any reference to how Scripture bears this out. Granted, Boyd tries to avoid Scripture as much as possible in the book as he evangelizes his father out of his for his father's wishes not to have the Bible jammed down his throat (though he does reference it occasionally).

As already discussed, tied to this open view of God's omniscience is Boyd's view of man's free will. Though he does not come out and say it directly, I have a hard time distinguishing between his view of mans will and the Pelagian view. I think there is a difference between the two but is very had to detect. Scripture does not give us any indication or implication that mans will is so free that his choices are unknowable in the sense that God cannot say to know what man will do. I think Boyd is trying to fight against the idea that if God knows the future choices of man they are therefore already determined in the mind of God, cannot be otherwise and therefore cannot be truly free. I think Boyd misunderstands some of this Calvinistic belief and cannot separate the difference between God's existence outside of time and the knowledge that comes with being able to see all of time simultaneously with man existing in time only being able to see things moment by moment. In the effort to reconcile this paradox Boyd has to greatly alter his theology of God and man.

The third biggest disagreement with the views expressed in the book are some of the thoughts on hell. Boyd's view here is still considered to be evangelical, albeit on the fray. He is an inclusivist in that he believes some people can be saved even though they don't know Jesus Christ personally. So they at no point in their life make a confession of Jesus Christ as Lord as Paul the Apostle put it in Romans. What is surprising is his support for this position. Boyd argues that the OT saints like Noah, Job and Melchizedek were saved though they did not believe in Christ. But this is to confuse a number of things. First, salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in God but the content of that belief was the hope of a Messiah in the OT (looking forward to the one who is Christ) and then in the NT to the coming of the Messiah in Christ. What we see in the OT is a belief in God as He directly revealed Himself and His message (to that point in time) to people. But the belief of these people was not out of a response to something they saw of God in nature but out of a response to the direct revelation of God Himself to these people. Second, the only way for Boyd's view work in light of Christ's 1st coming is for man to respond to God as He has revealed Himself in creation. But as Romans 1-3 (specifically chapter 1) clearly states, though God has clearly revealed Himself in creation man rejects this revelation and instead worships the very creation itself through which God reveals Himself. The argument crumbles on itself. Consequently Boyd ignores this point. God as He is revealed through creation condemns man, not save him. Third, Boyd further supports this view by saying that God judges man according to his heart. Problem is, man's heart is wicked. John tells us that no man seeks after God because when the light of Christ came into the world the world rejected it and was content to stay in their darkness. The heart of man is set at enmity with God. Man does not respond to God in faith as revealed in creation but rather he rejects what He sees of God and worships the creation. Finally, this also ignores what Heb. 1:1-3 tells us, that though in the past God revealed Himself to man in various ways He has now finally revealed Himself in Christ. No more burning bushes, or balls of fire, or dreams, etc. but fully and finally in Christ to whom man must respond in faith to in order to be saved. Boyd's view overlooks the significance of God's salvific revelation in Christ for salvation.

AGREEMENTS

Boyd has some good apologetic arguments for the existence of God reasons for believing in Him. He relies heavily on the anthropological argument that a personal God must exist because it is the only way to account for the personal nature of man. Relating to one another in the way humans do cannot happen by accident or chance but only because a personal God created us to be that way.

In response to his fathers hangups about the Gospels Boyd does a great job making a case for their reliability. He makes full use of both external and internal reasons for believing in the reliability of the Gospels. He further does a great job defending the historical account of and rationality of the resurrection of Christ upon which the gospel itself hangs.

In regards to the Christian life, Boyd does a good job of showing how man cannot obey the law of God on His own which is why he needs Christ. He does a great job showing the necessity of the atonement in that it makes sense and accomplishes what it intends (though Boyd does not hold to a particular atonement view).

CONCLUSION:

Admittedly there was much I liked in this book though my disagreements were very strong. The format is unique and it would be cool to see it done with a more traditional orthodox view of God in the responses. What this book gives the reader is a view of what open theism looks like in action through evangelism and apologetics. For the most part I would have to say Boyd gets the gospel right though I would have much to disagree with after that. I believe Boyd is sincere in his presentation of his views but they left me wanting at many points. The books ends with Boyd telling of how his father came to faith in Jesus Christ from which the letters the book is made up from were the catalyst for that decision. As I read the last chapter of Boyd's account of his fathers conversion tears filled my eyes. Though I disagree greatly with Boyd's view of the nature of God and man I do not doubt his salvation nor his fathers and I can only say we will all see more clearly on the other side of eternity.

[adley gray · Rating 5 out of 5]

While I don’t agree with everything in this book, this was a great intro to apologetics for me. What a beautiful picture of how to lovingly engage those who disagree with us. I’ve used this content multiple times in evangelism and discipleship. Praise God for who He is and what He’s done (and doing!)

[Jason Caldwell · Rating 1 out of 5]

I picked up this book after a friend of mine recommended we take turns picking out books on our own religious faiths (she is a theist, while I am an atheist) and then talking about them afterward. A kind of religious book club that would help her to better understand my views, and maybe she thought it'd help pull me back to her side. I'd like to think it wasn't the latter.

So I picked up this book, and right from the beginning it was very clear that it was not written by two people of opposing views, but all written solely by the author himself. All fabricated. He threw in little bragging points about himself, that I am sure were supposed to make it feel more realistic, but they didn't.

I won't get into the insanity of his explanations for natural disasters being caused by the war between Heaven and Hell that is taking place as we speak, but in a way that we can't see. People killed by them are just casualties of war. Other reviewers cover that nonsense enough (both theists and atheists alike).

What really bothered me about the entire book, was that the "skeptic" in this book never questioned the author. The author would say something, then the father would ask something cliche like, "Why is there evil?" and the author would give a really weak response. What is the skeptic's response to the weak answer he was given? Why, he never questioned it again. He'd just take whatever the author said to him as if it was fact or some kind of logic he was too dumb to figure out on his own, and then ask another cliche question. This continued throughout the entire book. A real skeptic does not accept the first answer given to them without question, and one described like the father in this book would have had much more to ask that just the generic, cliche crap that this book covered. These are not the questions that we skeptics want answered, they are the questions that many apologists believe and hope we want answered because they believe they have the answers to them.

I was relieved when I read other reviews on Amazon and other sites where I was not the only one upset with the way the author insults our intelligence. Even more relieved that the majority of people that were upset, were Christians that did not like the way he was misrepresenting them and clearly trying to take advantage of believers that will spend money on anything that might help them "enlighten" their non-believer friends.

I have only ever read one other book that was worse than this one, and that was The Christian Bible.

[Lucía · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was actually one of the first books I'd bought with my Kindle, probably 3 years ago, and I was just checking which were the best sellers that month on Amazon. I remember being very intrigued by the chapter sample I read, so I bought it and for some reason I never finished it.
Theology, or any kind of philosophical books for that matter, isn't really my thing. Yeah, it's nice that once in a while you read something that challenges you but usually when I really want to read something, I go for any fiction book I think I might enjoy. Having said that, I picked this book again because it isn't a book about theology, but it talks about God. The book is basically a bunch of letters that a skeptic father and a believer son mailed to each other about the main issues that probably every skeptic about christianity has like why does God let all these wars happen, or why does God let evil happen if he is all-powerful, etc. Even things that believers wonder sometimes.
All of these questions are replied in very simple language, which makes it very interesting for people like me, who would never pick up a theology book, to read. It's very hard to rate this book because you can't base your rating on how they narrated, because they wrote those letters never intending to publish a book, and you can't really base it on the content, because this is just the opinion of two people with very different pov of God and christianity. So I ended up with 4 stars, because I really enjoyed knowing things that I had forgotten, or never really thought about, or just things that I wasn't that aware or informed of, and it was quite fascinating to see how the son could answer to his father's very critical questions. I must add that, although this didn't influence my rating, I do not agree a 100% with the son's answers and some of his views on things, and I still believe that if you give this book to a truly skeptic person, they would probably end up having the same opinion about God. But from a christian pov, it was interesting to read this interaction between two very different opinions.

[Karen & Gerard · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an unusual book because it is all letters back and forth between a father and son. The son is a professor of theology and an ordained evangelical minister. The father was raised Catholic but with numerous questions about Christianity which the son patiently tries to answer over a period of time through correspondence. The questions fall into four major categories: Questions about God, Questions about Jesus Christ, Questions about the Bible, and Questions about Christian life and doctrine.

Here is a sample of some of the tough questions the father and son discussed:

Why has Christianity done so much harm?
Why is the world so full of suffering?
Why did God create Satan?
Why trust the Gospel accounts?
How can you believe that a man rose from the dead?
Why do you think the Bible is inspired?
What about the “holy books” of other religions?
Why does God make believing in Him so difficult?
Do all non-Christians go to hell?
Isn’t the Christian life impossible to live?
How can I be sure it’s all true?

If you have questions about Christianity or know someone who does and would like to know how to answer them, I highly recommend this book. I loved seeing how the father slowly became more open to Christianity and finally accepted Jesus as His Savior when he was 73.

[Jonathan Ammon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Staggering. By far the best book on Christian apologetics I've ever read. I cried many times. This book is drenched in love and humility. Fundamentalists will be frustrated with the uncertainty Boyd is comfortable with. Reformed Christians will struggle with his views of providence. Evangelicals may squirm occasionally, too. But Boyd loved his father deeply, loves Jesus deeply, and gave the best arguments for that love according to his conscience. I don't agree with everything in this book, but I agreed with far more than I expected, and I would be more than happy if I could give this book to every unbeliever I know.

[Tisha · Rating 2 out of 5]

Letters From a Skeptic is a 3 year collection of letters between a Christian son and his skeptical, agnostic father.

This book is intriguing to me as it asks many of the questions I find myself asking in relation to Christianity. I can wholly relate to the son in this book. I am a "Skeptic" if you will.

[Chris McMillan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Accessible combination of relational and philosophical apologetics between a son and his father. Sweet story with an epilogue that’ll make you ready.

Sometimes felt like Greg’s dad surrendered his skepticism too easily, but who am I to judge a man’s heart? At the end of the day, very few are convinced to trust Jesus purely because of logic and reason.

[Gregory · Rating 1 out of 5]

So logically flawed that there's nothing to really review. Don't bother.

[Josh · Rating 2 out of 5]

I was an atheist when I picked up this book, but by the end of it I found the arguments so compelling that I had to turn away from my sinful ways and accept Jesus Christ as my personal Lord and savior!

Just kidding. I'm still an atheist.

This book is the kind of nonsense youth pastors give to impressionable teens to squelch their questions and confirm them in the faith. I know this because a youth pastor gave this book to me when I was fifteen, and I'm just now getting around to reading it. In the first few correspondences in the book I kept wondering if Boyd would eventually just break out Pascal's wager as though it is an effective argument. I was not disappointed.

I suppose a couple recurring themes are that apologists are really only trying wear down their target to a "maybe." Once they get their victim to agree that maybe God exists, it is like the frog in the gradually-warming water. The frog remains motionless until it is cooked to death. This is probably why this tactic works so well on young people in Christian families who have questions: they already believe in God and so it is easy to lead them along a particular line of thinking to get them to conform. Answer enough of their questions and they will give themselves permission to be life-long slaves to Christ, and try to spread these bad memes to other naive marks.

[Stan Sorensen · Rating 3 out of 5]

A reasonable defense of Christianity from an evidentialist viewpoint with a rosey view that man's reason is capable of arriving at the truth of the Bible and Christian truths. It subsumes everything under God's love to give man freedom to do evil. Constantly pokes at the straw man of "fundamentalist" views which hardly exist in evangelical circles today. I suppose this is to paliate his skeptical father and others who despise more conservative views. My greatest concern is with Boyd's open theistic view that God doesn't know all things and the future is contingent on man's choices! See especially pp. 41-43. Also proposes some of Ron Sider's views that world hunger is due to certain people hoarding all the world's resources and the best way to alleviate that is to redistribute the food. As someone who has spent 35 years in Africa I see this as a naive and impossible way to alleviate hunger and poverty.

[kamiyah mcqueen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I thought as a professor of theology, that his views would be a little more profound and productive than it is.

Some of his views, for example, limited God in a way that I had never heard of before. He mentioned that God wasn’t necessarily “all powerful” and “all knowing.” He had convincing evidence on this issue but his theology seems fractured…

He goes on to say that God sacrificed a little bit of His power to His creation (because of free will). I don’t have enough knowledge on this subject to completely disagree or argue the faulty of this belief. However, my first thought pointed me back to Jesus. Where He didn’t lose His deity in coming to earth but rather took on the form of a human. Makes me believe that God didn’t sacrifice His power of any sort, but obtained new responsibilities.

I don’t know though I could be wrong about all of this. Maybe i’ll update this once I have firm arguments. Anyways, I couldn’t even finish it because it was frustrating lol

[Barb · Rating 4 out of 5]

I just finished the audiobook "Letters from a Skeptic". I cried tears of joy at the end. It was a very good book.

I have two areas where I disagreed with the author's theology. One was on the subject of God's foreknowledge - the author stated: “So God can't foreknow the good or bad decisions of the people He creates until He creates these people and they, in turn, create their decisions." I believe God knows and sees all things - even before they occur. (Psalm 139) And, we humans still have free will - God simply knows what we will do, though he does not decree it.

And, the second position was on Annihilationism - a belief that after death, the wicked will be destroyed and their consciousness extinguished, rather than suffering in hell. I believe that our souls are eternal, and we will either spend eternity in God's presence in heaven or apart from Him eternally in hell.

The book was relevant and informative in many ways - I’m simply pointing out two areas where I drew different conclusions based on my understanding of Scripture.

[Camilla · Rating 5 out of 5]

Notat til meg sjølv:
Veldig fornøyd med denne boka. Ho tar opp alle dei grunnleggjande spørsmåla mange har om kristendommen på ein god og ekte måte. Eg opplever at spørsmåla blir svart på etter beste evne og at ingenting blir gøymt under ein stol.
Kan anbefalast til menneske som er nysgjerrig på kristen tru, til menneske som har mange motargument mot kristen tru og "langtidskristne" som treng ei påminning om kven Gud er, kven vi er og kva Han har gjort for oss!

[Emmy Passi · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a believer i enjoyed the banter between believe and non believer but i believe at times Dr Boyd stretched his reasonings to match his own teachings. when talking about God i think the best explanations can be found in the bible, so once the father and son reached over the hump of the credibility of the bible I would have appreciated more Scripture in his explanations for his fathers further questions

[Ashley Thompson · Rating 3 out of 5]

To be honest I didn’t read word-for-word this entire book. I skimmed through entries that asked questions I already understood and agreed with the theologically. There were a few points that I disagreed with the author on, but overall a solid book. So beautiful to see on paper the thoughts of a skeptic who becomes a believer! I rated it 3 stars only because it was super dense, hard to read, and I disagreed with a few points, BUT such a great resource when entering into conversations with non-believers.

[Rosie Gearhart · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most helpful books I’ve ever read. I really appreciate the humility and kindness in his tone. This is an excellent example of how to talk to non-Christians. It also helps answer a lot of questions that many people are asking. Even if/though all of his answers may not be what yours would be, it is still an excellent resource for thinking people.

[Jacob Gubbrud · Rating 5 out of 5]

Strongly encourage all of those struggling with faith, trying to eloquently discuss their faith, or just curious about faith, to read this book. It's a super easy read and is legitimately just a bunch of letters between a believing son and a struggling to believe father. They are transparent with one another, ask the hard questions, and provide th hard answers. Highly recommend.

[Roxanne · Rating 5 out of 5]

Oh wow. What a beautiful testimony. I think I highlighted the whole book. While I don’t think this approach would work with many skeptics—it worked because of the relationship of Father and Son. That gives me even more goosebumps! Thank you for providing some seeds that I can plant when I face these questions from others. As a believer, this book also provided additional reasons for my beliefs that I questioned but accepted by faith.

[Karen · Rating 4 out of 5]

A Christian friend recommended this book to me. I am glad I read it. The thought I kept having is that we have so many things in common in our love for our Lord. I enjoyed the dialogue back and forth between Father and Son. The son's thought out apologetics was easy to understand. There were definitely parts that he didn't go far enough. An example would be regarding suffering and how we can offer it up to our Lord and therefore create meaning in our suffering. There were also parts that I do not agree with such as in regards to the Bible and where it came from. However, I have many non-Catholic friends whom I pray with and share our faith with so it is good to see more clearly the commonalities. I will pray for unity among Christians and celebrate our faith in Jesus.