Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality, David Baggett andJerry L. Walls, Oxford University Press, 2011 (ISBN 978-0-19-975181-5),xv + 283 pp., pb $24.95rirt_1042 272..402

In this book the authors engage the tension between transcendentalsources of moral tenets and the empirical development of moral posi-tions. In a compelling presentation they develop the transcendentalview. Their approach embraces a classicist presentation of the philo-sophical arguments sown by eminent proponents of the transcendentalapproach, including C. S. Lewis, Immanuel Kant, and Thomas Aquinas.Baggett and Walls state, in the introduction, that their ‘goal is to bolstera moral apologetic rather than to provide original exegetical analyses ofpast perspectives and canonical texts, sacred or otherwise’ (p. 5).

There is a growing body of work supporting a secular and postmod-ern adoption of empiricism as the source of morality, a stand dismissiveof the transcendental argument. The authors attack this positionwith vigor, discipline and certitude. They very carefully construct asequence of conjectures that examine the issues of faith coexisting withreason and the dilemma of God creating good as opposed to Godembracing a preexisting, or intuitional good, the Euthyphro dilemma.As they develop the case for God’s contributions to morality, the exami-nation of the naturalistic position must be undertaken. Baggett andWalls take on this task and conclude that a physical world, as definedby naturalism, is unable to sustain the force of morality supported bythe existence of a ‘loving Creator’. ‘God’s existence potentially providesan account of just those distinctive features of morality that we areotherwise so hard-pressed to make sense of: its rationality, its need forfreedom, its imposition of authoritative duties, and the like’ (pp. 28–9).

The next area of exploration is the positing a goodness of God, ratherthan a goodness through God’s grace. If God becomes subject to astandard of goodness, is there a potential for God to reject goodness,therefore to sin? Central to this question is the omnipotence attributedto God. The authors suggest that omnipotence does not, in itself, pre-clude the conceivability of a sinning God. They then proceed with alogic-based proposition that argues against conceivability equating topossibility. ‘Conceivability on this construal [conceivability linked toclarity] is something like thinkability or imaginability. If we can think ofsomething clearly and distinctly, we can conceive of it. What becomesalmost immediately obvious on reflection is that conceivability sounderstood fails to be a necessary condition for genuine possibility’(p. 60).

By dismissing God as sinner, the way is cleared to discuss divinecommand theory, the concept of moral goodness best explainedthrough God. This discussion is technical, resting on deontic logic, alogic system that seeks the source of obligation. The authors discuss the

Reviews272

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

conundrum they face in developing a deontic argument. They point outthat thought on this topic has often dismissed or minimized obligationas a motivator for morally good behavior, due to the significantdichotomy that exists between moral duty and self-interest, a conflictthat suggests the need for a strong authority supporting moral duty.Baggett and Walls conclude this discussion by stating ‘If all rationalwithholdings are blocked, we ought to accept God as an authority. Andpart of what is involved in that is accepting his commands, unless wehave good reason to do otherwise; but again, with a perfect being, therecan’t possibly be good reasons to do otherwise. In short, we think theissue of authority is a matter of power, knowledge, and character, all ofwhich add up to moral authority’ (p. 123).

In developing the basis for God’s goodness as the foundation forhumanity’s moral fiber and ethical proposition, the authors have drawnfrom a broad range of philosophical and theological resources. Thesynthesis of these collected positions is woven into a digest of axiomaticelements forming an apologetic argument positing God as the powerbehind goodness, morality, and applied ethics. The introduction to thiswork identifies two potential sources of goodness, the transcendentalsource providing direction to our life, and the freedom of choice, good-ness without rules. Throughout the book the building blocks have beenassembled to reach the conclusion that the transcendent propositionsare the source and that by accepting this position, we accept the powerof the Creator, the good God.

These building blocks are not easy to comprehend. This is a scholarlywork where the reader’s comfort with the discipline of apologetics andformal logic will certainly enhance both the understanding and theenjoyment of this volume. All readers, however, regardless of back-ground, can find deep value in the book. Sources are well chosen andcan open the opportunity for continued exploration to those who wishto examine the cited works independently. The reader is left with asense that the goals promised in the introduction have been thoroughlysatisfied. Presentation is strong, organized, and convincing. This is arefreshing work during a period in which secular diversions haveblunted the scholarship drive in defense of faith and reason.

The authors duck no issues, confronting naturalists and secularhumanists head on. ‘It has been our contention, in contrast [to theargument supporting empiricism], that the reality and authority ofmorality derives from a source higher and richer, more ‘attractive andfinal’ than anything we can generate or muster as finite human beings.Those with eyes to see can indeed find that there is a law to be discov-ered, not manufactured – found, not created – but a law not of oppres-sion, repression, or suppression, but of liberation. And the ineffablebeauty of the infinite and transcendent Author of this law – of whom wecatch compelling if inchoate images when we see justice effected or

Reviews 273

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

mercy freely conferred – fills us with confidence that by tasting andseeing the Source we will find our deepest satisfaction and truest lib-eration, perfectly ruled, yet perfectly free’ (p. 206).

This is a reading experience that will inform, enrich, and stimulatethose who engage with this work.

John LangCaspersen School of Graduate Studies, Drew University

� � �

The Case Against Diodore and Theodore: Texts and Their Contexts,John Behr, Oxford University Press, 2011 (ISBN 978-0-19-956987-8),xix + 526 pp., hb $265rirt_1043 274..404

Few scholars have both the linguistic acumen and thorough knowledgeof the sources and issues required to publish the present work. Bring-ing together original texts, accompanied by translations, from four lan-guages (Armenian, Greek, Latin, and Syriac), most of which are culledas extracts from larger texts, John Behr has provided a significantservice to scholars interested in the christological controversies leadingup to and following the Council of Chalcedon (451 CE), and especiallyconcerning the issues pertaining to the so-called ‘dyophysite’ Christol-ogy of Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. This work isunrivaled both in depth and in breadth of the sources considered and inthe nuanced understanding of the complex theological issues at stake inthe development of Diodore and Theodore’s context.

The book is organized into two parts. Part I (‘Contexts’) provides thetheological and historical background for Diodore, Theodore, and theissues they faced. First, Behr offers a general introduction to the theo-logical setting of the late fourth century, focusing primarily on Gregoryof Nyssa as a pivotal figure in post-Nicene developments of christo-logical thought. Following this, Behr provides an overview of contem-porary scholarship concerning Diodore and Theodore. Here particularattention is paid to the exegetical methods of the two Antiochians, withemphasis on the ‘historical’ (note: not ‘literal’ as opposed to allegorical)reading of Scripture. The overwhelming impression of this survey ofliterature is that while many scholars have written about Diodore andTheodore, many previous treatments have failed to place their thoughtwithin the proper historical context.

Fittingly, the section that follows this review of scholarship is Behr’sown detailed treatment of the historical and theological circumstancesof Diodore and Theodore. Of particular importance in this discussion is

Reviews274

© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.