Scan barcode
rageofachilles's review against another edition
4.0
A good primer for Open Theists, but I prefer the Gregory Boyd's A Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy. It is a bit more holistic and complete.
aspiringorakle's review against another edition
5.0
This book is a masterful overview of both the Biblical and philosophical bases for freewill theism, risky providence, and its contrary views. While the book is sometimes repetitive, it thoroughly argues that the watershed difference between advocates of a risky model of God's nature and providence and advocates of a non-risky providence model of God's nature and providence is whether God can be conditioned by creatures in any way shape or form. Sanders takes this challenge on as well as maintaining the desiderata imposed on us by Scripture, tradition, reason, and ethics. Not all of the arguments can be summed up in this kind of review, but a few I found particularly persuasive are as follows--is not Jesus the full revelation of the Godhead? If so, how is the Godhead unaffected by others, unable to be grieved, determines all things, etc.? Another of Sanders' most powerful arguments is simply putting forth the biblical data for God grieving, responding to creatures, and changing His mind. Ought not our view of God come primarily from Scripture, as Christians? And unless our metaphysics is so certain as to so massively reinterpret Scripture, why would we take such a strange reading of key biblical passages, saying that when God says He grieves, He means exactly the opposite? Philosophically, he notes that the impulse to a more classical theist view of God comes from ideas about how it is more perfect to not change, or how God must be undisturbed to be perfect. Neither of these seem as intuitive as proponents of the view seem to push. To be fair, some believe in this idea of God because they believe it is what Scripture teaches. But then we must return to the biblical data. And once we do, if we admit that God intentionally wrote Scripture with misleading information about Him, we have more questions. If we can understand the nature of God's statements then, why couldn't the people literally inspired by God? This is not scientific knowledge or practical wisdoms or progressive revelation, fit only to be revealed later--this is the unchanging essence of God. And if we cannot understand the nature of God because these statements are always inadequate to the reality--on the basis of what knowledge do we have a relationship with God? It is hard to imagine a relationship where we do not really know the person who we are in relationship with, but only what they lisp to us, which turns out to be exactly what they are not. My only major complaint with this book (and I am not even sure it is a complaint) is that he does not deal with the more in-depth metaphysical pushes that drive many to a no-risk view of God. I suppose I need to take up the massive volumes of the Thomists.
More...