Scan barcode
sofer_mahir's review
2.0
If one is looking for a concise presentation of the Open Theist position, this is a great place to look. If one is looking to be convinced, it may be best to search elsewhere. This book is characterized by fallacious argumentation, poor exegesis, and problematic theological assumptions and conclusions.
The contributors frequently made use of subtle mischaracterizations of Classical Christian Theism by describing that model as presenting a "static" and "inert" God. On multiple occasions CCT was rejected on the basis of false dichotomies or because of its assertion of divine incomprehensibility. Often the alternatives put forward were, in reality, no better.
The hermeneutical contributions to this volume are terribly weak. Texts like Num 23:19 are flattened to get around their plain meaning; others, like Isa 55:8-9, are unwarrantedly restricted to their immediate context so that they cannot be taken as general rules. Many texts that might present great difficulty for the openness position, like Gen 50:20, Deut 18:20-22, or Isa 41:21-24, go completely untouched.
Though the authors want to present themselves as orthodox, certain statements leave room for confusion about the unity of the biblical witness to God's nature, or about soteriological issues like inclusivism. Some conclusions drawn in the final chapter are also concerning, such as the assertion that, since God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge of the future, He really could lead someone to make decisions that might turn out poorly in the long-run. Finally, the authors want to be clear that they aren't presenting a different God from the longstanding Christian tradition but rather a different way of understanding. However, when the ontology of God is so drastically modified as it is here, one is left wondering if they can truly claim to be worshiping the same Being.
If you want to understand open theism, this is book is great for that. If you want sound theology, all you will find here is blasphemy and heresy.
The contributors frequently made use of subtle mischaracterizations of Classical Christian Theism by describing that model as presenting a "static" and "inert" God. On multiple occasions CCT was rejected on the basis of false dichotomies or because of its assertion of divine incomprehensibility. Often the alternatives put forward were, in reality, no better.
The hermeneutical contributions to this volume are terribly weak. Texts like Num 23:19 are flattened to get around their plain meaning; others, like Isa 55:8-9, are unwarrantedly restricted to their immediate context so that they cannot be taken as general rules. Many texts that might present great difficulty for the openness position, like Gen 50:20, Deut 18:20-22, or Isa 41:21-24, go completely untouched.
Though the authors want to present themselves as orthodox, certain statements leave room for confusion about the unity of the biblical witness to God's nature, or about soteriological issues like inclusivism. Some conclusions drawn in the final chapter are also concerning, such as the assertion that, since God doesn't have exhaustive knowledge of the future, He really could lead someone to make decisions that might turn out poorly in the long-run. Finally, the authors want to be clear that they aren't presenting a different God from the longstanding Christian tradition but rather a different way of understanding. However, when the ontology of God is so drastically modified as it is here, one is left wondering if they can truly claim to be worshiping the same Being.
If you want to understand open theism, this is book is great for that. If you want sound theology, all you will find here is blasphemy and heresy.
greenweasel11's review
4.0
Excellent material. I felt like it got rather repetitious at points, but I think that's just because I already basically knew and agreed with everything it was saying from a theological perspective (though not the historical details, but I didn't find those particularly relevant to me). I guess I see now that adhering to the maxim "I only read books I disagree with" is more a way to avoid getting bored than a sign of open-mindedness. Someone who strongly disagrees with the open view would likely feel more engaged. But I think I've read enough on the subject.
I really like the '90s aesthetic of the cover.
And I just really don't see what all the fuss from Calvinists is about. No one is saying (well, maybe process theologians are) that God lacks the power to actualize a Calvinistic or otherwise fully determined creation. Open theists just believe that his love led him to do otherwise; see page 151: "God as so conceived is in no way deficient in power as compared with God as viewed by Calvinism. We believe that God is completely capable of creating a universe every detail of whose history is solely determined by his sovereign decree. But it seems to use that a wise and good God would not want—and, in fact, has not chosen—to create such a universe." Seriously, why is it reprehensible to suggest that God takes risks? And why do Calvinists even waste their energy arguing about it when they believe that God, for some bizarre reason, decided before creation that open theists would be wrong in the particular way that they are? Ugh, now I'm ranting about how stupid Calvinism is again. 'Cause that's what it is: stupid. If you're a Calvinist, please don't be offended, because it's nothing personal, but you have to be incredibly blinded to believe that garbage. (And again, if you're right, God is making ("compatibilism" is a sham) me type this, so it's not like you have any grounds for complaining.) Is that uncharitable? It's just the truth. I suppose you could say that I'm not "speaking it in love," but what do you want me to do, lie?
Now, for a brief summary, as I sometimes write for nonfiction books I read.
The preface basically sums up the main theme, though without Greg Boyd's emphasis on possibilities and the will/will-not vs. might/might-not distinction (but that does get mentioned eventually in the body of the book). I found there to be more of an emphasis on the implications of the open view for God's character than is necessary, but of course it doesn't detract from any of his essential attributes (to the extent that he can legitimately be said to have "attributes").
"Biblical Support for a New Perspective" basically makes the point (on page 18) that "[f]rom a Christian perspective, love is the first and last word in the biblical portrait of God" and argues from there that the open view makes the most sense in light of that fact. The Tanakh depicts God's feelings, intentions, and actions existing in and influenced by interactive relationship with his creation, and Jesus further reveals that reality. God's character, but not necessarily his knowledge, is changeless, and his foretelling or predetermining certain aspects of the future does not imply that the future does not remain partially open and uncertain.
"Historical Considerations" was clearly thoroughly researched. I wouldn't say it's boring, but…I don't personally need all those details; I'm content to observe that the view of God requiring exhaustive definite foreknowledge has a lot in common with extrabiblical Greek philosophical notions and leave it at that—though opponents of open theism have argued in [b:Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity|568086|Beyond the Bounds Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity|John Piper|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1369823571l/568086._SY75_.jpg|555153] that that's not actually the case, which is weird, because Sanders is so convincing.
"Systematic Theology" repeated some details from the first chapter and in general wasn't terribly enlightening, but again, that's because I already agreed with all of it. Basically, as already established, God's omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect sovereignty don't require him to control or foreknow the future exhaustively and still allow him to interact meaningfully with his creation, experiencing the passage of time and continually learning and reacting to our free choices. He chose to create this way because its how he can best display his love (which, I might add, is the same as his justice: no hell needed).
"A Philosophical Perspective" just reinforces that "God is open and responsive" and that open theism provides the best account of divine providence.
"Practical Implications" provides final reinforcement of the fact that open theism makes the most sense of our world and therefore seems like the most likely view to be correct.
I really like the '90s aesthetic of the cover.
And I just really don't see what all the fuss from Calvinists is about. No one is saying (well, maybe process theologians are) that God lacks the power to actualize a Calvinistic or otherwise fully determined creation. Open theists just believe that his love led him to do otherwise; see page 151: "God as so conceived is in no way deficient in power as compared with God as viewed by Calvinism. We believe that God is completely capable of creating a universe every detail of whose history is solely determined by his sovereign decree. But it seems to use that a wise and good God would not want—and, in fact, has not chosen—to create such a universe." Seriously, why is it reprehensible to suggest that God takes risks? And why do Calvinists even waste their energy arguing about it when they believe that God, for some bizarre reason, decided before creation that open theists would be wrong in the particular way that they are? Ugh, now I'm ranting about how stupid Calvinism is again. 'Cause that's what it is: stupid. If you're a Calvinist, please don't be offended, because it's nothing personal, but you have to be incredibly blinded to believe that garbage. (And again, if you're right, God is making ("compatibilism" is a sham) me type this, so it's not like you have any grounds for complaining.) Is that uncharitable? It's just the truth. I suppose you could say that I'm not "speaking it in love," but what do you want me to do, lie?
Now, for a brief summary, as I sometimes write for nonfiction books I read.
The preface basically sums up the main theme, though without Greg Boyd's emphasis on possibilities and the will/will-not vs. might/might-not distinction (but that does get mentioned eventually in the body of the book). I found there to be more of an emphasis on the implications of the open view for God's character than is necessary, but of course it doesn't detract from any of his essential attributes (to the extent that he can legitimately be said to have "attributes").
"Biblical Support for a New Perspective" basically makes the point (on page 18) that "[f]rom a Christian perspective, love is the first and last word in the biblical portrait of God" and argues from there that the open view makes the most sense in light of that fact. The Tanakh depicts God's feelings, intentions, and actions existing in and influenced by interactive relationship with his creation, and Jesus further reveals that reality. God's character, but not necessarily his knowledge, is changeless, and his foretelling or predetermining certain aspects of the future does not imply that the future does not remain partially open and uncertain.
"Historical Considerations" was clearly thoroughly researched. I wouldn't say it's boring, but…I don't personally need all those details; I'm content to observe that the view of God requiring exhaustive definite foreknowledge has a lot in common with extrabiblical Greek philosophical notions and leave it at that—though opponents of open theism have argued in [b:Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity|568086|Beyond the Bounds Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity|John Piper|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1369823571l/568086._SY75_.jpg|555153] that that's not actually the case, which is weird, because Sanders is so convincing.
"Systematic Theology" repeated some details from the first chapter and in general wasn't terribly enlightening, but again, that's because I already agreed with all of it. Basically, as already established, God's omnipotence, omniscience, and perfect sovereignty don't require him to control or foreknow the future exhaustively and still allow him to interact meaningfully with his creation, experiencing the passage of time and continually learning and reacting to our free choices. He chose to create this way because its how he can best display his love (which, I might add, is the same as his justice: no hell needed).
"A Philosophical Perspective" just reinforces that "God is open and responsive" and that open theism provides the best account of divine providence.
"Practical Implications" provides final reinforcement of the fact that open theism makes the most sense of our world and therefore seems like the most likely view to be correct.
More...