Customer Reviews

Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As of the time of this review, this book is hot off the press and has been a book eagerly anticipated by many. And while the book is not perfect, as I will discuss below, there are a number of things about this critique that make it the best critique of open theism available at present.

Piper and company have assembled an impressive group of mainly Reformed scholars to tackle numerous issues regarding open theism. Almost every chapter is well documented, with numerous and lengthy footnotes accompanying much of the base material. There is a great deal here to ponder and study, and I suspect that many readers who are relatively familiar with the open theism controversy will be struck by the depth in which this book engages fundamental questions of hermeneutics and theological method.

I think there is little doubt that for the average reader, Parts 4 and 5 will be the best parts of the book. In these parts, various authors tackle critical theological and pastoral problems that open theism creates, and these are the kinds of issues that the average reader will most identify with and profit from I suspect. In particular, Wellum's critique of open theism's necessary compromise of the inerrancy of Scripture is outstanding, along with Ware's devastating analysis of how the gospel of Christ is gutted by open theism. The tackling of these critical theological ramifications is the part of this book that I felt was critically missing from Ware's 'God's Lesser Glory' book (which has been generally acknowledged to be the most devastating critique of open theism thus far, and was the book that really delivered the first mortal blow to open theism and got Boyd and company to play defense ever since), so in that respect, this book is an outstanding companion to that book.

The first parts of this book are great and necessary, but are likely to be sections that will take many readers by surprise. It is in these sections that attempts are made to discredit the inconsistent hermeneutic (to put it nicely) of open theism, as well as to discredit the much trumpeted assertion by open theists that historical theism is based on Greek philosophical ideas that are not found in the Bible. In addition, the section on the analogical nature of Scripture and the treatment of anthropomorphisms is likewise outstanding.

The one notable drawback of this book is that Biblical exegesis is not the thrust of this book. There are times when solid exegesis is conducted, but this book is not an exegetical critique of open theism. It's mainly a negative philosophical, methodological, and worldview critique that rightly exposes the mess that open theism is as a matter of scholarship. But someone looking for a sustained emphasis on Biblical exegesis of controversial passages, as well as a Biblical analysis of those many areas of Scripture that contradict open theism may be somewhat dissatisfied by the efforts here. There are other resources that deal with these issues, but it is the one critical area where this book lets open theism off the hook. This is unfortunate because as a result of this, this book, while perhaps the most comprehensive critique of open theism available, still ends up joining all of the other able critiques in doing serious damage to open theism, but not delivering the kind of comprehensive 'shock and awe' that it was capable of.

Nonetheless, for what this book deals with, it is outstanding and perhaps best of all, very current. The thought of Greg Boyd in particular has been in a seemingly constant state of modification and flux in recent years in his attempts to do damage control. His latest neo-molinist concoction gets a great deal of attention in this book where it is demonstrated to be a wholly inadequate solution to the problems his open theist perspective creates across the board. I highly recommend this book and believe that in many ways, it will become the book that open theists feel most compelled to respond to in light of the lucid and cogent arguments it lobs at open theism.

The downsized deity of open theism is a poor substitute for the real God of historic Christianity-as taught by Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians through the centuries. This book offers an important analysis and critique of this sub-Christian view of God. Well researched and fairly presented.

-Dr. Timothy George
Dean of Beeson Divinity School, Samford University and an executive editor of Christianity Today

Here is a weighty tract for the times, in which a dozen Reformed scholars survey the "open theism" of Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd, and colleagues, and find it a confused, confusing, and unedifying hypothesis that ought to be declared off limits. Some pages are heavy sledding, but the arguing is clear and strong, and the book is essential reading for all who are caught up in this discussion.

-Dr. J. I. Packer
Professor of Theology
Regent College

Table of Contents

Contributors

Foreword
John Piper

Introduction
Justin Taylor

Part 1 Historical Influences

1 The Rabbis and the Claims of Openness Advocates
Russell Fuller

2 Genetic Defects or Accidental Similarities? Orthodoxy and Open Theism and Their Connections to Western Philosophical Traditions
Chad Brand

Part 2 Philosophical Presuppositions and Cultural Context

3 True Freedom: The Liberty that Scripture Portrays as Worth Having.
Mark R. Talbot

4 Why Open Theism Is Flourishing Now
William C. Davis

Part 3 Anthropomorphisms, Revelation, and Interpretation

5 Veiled Glory: God's Self-Revelation in Human Likeness-
A Biblical Theology of God's Anthropomorphic Self-Disclosure
A. B. Caneday

6 Hellenistic or Hebrew? Open Theism and Reformed Theological Method
Michael S. Horton

Part 4 What Is at Stake in the Openness Debate?

7 The Inerrancy of Scripture
Stephen J. Wellum

8 The Trustworthiness of God and the Foundation of Hope
Paul Kjoss Helseth

9 The Gospel of Christ
Bruce A. Ware

Part 5 Drawing Boundaries and Conclusions

10 When, Why, and for What Should We Draw New Boundaries?
Wayne Grudem

11 Grounds for Dismay: The Error and Injury of Open Theism
John Piper

Bibliography on Open Theism
Justin Taylor

Scripture Index
Person Index
Subject Index

Ya know, I can't get past the title of this book. Piper calling his side of the issue "Biblical" in his title is really begging the question. It would seem that Piper would enter into the discussion, but with a title like this he seems to be disallowing the discussion, condemning the discussion. Isn't the BIG question that people are trying to discuss..."What does the Bible say on this aspect of God's nature?" (Not to mention what the Bible says about the nature of time) "Which view IS the Biblical view of God?" Thank goodness some, like Boyd, are finally shedding some light on the neo-platonism which has been embraced by the church since Augustine brought it into the church. It pretty much became the biggest blunder of a "pagan sacred cow becoming the accepted teaching of the church" imaginable. If anything is unbiblical it is the "traditional" view of the neo-platonist god we have had shoved down our throats in the name of sound teaching. I hope people will read the open theists for themselves and not just run out for some wool to pull back over their eyes. Listen to what Boyd and some of the guys say regarding what scripture really says to see if the reformed teaching on God is after all Biblical. You will not in the end, I think, agree fully with either side...but please, can we at least quit acting like the "traditional view" is right simply because it has been a majority view since Augustine. Maybe indeed the views of Calvin and Augustine will be undermined by some of the views of open theism, but the Bible squares amazingly well with some of the points Boyd is trying to raise. Can we investigate the issue without all the arrogance and posturing from the "old guard"? I cannot agree with all the open theists say. I don't agree with all that Piper believes either. Since when did a group of Calvinists speak for the whole church about what is "Biblical Christianity?" Wesley said Calvinism "makes God worse than the devil." In some ways the majority of Christians in the world, (who are not Calvinists by the way) could say Calvinism is undermining Biblical Christianity. Quit the hysteria and deal with the issues fairly. It is really a most fascinating area of study, discussion, and debate. I hope the knee jerk reaction of the old guard does not squelch a long over due critique of the views we have held too long without an adequate evaluation of their true origin...some greek philosophers studied by a few overly influential church fathers.

A collection of articles put together in this book presents a multi-dimensional challenge against opentheism and a rigorous defense against the foundations of Christianity it assaults; from the point of view of biblical theology and historical Christianity (by Profs. Russell, Brand, Caneday and Horton), as well as pastoral - ecclesiastical (by Pastor Piper and Prof. Grudem), and philosophical and logical point of view (by Profs. Talbot, Davis, Wellum, Helseth and Ware).

If the rise and fall of the church hinges on the doctrine of justification by faith according to Martin Luther, I would think, as Prof. Wellum, Helseth and Ware in particular argue, that the rise and fall of the inerrancy of the Scriptures, the reputation of the gospel, the trustworthiness and the glory of the God of the Bible, and the solid rock foundation of Christianity; the security of the believers, hinge on the doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of God, of which the opentheists reject, despite seemingly good intentions by its proponents.

Opentheism is a natural consequence, an illegitimate child of the churches and individuals that teach and embrace the doctrine of autonomous self, specifically free-will theism, one of the most fertile breeding grounds of which is certainly the Arminian churches. By looking at the content of each article, Prof. William Davis was in the best position to point this out but he did not and neither did other writers. Nevertheless, his analysis on not only the appeal of opentheism and what should be done about it, is powerful and compassionate.

My fallen tendency in responding to opentheists is to immediately blast them as self-infatuated, blasphemous, God-degrading heretics. It is humbling to me, however, that the authors of these papers have responded rightly with grace and understanding without compromising the truth by endorsing the fallacy of opentheism; holding on to the principle that "the goal of the commandment is love," specifically by what Profs. Talbot, Davis, Grudem as well as Dr. Piper wrote in their paper. Prof Talbot's sincerity compellingly describes the concept of dualism, that I have come to love, with a few examples, where every event has divine and human view and motive behind it that explains the age-old doctrine of the immutability and exhaustive foreknowledge of God that is compatible with human responsibility. All this leads to what the true biblical freedom is, or as he puts it as, "the kind of freedom worth having", that is, "the compatibilist freedom, the freedom to choose to be righteous without the possibility of choosing otherwise, the freedom not to sin", contrary to the libertarian freedom that implies autonomy or independence to be able to choose what is good or evil. The compatibilist freedom is a humble freedom, while the libertarian freedom, in my view, is a presumptuous freedom. If I were to grade each article, it would be on the basis of how balanced it is in its argument against opentheism from the point of views of theology, logic, history, persuasion, and anthroposensitivy (the word borrowed from Prof. Kelly Kapic), and here is what I came up for each author:

Justin Taylor: A (He did not contribute an article but he wrote an excellent introduction)

Russ Fuller: B

Chad Brand: C

Mark Talbot: A

William Davis: A

A.B. Caneday: B

Michael Horton: B

Stephen Wellum: A

Paul Helseth: C

Bruce Ware: C

Wayne Grudem: A

John Piper: B

Since opentheism is most closely related to the perennial mystery and controversy of divine sovereignty and human responsibility, and this is something which Prof Talbot has studied and wrestled on for thirty years (quoting him from his address at 2005 Desiring God National Conference in Minneapolis, MN, the best one of the conference, I love it), I would pick his article to be the most humble and compassionate. Upon learning more about opentheism and reading about the arguments against it and the serious dangers it presents, the readers will discover that it is not the apostolic gospel but another gospel that the Apostle Paul warns most severely against in his epistle to the Galatians, and will not stand against the doctrine of the exhaustive definite foreknowledge of God written all over the Scriptures sooner or later.

This is a great book for those of you who have questions about Open Theism. Piper, Taylor and Helseth have done a wonderful job taking a look at this issue from an evangelical standpoint. It can be a bit academic at points, but is worthwhile reading for anyone who has questions about why Open Theism is such a big deal. Pick this book up. Read it! It's well worth your time.

When I was a freshman in high school I moved to Houston. I was still, very much, in the infant stages of my faith and was very eager to attend whatever Bible studies were available to me. I went to one on a Monday night and the topic of discussion was predestination. I had absolutely no view and little interst in the subject at the time. I was totally ignorant of the ins-and-outs of any point in the debate. As the discussion went on an intern suggested that maybe God had deliberately limited his knowledge of the future to make our choices truly free. It didn't sound right to me-but who was I to question?

This work exposes the very poisoness presence of such thinking in the church. Namely that oour liberty and autonomy are tantamount to God's being good. That we must form for ourselves from clay a god who suits our desires. This notion is not merely a harmless suggestion to be shrugged off in hopes that it will be abandoned at some later point when mislead christians see the error behind it on there own. No, this is an heresy that must attacked more vehemently than Arianism, Gnosticism, Euticheanism, etc. Why is this heresy so much greater than the rest? It isn't. But the times in which we live are the soil from which this lunacy has sprung. This is not merely some handful of clerics and scholars gone astray. Open theism's very heart is the idea that liberty is the utmost goal in any arena, even God's. Dr. Piper and company have each contributed resounding calls not to laymen, pastors or seminary professors alone. The call goes out to all. It starts with the educators then to their students (the clergy) then to deacons and elders and most importantly to the men and women who fill churches all over the world. The church should never be lazy with orthodoxy. But the fact that even the identity of our God is in danger of being taken from us we must be ever vigilent to pursue and broadcast the light of God's sovreignty to all who are near us. I know I haven't made too much comment on the book itself, so let me jst say: read this book and share it in the first Bible study you attend. Do not let heresy cloak itslef in the shadows of your church.

John Calvin blazed the trail for most reformed reviewers: if you disagree with what is said, kill the 'sayer'. Ad hominem critique, attempting to discredit an idea by crushing its advocate, is particularly odious in theological discussion but many of the chapters is this book raise it to an art form.

The argument of this book:

the classical description of God = the Biblical description of God: take our word for it, we are the experts, no discussion needed.

anyone who disagrees with us is obviously inspired by satan to destroy Christianity.

God loves only people who think like us - to hell (literally) with the others.

Classical theology presents a picture of God as a disconnected (in His ultimate nature), unfeeling, micro manager who chooses to allow evil when He could stop it. As a recovering Calvinist who finally read the Scriptures and took them seriously (how's that for a back door ad hominem? I've still got it) it appears God has revealed himself in the Bible as something diferent: a loving, involved creator/father who is working with His children to restore a fallen world.

If you are looking for argument by stipulation, Beyond the Bounds is for you. If you want careful analysis of germane scripture passages, look elsewhere.

Piper is one of the best teachers around and he certainly did not fail in this book. Botht this book and Bruce Ware's book helped me better understand open theism, a very false teaching that is creating havoc in some of my loved one's lives because they claim the "name of God" yet they remain baby Christians in their lives, unable to grow because of the teachings at their open theistic church, teachings that cater to their emotional highs but not to their Christian maturity and understanding of Scripture. All I can do is watch and pray as they make choices based on a misunderstanding of Scripture. Open thiesm will one day be known by its fruits, fruits of harm in people's lives, in their families and communities. I hope and pray that men like John Piper continue to have the boldness to speak with authority on this subject.

Because many people here seem to have this other faith called Calvinism.

I find it very interesting. Piper and company as well as many others have criticized open theism by expressing thoughts that open theists simply do not have. Despite this, they exclaim how their arguments tear down any open theist arguments. How can that be if you are not talking about the same thing.

For the record:

Open theists believe and affirm:

1) That God is divinely perfect, including omnipotence and omniscience (all knowing).

2) That God is the sovereign creator and lord

3) That God is all powerful

and many other beliefs that we all know to be true as stated by the Bible.

If your arguments against open theism are any of these, then you are wasting your time. That is unless your goal is to misrepresent other people.

"Not a very Christian tactic to use, in my humble opinion". I am editing this out because this is not a very Christian thing for me to say myself.

John Lancaster, I forgive you!

Powerful,respectful dismantling of nebulous Open Theory of Bible interpretation and aberrant Non-evangelical philosophy.

STRENGTHS:

1)Shows how sincere,misguided Christians (Open Theorists) can fall prey to Paul's warning to 'beware idle notions..and hollow,
deceptive philosophies..self-deceit via fine sounding arguments..' They depart from the Word of God and the God of the Word and the True Omniscient/Uncorrectable/Inerrant Jesus with every new Openist publication and pronouncement.

2)Establishes clear,undeniable linkage of Open Theory to Charles Hartshorne's Process Philosophy of Bible interpretation (see Hartshorne's 'Omnipotence & Other Theological Mistakes')
Such unbiblical,Process-like worldview permeates Openist filters
and lensing when doing Theology. See also Boyd's seminal Openist
book 'Trinity & Process' where he attempts a synthesis of Scripture+Hartshornism=Aberrant Hybrid Boydism (a la healthy horse+ill donkey=sterile mule).

3)Demonstrates Boyd's antipathy to his own denomination's Affirmation of Faith regarding Bible teaching of INERRANCY. Boyd is Theology Prof.at Baptist General Conference's Bethel College. BGC official doctrinal position is INERRANT BIBLE.

In Boyd's most recent book 'Across the Spectrum', he categorically denies his own denomination's position with his essay titled 'Infallibilist View'. Boyd doesn't realize the definition of INFALLIBLE is 'incapable of error in any matter'.
Boyd is teaching pastor at Woodland Hills Church. His statement of faith says, 'The Bible is Infallible'. Has anyone checked what he means by it? See his essay in 'Across the Spectrum' p.14-21 to see what Gregory Boyd really believes.

Why BGC President Jerry Sheveland and Bethel leadership maintain Boyd on clergy roster/faculty is of concern to many in BGC, who feel integrity would mean resigning in good conscience or public retraction of non-evangelical, Processist teachings that openly defy BGC church and college Affirmation of Faith.

4)Marshalling of Biblical evidence that shows how aberrant and beyond-borderline-heterodox many of Boyd's teachings are.

WEAKNESSES: minimal. These Scriptures would have been nice additions:

John 13:19 "I am telling you now before it happens so that when it does happen you will believe than I am He." Jesus has Exhaustive Definite/Divine Foreknowledge of ALL free futures. Boyd teaches Extensive Indefinite Forecasting or 'Divine Nescience (Ignorance)' along with 'Theo-Repentism' and 'Infinite Intelligence' in place of Evangelical Infinite Awareness-Knowledge-Omnipresent where/when-there/then in ALL dimensions of space-time (LxWxHxPastxPresentxFuture)

Boyd teaches there are Bible errors, using the example of "Jesus' command to his 70(sic)missionaries" about whether to take a staff on their trip. First, Boyd errs: It wasn't the 70, but the 12! Second, a fair reading of the Gospels indicates many mission assignments, each with potentially different itinerary and packing instructions. Luke 22 has Jesus telling them to pack a dagger-knife. Third, one or more accounts may be a composite of several trips while another may be a specific or representative mission. Fourth, this issue has been chewed on since before Augustine's time. Reformers and more recent scholars have put this to bed (see J.Bengel's, Calvin's and Matthew Henry's commentaries as well as Geisler's 'When Critics Ask' and John MacArthur Study Bible notes on Lk.9:3).
Fifth, Jesus was saying: 'carry only what you have with you: sandals on your feet, clothes on your back, staff in hand; don't procure/go get extras or what you don't have now.'(see Greek verbs used for 'take, acquire, procure,obtain,get).

Boyd's 'scholarship' and 'fairness' to the apparent discrepancy
is disingenuous and far from humble, to say the least. It's almost as if he can't help BUT to find errors of fact, history,
narrative rather than see the accounts as complementary or excerptive vs. passing judgment 'the three accounts do disagree and thus cannot in any literal sense be labeled inerrant.'-Spectrum p.19

Such is Boyd's aberrant view of Scripture: BEYOND THE BOUNDS of Evangelical, Essential Historic Christian Theology and contrary to his own denomination's Doctrinal Affirmation for Bethel College and all BGC churches, including Woodland Hills.

This book does an excellent (almost embarrassing expose') job of unmasking Gregory Boyd, Clark Pinnock, John Sanders and Open Theorists as: Christian? Yes. Evangelical? Sorry, no. Not if one takes their public false-teachings and books at face value.
They are certainly free to hold their beliefs. But self-proclaiming they are Evangelical and fomenting openly or subtly for 'change from within' is shown to be an empty claim and lacking integrity. Process theorists don't claim to be Evangelical. Why should Neo-processist theorists?

"By their fruit you shall know them..Test the spirits..Dear children, keep yourselves from idols..Scripture cannot be broken..do not go beyond what is written..are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?"

Buy extra copies and give them to friends & pastors and start group studies about Who the Real Triune God and His nature and attributes are. Be prepared for Bruce Ware's forthcoming book 'God of Greater Glory' which, along with Millard Erickson's
Christian Theology, will get the Bible student closer to the Bible. Openism just gets farther and farther BEYOND THE BOUNDS.