Customer Reviews

God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(11)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(22)

 

 

Boyd has produced perhaps the most readable and accessible defense of open theism thus far in the debate. He covers most of the biblical and philosophical aspects in a manner that is easy to comprehend for the untrained reader.

Boyd's main thesis is that the Bible presents its readers with two motifs: the openness motif (that the future consists of possibilities rather than certainties) and the motif of future determinism (that some things are certain to happen). He begins by examining the determinism motif, and gives a representative survey of those Scriptures usually proffered by classical theists to suggest that God's knowledge of the future is exhaustive in every detail. He is generally about 50/50 on target with his observations, and one gets the feeling that one would be hard-pressed to eke out of the biblical information available that every single aspect of the future is foreknown (or even predetermined) by God in advance. Boyd is careful, on the whole, to look at the context of statements about God's knowledge of the future, and convincingly demonstrates in a number of instances that what is being affirmed is not God's exhaustive foreknowledge but God's certainty about the plans he has designed to carry out.

He is on shakier ground when it comes to examining the stories of Peter and Judas, and he needs to go further to explain how God could know with absolute certainty what action they would take, since everything Boyd has said so far in his thesis would seem to suggest that God could only be certain of the likelihood (albeit a very high probability) of things happening the way he predicted.

Boyd explains well how future settledness and future openness work together, and how the two motifs are adequate to explain much of what the Bible reveals about God's sovereignty and foreknowledge. God sets limits within which we are to exercise free will, and this therefore gives him knowledge of a particular breadth of different possibilities. He sets certain parameters which condition the scope of human freedom (therefore some things are determined), but within those limits there are possibilities (therefore some of the future is open).

He goes on to examine some of the passages that point to future openness. He demonstrates adequately that the motif is definitely there in Scripture. However, to his detriment, he tends to go overboard and find the motif where it really isn't there. For example, when God asks the question, on more than one occasion, 'How long will...' the most obvious thought to occur to the reader is that what he is saying is rhetorical (a clear understanding of language acknowledges that grammatical structure does not always equal function). If Boyd is to claim otherwise, the burden of proof is upon him. He makes this error on a few occasions. The other major observation about this section is that Boyd's style, though comprehensible, becomes rather pedantic, even patronizing. There is an excess of question marks and italics as the author labors the point that the openness motif is incompatible with traditional assumptions about God's foreknowledge. He is generally justified in his points, but his manner becomes rather tiresome.

By the time he gets onto describing the practical advantages of holding to an open theism, Boyd has done a sufficient job to convince the reader that something along the lines of an open view of God is required by Scripture. He reinforces time and again, and quite sincerely, I think, that it is the study of Scripture that has led him, primarily, to adopt the open view. He highlights some compelling advantages to believing open theism, and does a good job of presenting it as an attractive option which neither limits God, nor takes away from His glory. However, on attempting to use open theism as a solution to the problem of evil, he fails to interact with another theme of Scripture, that God will ordain 'evil' within the scope of his plans. In discussing Job, he casually dismisses the thought that God was responsible for what happened to Job, that it was all in his plan, and labels those who suggest such things 'Job's comforters'. However, was it not Job himself who acknowledged God's hand in what happened, and was not Job said to be blameless in what he said of God? Using the example of an acquaintance who underwent much suffering, Boyd castigates those who suggested it might be part of God's plan to shape her or teach her, and says this would make God a pretty lousy teacher. However, if Boyd's system is right, who is he to make such a judgment? Surely, if we have free will, God can well ordain such events to teach us things, or to shape us, and if it fails, the responsibility is solely down to our stubbornness or unwillingness to learn. Boyd seems to allow no room for suffering of that nature.

In the final (and strongest) section, he deals with objections. His ability to offer clear and vivid illustrations is his greatest asset here. He ably demonstrates that the openness debate is not about God's omniscience, for on both sides of the debate proponents affirm that God's knowledge is perfect and complete. The real issue is the content of that knowledge. That is, if the future is not really there to know, then it is no limitation to suggest that God does not have that knowledge. He also offers a useful defense of the open view of God's sovereignty, and makes it his aim to turn the tables on classical theists by suggesting that it is their conception of God that takes away from his glory, and limits his power.

The flaws are not big enough to challenge Boyd's overall thesis. His biblical and philosophical arguments are not easily dismissed, though it is admitted that his conclusions need fine-tuning. In the meantime, Boyd's book provides a useful resource while theologians battle it out to find a middle way.

Excellent summary of the open view of God, or of the so-called "Freewill Theism". The book has four chapters. The first chapter reviews and critiques the Classical View of Divine Foreknowledge and exegetes the verses brought to its support; the second chapter introduces the Open View and marshals biblical texts in its support; the third chapter highlights seven practical applications of the Open View; the last chapter consists in eighteen brief answers to objections made against the Open View.
I really enjoyed this book and certainly agreed with one of its contentions: we should not throw the label "heresy" lightly against this view; nor should we label it as an offspring of Process Thought. Boyd wants the merits of his view to be evaluated on the basis of Scriptures rather than from a preconceived philosophical bias. Reviewers either ought to be critical of his views by setting forth indepth crtitiques, or shut up! The issue at stake here is not the extent of God's knowledge, but the nature of reality: in other words, is the future completely and exhaustively determined by God, or is it partly open and partly determined? (Boyd's view) Boyd also rejects "Middle Knowledge" as inadequate because of this theory's support of God's exhaustive foreknowledge. Boyd appeals to the indeterminacy found in nature and expounded by science. In regard to predestination, God predestines the Church, the container of salvation, the corporate body, the means (faith in Christ), but not the individuals who will be saved.
Oh, by the way, since only 5 people out of 27 found this review helpful, let me ask my "critics" this: do you object to my liking Boyd's book or to my summary of it? I believe you are just being iedologically biased...LEAVE ME A COMMENT INSTEAD OF SNIPING AND RUNNING!!!!

First of all, this is NOT process theology at all, so please call the heretic police off. Boyd believes in the inerrancy of Scripture and salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and his death and resurrection. Boyd's views have much more scriptural support than do those of many hyper-Calvinists. (I'm not sure why hyper-Calvinists waste their time reviewing books like these since what man thinks/decides/etc. is all foreordained by God. Therefore, Boyd couldn't help but write this book. So, they should just relax and assume Boyd is a "vessle of wrath.")

Boyd makes a convincing argument for what is called "Open View Theism." While the name certainly sounds heretical, the concept is not. Boyd believes that part of the future is settled and part of the future is open (depending on the free decisions of humans); God designed it this way. He maintains that God knows every possible decision that a man can make. Because of God's infinite power and intelligence, God will accomplish his ultimate purpose. Boyd begins by making his case through analysis of several Biblical accounts in which God changes his mind in response to what man does or God makes conditional ("if you do this, I will do that") statements through his prophets. God appears to genuinely command people to do certain things (such as repent) and responds to the decisions they make. God appears to grieve over things. If he foreordained such things, his grief, commands, and conditional statements would not appear to be geniune. Boyd next goes on to make a sound philosophical defense of his view. Boyd then talks about the implications of this view including the urgency and importance of prayer. Finally, he answers objections and questions.

Read the book first, compare it with scripture (not the writings of John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, or anyone else), and make your own judgement.

The issue of predestination and free will is something of a perennial problem for Christians. Augustine and Pelagius tangled over it in the 5th century. Calvinists and Arminians have argued about it since Reformation times. Today the same struggle continues between two prominent authors, John Piper and Gregory Boyd.

Piper and Boyd, both pastors in the Baptist General Conference, take such different approaches to their theology that recently Piper attempted to have Boyd ousted from their denomination. Piper is a classical Reformed Calvinist, emphasizing God's sovereignty, foreknowledge and changelessness. Boyd believes what has come to be called "freewill theism" or "open theism," maintaining that because God gives humans genuine free will, he doesn't necessarily know what we will choose to do.

Piper says that Boyd is denying a crucial divine attribute: God's omniscience. Because the freewill theist position says that God does not have full foreknowledge of human actions, the open view of God reduces God to a finite, imperfect deity.

Not so, says Boyd in God of the Possible. Boyd says that God's sovereignty and omniscience is not the real issue. Rather, what's in question is the nature of the future. Is it settled, or is it open? If it is truly open and dependent on free human choices to create it, then the future simply does not yet exist.

"If God does not foreknow future free actions, it is not because his knowledge of the future is in any sense incomplete," Boyd writes. "It's because there is, in this view, nothing definite there for God to know!" So the "openness of God" view is more accurately about the "openness of the future."

Boyd builds his case by surveying the Bible and showing that Scripture displays both a "motif of future determinism" and a "motif of future openness." To highlight the latter theme, he notes passages where God is said to change his mind. In Genesis 6, God regrets having made humanity, and 1 Samuel 15 says God was sorry that he had made Saul king. After Moses pleads with God in Exodus 32, God changes his mind about destroying the Israelites. In 2 Kings 20, God tells Hezekiah that he will die, but then changes his mind and adds fifteen years to his life after Hezekiah pleads with him.

While these passages are usually interpreted as anthropomorphism by classical theists, Boyd says that they should be read at face value. He writes, "The Lord himself tells us in the plainest terms possible that he intended one thing and then changed his mind and did something else."

Boyd also argues that the open view has positive practical implications for such things as petitionary prayer. If the future is foreknown and fixed, why pray? But if the future is open, then God can actually respond and influence future events.

The book concludes with a series of common objections to the open position and Boyd's responses. For example, Boyd's critics say that his view limits God within time, and that God is above or beyond time. Boyd responds that this concept comes more from Greek philosophy than from Scripture, and that the Bible itself portrays God as experiencing life sequentially and dynamically.

What is most attractive about Boyd's presentation is his relational picture of God. God is portrayed as having genuine give-and-take relationships with his people. God is not aloof and distant, as he often appears in traditionally cold, philosophical formulations of God.

But I wonder if Boyd is not thinking relationally enough. If God is infinite in wisdom, then he is perfect in his relational knowledge of his creatures. Because I know my wife pretty well, I can predict that she'll choose the cheeseburger over the crab legs any day. That doesn't mean I predestine her actions, just that I know her well enough to "foreknow" what she'll probably do. But my knowledge of my wife is imperfect, and she sometimes surprises me with her choices.

This is not the case with God. If he knows us perfectly, then he knows us well enough to anticipate our every decision. That doesn't have to mean that he coerces our choices as if we're puppets on strings. Our choices can be genuinely free. But his relational knowledge of us is so complete that he knows how we will respond in any given situation. Even if the future is open, God's foreknowledge and omniscience of that future can be complete.

Boyd concludes that the future is "partly open and partly settled." The future is open enough that human beings have actual freedom to make responsible choices. Yet we can count on God to bring to completion all that he has promised, and nothing we can do will frustrate his divine plans.

Whether you are inclined to agree or disagree with his arguments, God of the Possible is an important contribution to the ongoing debate. Throughout Boyd is fair, even-handed and irenic. He provides strong biblical, theological and philosophical evidence to be reckoned with. His readable prose makes it an ideal introduction for those on both sides of the controversy.

Dr. Boyd wrote this book in response to many who either wanted to know what he believed regarding Open Theism, or to correct many of the misconceptions people had about what he believed on the subject.

The book presents two motifs found in scripture. The first are places where the future is presented as determined and settled by God, and the second is where the future appears to be at least partially open and known by God as such. Dr. Boyd attempts to document the scriptural support for and against Open Theism, and provides his response to each case. The book is written in layman's terms, and generally tries to keep the discussion on scripture, as opposed to branching off into various philosophic or scientific discussions on the future.

Calvinists will not like Boyd's conclusions, as the many reviews to this book illustrate. People who lean toward the Arminian position, or are a part of the broader expression of the Christian Church, will find much to agree with.

The book is well written, easy to read, and makes its case from scripture. It may also challenge the reader to take a fresh look at their own position on these issues.

In any case, a healthy scripturally based dialog on difficult theological issues has always been beneficial to the Church in the long run. In this book, Dr. Boyd seeks to scripturally engage the issues of free will and foreknowledge in positive and respectful way.

The issue is important because, as Dr. Boyd points out, scripture reveals that God seems to allow for possibilities resulting from the free choices of individuals. It would seem that if we merely write all these cases off as anthropomorphisms, we risk missing the point God is trying to make.

For those who are interested in getting a taste of what the "Open View" of God is, you will be pleased with this book. Whether or not you agree with Boyd, this book is successful in introducing this topic and allowing you to choose what you believe. Boyd has no desire to enforce an Orthodox to accept his view and even claims that this is not salvific, thus, not a matter to divide over. Please ignore the previous one star reviews (and future ones which are sure to arise) which respond out of fear of their Orthodox doctrine. This book will accomplish its goal of allowing you to study this view and accept it or not. Along those lines, this book is a five star book.

As far as the objections to the Open View, I feel Boyd has accomplished a great deal in many of the texts which first challenged my acceptance of this doctrine. I feel that Boyd's discussion on Peter's denial did not really support an Open View. I felt that he might be on the right track, but I am nevertheless not totally satisfied with it. I would also have liked for him to address Rev 17.8. For the most part though, many doubts I had were quelled by a very thorough yet basic approach to this doctrine.

Boyd has superior skill in making illustrations that work; illustrations which really help make what he is saying make sense and stick. Along these lines, Boyd is very practical. He believes that the true test of a doctrine is if it can be applied on a practical level. He is successful in showing how this doctrine if truly believed can affect your life. In writing the book, he obviously wanted to be practical and not technical. In my estimation, the scholar and the average person could walk away from this book having gained some insight.

Overall, this book is easily a five star book and will greatly challenge and enhance your life if you will let it.

As a work of convincing biblical scholarship, this is a failure. Dr. Roger Olson's public endorsement of it (see editorial reviews) is disappointing to read from such a fine scholar. A better appraisal of this book and the theological movement behind it is Bruce Ware's _God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism_. Make sure you read that after you pick this one up.

I will not dwell on the shortcomings of the exegesis and theological conclusions of this book, since so many others have done so already. Instead, I will focus on reasons this book should be read by discerning (and yes, even "open") minds. Of all the books on open theism, this one has received the highest marks. It is very readable, and is perhaps the closest to being "orthodox" of all the popular books by openness scholars. In other words, even though Boyd is way off the mark here, he is not as far off as most of the others in his camp.

I therefore recommend it as an introduction to the subject. Evangelical Christians will have to battle this heresy time and again in the upcoming years, and it is important for those who are biblically-minded to become familiar with the arguments. In addition, it is a rare occurence for any written work to be completely void of any truth whatsoever, and the kernels of truth presented in Boyd's work are certainly worth taking into consideration. Since reading books on open theism, I have become more mindful of the relational and emotional aspects of God that can sometimes be pushed aside in classical theism. I appreciate Boyd, Pinnock, Sanders and the others for helping me see more clearly that dimension of God as presented in scripture. However, I do not believe we have to abandon historic Christian doctrines like exhaustive divine foreknowledge and meticulous providence in order to understand these aspects. One need only look at the lives and writings of Jonathan Edwards and John Piper to see that.

So to conclude, I would recommend that this book be read along with Ware's _God's Lesser Glory_ as a response. If discerning evangelicals across America would collectively do this simple task, open theism would probably be dead within a generation.

Boyd writes in a clear and concise style which makes this book a very accessible sort of "overview" of the open perspective. Though not as thorough as some other works, it is detailed enough to provide a good basis for understanding open theology and would be excellent as a first introduction for somebody who wants to learn a bit more about the openness movement. It's amazing to me how many people with an obvious axe to grind have come on here to scream and whine and fight 'heresy' by giving books a one-star rating. The book is well written, even if you disagree with open theism. Don't let these one-star weenies scare you with their fear-based emotionalism. Reading this book might (or might not) challenge your thinking, but it certainly isn't going to harm you.

Boyd has done an excellent job in approaching the topic from a Biblical point of view. This is relatively rare in the literature for this topic, which has concentrated almost entirely on philosophy and theology. Boyd examined quite an exhaustive passages of the scripture. Arguing in a logical and clear manner, Boyd has presented a strong case against the traditional concept of God and challenged our understanding and interpretation of some passages of the scripture. People in the conservative camp would (naturally) disagree with him but sound rebuttal is yet to be seen.
I am surprised that some critics simply ignored the contents and arguments put forward by Boyd and adopt a no-matter-what-you- say-I-will-disagree type of mentality.
The book was written with a simple and clear style, yet it deals with one of the most important topics in Christianity. Strongly recommended for those who wish to love God with all their minds.

This book has been attacked by those who disagree with it, but I found it a clear and intelligent argument. Boyd shows the reader how he worked and how he arrived at his conclusions. This is a good, brief read for someone who wants to see a Protestant theologian at work.
I teach Theology in college and sometimes recommend it on those grounds.