Customer Reviews

No Other God: A Response to Open Theism

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

 

 

When it comes to matters of either theology or philosophy, being in a different camp then John Frame is not fun. Over the last 15 years or so, Frame has published a number of works on various topics that have taken Christian scholarship to a new level of freshness and coherence. This particular book, for the most part, falls into that category.

This contribution to the open theism debate, while not perfect, is a solid attempt to take on open theism on a variety of fronts. Unlike other critiques of open theism, Frame engages in an exegetical critique that is vital. But this book is not a purely exegetical critique, for it also engages open theism's presuppositions in the areas of hermeneutics and emotional imperatives that they bring to bear on the text. As a result, this book is one of the better books around in presenting a full orbed critique of open theism.

The result is a critique that exposes open theism for what it is - a philosophically and epistemically inconsistent worldview supported by dubious biblical exegesis and hermeneutical principles. Frame is outstanding in comparing the stated principles of open theism with the actual exegesis (to the extent that it can be called that) that actually violates their stated principles. He tends to be relentless not only in dismantling the legitimacy of libertarianism which is the lone guiding principle of the open theist program, but is also relentless in exposing the works of open theists as being AWOL when it comes to dealing with numerous biblical texts that militate against their system. It was refreshing to read a competent appraisal of the holes that tend to be gaping in the scholarship of the chief apologists of open theism.

I gave the book 4 stars mainly because while Frame's critique is full orbed and wide reaching, it suffered occasionally in what I felt was its unnecessary brevity. In particular, Frame's last chapter on the various theological ramifications of open theism was far too summary level and came off as an afterthought which was most unfortunate. The same can arguably be said about Frame's treatment of the love of God and how this attribute fits into a responsible attempt at a biblically based theology. Lastly, I would have appreciated a more in-depth critique of the literature that has been produced by open theists. I thought that Frame hit the highlights very well and dismantled many of the most serious errors of the movement as expressed in its writings, but there were many other areas that could have been covered here that weren't.

So overall, a very good contribution to this ongoing debate, but in my view, we are still waiting for a truly definitive treatise that systematically and exhaustively dissects open theism across the board in a responsible fashion. This work by Frame gets at least fairly close, but doesn't quite make it in my view.

My bias: I came into reading this book looking for good arguments against open theism, a view which I think is unsupported by philosophy or Scripture.

Seldom have I read a book with which I find I disagree so strongly on some issues, while agreeing adamantly on others. Frame pulls no punches and is unafraid to make sweeping generalizations and assertions. Due to the fact I pretty much split the book in half as far as things with which I agree or disagree, I shall proceed by noting these areas and close with a few conclusions.

Areas of Agreement

One of the strengths of Frame's book is how clear his thinking is. His style of argumentation is precise, and he clearly lays out what he considers evidence for his positions. He is unafraid to make statements with huge implications.

A particularly interesting aspect of Frame's work was a brief historical look at the roots of Open Theism, leading it back to the Socinianism. Frame points out that advocates of Open Theism tend to portray their view as the "new theology on the block" despite the fact that it has been around (and rejected) for quite some time.

I believe Frame is correct when he argues against the centralization of any one attribute of God. Specifically, the centralization of love on Open Theism tends to ignore other important attributes of God (49ff). (Interestingly, Frame's own account of God unnecessarily over-emphasizes Sovereignty, though he disguises this by calling it "Lordship.)

Frame levels strong critiques against Open Theism's reading of Scripture. Open Theists tend to advocate the "straightforward" reading of texts which help their case. One of Open Theist's favorite passages is God testing Abraham. Yet Frame rightly notes that if there is a straightforward reading of the text, then God did not know the present truth of Abraham's heart, whereas Open Theists attempt to use this to support God not knowing the future (47). Further, if God was trying to figure out how Abraham would act in the future, then He was trying to do something He couldn't (determine what the libertarian free choices of humans would be) according to Open Theism. So the story's straightforward reading does not work to support Open Theism. Frame urges a similar examination of other passages, though he doesn't expand on it.

Areas of Disagreement

Despite these areas of agreement, I vehemently oppose Frame's position on several issues. Most notably, on theistic determinism, compatibilism, and libertarianism.

First, libertarianism. Frame correctly notes that the core of Open Theism is the assumption of libertarianism. Yet his critique of libertarianism is wrongheaded. He caricatures libertarians as believing that choices are made in the absence of any motivation. He writes, commenting on the libertarian view, "if our decisions are caused by anything or anyone (including our own desires), they are not properly our decisions... to be responsible, we must be able to do otherwise" (121). Yet this is explicitly not libertarianism. Peter van Inwagen, for example, explicates libertarianism by saying "...that someone's acts are undetermined does not entail that they are uncaused" (van Inwagen, An Essay on Free Will, Oxford: 1983, p. 14).

But Frame explicitly centers his critique of libertarianism on a contra-causal account of freedom, saying, for example, "If guilt presupposed libertarian freedom, then in order to show that Hubert [a man accused of robbing a bank] is guilty, the prosecutor would have to show that his decision to rob a bank had no cause..." (126). But again, libertarians deny this very type of contra-causal freedom, so Frame is arguing against a straw man. Because Frame thinks libertarianism is so utterly central to Open Theism, this means that the core of his critique fails to hit home.

The problem with Frame's counter against libertarianism is that it barely touches the surface of the philosophical arguments for the position. He correctly rails against the idea that our actions are just random occurrences, but incorrectly assumes that this is libertarianism.

Finally, the greatest area of disagreement I have with Frame is on his view of omnidetermination. Consider the following two quotes:

"The uniform witness of Scripture is that the evils of this life come from God" (140).

"...[I]t is important to see that God does in fact bring about the sinful behavior of human beings, whatever problems that may create in our understanding" (68).

I'd be curious to see how Frame reconciles these assertions with the constant witness of Scripture that God is just; fair; good; opposed to evil; etc. Frame utilizes several verses to support his position, but he makes primary those which say God uses "all things" and verses which say calamities are from God. But regarding the former, this can easily refer simply to permissive will, and regarding the latter, the verses he uses are out of context (and even were one to grant the "straightforward reading," one could counter by saying the calamities are not every evil action, but merely those things which God uses-i.e. storms, other nations, etc.-to instruct His people). Frame, like many theological determinists, is not building even on sand, but on a void. Literally saying that God causes evil is so utterly repugnant and contrary to Scripture that this view overshadows all the good things Frame has to say.

Conclusions

Ultimately, No Other God is on target in a few ways, but it is wildly gunning the wrong direction on too many issues. Frame's philosophical case against libertarianism is off the mark, he fails to deal with the strong philosophical arguments for libertarianism, and his view that God literally causes evil is baseless. Interestingly, while I went in reading this book looking for some good arguments against Open Theism, I came out with the realization that theological determinism is a far more dangerous doctrine indeed.

It is with a sense of relief that I turn from the amateurish and even wrong-headed writings of the "openness" theologians to this work by John Frame. He is as much at home in the historical dimensions of the debate as in the theological; he is as much in command of the interpretation of the relevant biblical texts as he is of the philosophical issues. With its wholly admirable freshness and a crisp incisiveness, this book is something both to read and to give to friends. A sad mark of the theological ignorance of our times is that Socinianism can dress itself up in new terminology and pass itself off as evangelical theology instead of a pernicious error frequently and roundly condemned. Frame's antidote is both needed and effective."

D. A. CARSON
Research Professor of New Testament
Trinity Evangelical Divinity School

Open theism is bad news. The appearance of this book is good news. Precisely because God is closed and not open to the nullification of his purposes (Job 42:2), he has opened a future for believers that is utterly secure no matter what we suffer. The key that would open the defeat of God is eternally closed within the praiseworthy vault of his precious sovereignty. With the Bible as his criterion, John Frame delights to show when it is good to be closed and when it is good to be open.

JOHN PIPER
Senior Pastor
Bethlehem Baptist Church

John Frame's No Other God presents the serious minded, biblically faithful, and philosophically responsible reflections of a seasoned theologian regarding the profoundly misguided open view of God. While portions of Frame's criticism could be directed more generally to classical Arminianism's commitments to libertarian freedom and the centrality of the love of God, yet much of Frame's deepest concern focuses upon a range of distinctively and deeply distressing aspects of the post-Arminian openness model. Here one will see vividly so much that is wrong with open theism while encountering afresh the beauty and glory of the true and living God of the Bible.

BRUCE A. WARE
Professor of Christian Theology
The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Combining exegetical good judgment, sound theology, and profound philosophical insight, Professor Frame has written exactly the book we need today to put into the hands of Christians attracted to the allegedly "new" doctrines of so-called open theism. Open theism leaves believers with a god who is not merely "too small" but irrelevant to our lives, our needs, our goals. And John Frame spells this out clearly in this easy-to-read but comprehensive and compelling critique. It is "must reading" for all Christians today.

ROBERT B. STRIMPLE
Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology
Westminster Theological Seminary in California

This is the best critique of Open Theism on the market today. Frame confronts the idea that God does not know the future exhaustively with a thorough biblical overview on relevant passages pertaining to God's sovereignty. Making his case from the Bible he avoids the pitfalls of name-calling, stereotyping, and alarmism by simply showing the ideas put forth by open theists to be contrary to well established biblical doctrines.

However, the book is different in that it does not deal extensively with issues within the realm of omniscience, but more or less refutes libertarian free will. Thus, it acknowledges at least in practice that the watershed issue in the debate is over free will, not omniscience. John Sanders would at least feel some vindication in this regard.

Nevertheless, the book is accessible and thoughtful and helped convert this reader from open theist to classical Augustinianism.

John Frame's response to Open Theism is a scholarly endeavor that exposes the Open view to the litmus of Scripture and Classical Theism. Frame deals with the Open view candidly while maintaining dignity and keeping the discussion focused on the doctrine at stake, God's sovereignty. The Open view carries a compelling argument if one is willing to scripturally and historically mis-define the teaching on the sovereignty of God and John Frame is to be thanked for putting out such a marvelous defense against an idea that is dangerous because it's very sources lie within the framework of evangelicalism.

Dr. John Frame has written an excellent reformed critique of Open Deism as espoused by teachers such as Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and Richard Rice. Frame tackles not only the teachings of open theist but he looks to the Scriptures as the final authority for sound doctrine.

While some Arminians (myself included) may find some of Frame's arguements based on his Calvinistic presuppositions, all orthodox Christians will find Frame does wrestle with the Bible for all his answers. His strong view on the authority of the Bible shines forth in his solid critique. While I disagreed with Frame on his view of divine determinism, I found that he answers nearly every major passage that Open Deist often appeal to try to prove that God is open to change based on the decisions, prayers, and actions of men.

Overall this book was a great read. Theological works often can be a bore to read, I found that not to be the case with Frame's book. In fact, reading this book by Frame made me want to purchase his other theological books as well. He is good writer and who keeps the focus on the subject while keeping the reader interested in the teaching at hand. A good read even before you go to bed.

Open theism is a cancer upon the skin of Evangelicalism. Therefore, I am quite grateful for Professor Frame's latest book, No Other God, a biblical critique of open theism. Frame has a rare combination of simplicity and profundity. With an irenic tone and scholarly precision, Frame unravels the presuppositions of open theism and steers readers toward the biblical way. My prayer is that God will use this helpful volume to convince leaders and laypeople in the church that open theism is destructive, unbiblical, profoundly dishonoring to God, and unwelcome in Evangelicalism.

A convincing biblical corrective to the aberrant heterodoxy of Processistic,Bi-Polar,Neo-Socinian,Rationalistic Open Theory,this book uses balanced and cogent critique as devastating as chemo to the cancer trying to grow within evangelicalism as a result of too much exposure to global warming and ozone depletion among many Christian institutions/followers in recent times.

So much is amiss and astray with Openness that this book shows how Scripture in the whole and in the parts most accurately understood melts the hazardous Open iceberg infesting biblically safe shipping lanes into a muddy icecube soon to be an evaporating puddle of lukewarm religious speculation/disaffection

The best review of this outstanding defense of Classical Biblical Theism (God retains His Omnipotence,Omniscience,Omnipresence,Transcendent Immanence,Eternity,Infinity,Majesty,Love and Wrath)would be representative selective points from this masterful entry into the funeral rites for the demise and fall of 'Ajarism':

*A sad mark of today's theological landscape is historical & biblical ignorance.How else to account for neo-Socinian skeletons dressed up in the latest faddish fashion of modern philosophic/religious/metaphysical/neo-orthodox buzzwords such asIn-Process,Temporal Pole,Presentism,Free-will theism,vulnerable/risk-taking god,user-friendly,relational,etc.) via Whitehead,Hartshorne,Peirce,Heisenberg,Wittgenstein to the sincerely wrong writings of Open Theists Pinnock,Sanders,Boyd & Co. trying desperately and futilely to pass their speculation off as the latest,most contemporary,culturally relevant,updated 'evangelicalism'. Rather it is shamefully exposed as threadbare,moth-eaten pernicious error, a pseudo-evangelical garment ill-fitting the Bible.

*Under Openness/Ajarism, with the deity ignorant of future free agency,how can there be Scriptural inspiration of the Biblical authors if the Holy Spirit doesn't even know what Moses,David,Isaiah,Luke,Paul,John are choosing to write beforehand? God knows what He intends to say, but without crude,mechanical,compulsory dictation,where does the voluntary authorship of the human agents fit in to ensure inerrancy,infallibility,accuracy and completeness absent Divine Foreknowledge in the 'theopneustos' equation of:Divine Agency + Human Authorship = Word of God?

*We have moved from Biblical orthodoxy to neo-orthodoxy to liberal unorthodoxy now with an offshoot to neo-libertarianism(self-limited,vulnerable,risk-taking,bi-polar,self-emptying deity unable to possess more than 1)a shared power/authority co-arrangement with fallen beings; 2)extensive part-macro definite/most-micro indefinite forecasting of free-agent futures capability; 3)finiteness in the form of temporal-spatial-material divinity to meaningfully relate to the time-space-matter continuum He created; 4)Quasi-omnipresence,no longer every
where-when,everythere-then,everyhere-now omni-past,omni-present,omni-future but pretty much mere 'presentism' only with exhaustive recollection of the past and projection of all future possibilities, none of which are actualized from God's perspective or experience yet.) What next after Ajarism? Wide-Openism?

*It is claimed by open theists:"If God is truly omnipotent, then agents have no genuine power or authority over their agency,decisions,destinies nor real responsibility/meaning/worth.
Thus God can't be Omnipotent, but 'Multi-potent', the most powerful among all the powers that be such as Satan,demons,angels and man who have much latitude,free-exercise rights and power of self-determination, which God (not Almighty or El Shaddai any longer) at very rare and reluctant discretion retains the right to override/veto/intervene to keep things on track to accomplish some semblance of progress toward ultimate divine success in the creative enterprise called Earth."

What byzantine,labyrinthine,warped reasoning! By that peculiar logic, one could just as easily claim "If God is truly Omniscient, then agents have no genuine knowledge, but are aware of nothing. If God is truly Omnipresent, then agents don't exist since there's no point-moment of space-time God doesn't exclusively occupy!"Sorry Open Theists (and any Process Theists,neo-Socinians,neo-libertarians listening in). The Bible says God is Omnipotent.Does that mean we are powerless,i.e. Omnimpotent?

God is Omniscient. Are we Omnignorant,knowing nothing,nada,zilch?God is Omnipresent. Are we Omni-absent,non-existent?Think about it (but not too hard!)

Bracing and Biblical food for thought for those on both sides of this crucial issue affecting the Evangelical Church today.Order multiple copies to share with friends! No Other God throws the gauntlet down/back to Open Theism's challenge to the Classical
view about Who the Real Jesus Christ is: Is there room in the
church for another Christ, the Open Christ? Or should there be
No Other Jesus?