Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
55 of 71 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Not Perfect, but maybe the best critique currently available, April 5, 2003
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.
|
|
|
2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Great Look At The Open Theism Debate, February 25, 2007
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.
|
|
|
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Opentheism: More Dangerous Than You Might Think, March 27, 2008
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|