Rating: 
Summary: The infininately wise chess player? 1st Delusions: Chapter 6
Review: While at a first glance Dr. Boyd seems to have a strong case (at parts), upon closer examination, there are some serious flaws in his heurmenutical understanding of the 80-some-odd scriptures that seemingly advocate openness theology. For a VERY systematic, balanced, scriptural rebutal of this view (and sometimes this book), I would HIGHLY recommend Dr. Bruce Ware's "God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism". Feel free to write me with any responses (especially if you pick up the aforesaid book)
Rating: 
Summary: Bad Theology...I Highly Recommend It
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: OPEN-ENDED 'biblical' "scholarship" TOO SELECTIVE
Review: This book is superficially appealing to those sympathetic to a
new take on interpreting the Bible. The LORD'S ETERNALLY EXHAUSTIVE DIVINE DEFINITIVE FOREKNOWN FACTUALITY
of all free futures is no longer acceptable to some. Thus a new brand of theology is fabricated
a la 'divine nescience'
of a significant portion of free futures that supposedly does not exist yet for even an Omniscient God
to know as definite in advance.
Preposterous and presumptuous contrivance. The LORD's unconditional sovereignty without exception in the lives and decisions of men and devils
is no longer acceptable to some. Thus an ultra-libertarian free will is postulated to account for evil
in a Good God's world. Simplistic and unbiblical. The LORD's "I do not change nor repent" of the Bible is no longer acceptable to some.
Thus the novel speculative doctrine
'theo-repentism' whereby the Open Theory deity must repent of
faulty decisions well-intentioned but made without all the facts
or short-circuited by the unknowable free decisions of creatures.
Heterodox and conjectural. The book claims to be 'biblical' by citing a handful of favorite
one-sided passages and applying a debatable flawed exegesis in
arriving at interpretations contrary to the plenary witness of
all Scripture. Fine bible scholars and more balanced/fair minded
theologians like Millard Erickson, Norman Geisler, John Piper,
R.C.Sproul, John MacArthur, John Frame, Bruce Ware,
Timothy George,D.A.Carson and the vast preponderance of evangelical historic
biblical scholarship exposes Open Theory as warmed over
processistic neo-Socinian pseudo-doctrine. This book fails the litmus test of credibility,accuracy, proper
interpretive methods and is flagrantly dismissive or omissive
of Bible texts that implode what is more theory than theology. Its main weakness is in assuming an ERRANT BIBLE, which is problematic
for Boyd in his book Across the Spectrum. See separate review
where it is wondered why his own BGC denomination Pres. Sheveland or Bethel
trustees haven't sought public retraction/candid
resignation with integrity for denying BGC Affirmation
of Faith re Inerrancy. This open-ended theorizing is closed out by removing
all traces of Processism, leaving a very small book
behind, indeed. Boyd's fabrication implodes as
he admits God can and does override free
agency and declares at least part of free futures
settled. If God can settle one free-will second
of what is supposed to be a non-existent future,
He thus settles it all. If God knows precisely
what He will freely do in all future cases, how
can He unless He knows how we will freely decide
first in the exact same cases,since ALL He does
involves ALL we do in relationship? This is the fatal non-sequitur, internal fallacy,
self-contradiction in Openism. Either God knows
0% free futures('future doesn't exist until its
willed/acted into existence to be known') or
100%(known but to God, unknown to us until we
freely will/act). Openism's 'Divine Foreknowledge'
is like being 'almost pregnant', or the eunuch
who knows how it's done, but just can't quite execute.
Rating:
Summary: OPEN THEISM CLOSED OUT BY SOLA/TOTA SCRIPTURA
Review: The author of this engaging book is trying to popularize a wayward concept called 'freewill' or 'open' theism where the deity is in process with creation of learning,growing,changing his mind,plans,etc.as the unexpected occurs which he must creatively react to unbeknownst to him in advance. The book wins some logical battles at the mortal level, but loses the war of Bible interpretation at the spirutual level. Claiming to be a fresh,new,modern,contemporary model, it is little more than a rehash of Socinianistic reasoning 'upgraded'
by the latest in Processistic thought a la Whitehead,Hartshorne,
Peirce,Kierkegaard,Wittgenstein,Heisenberg. In the openness model, the deity is voluntarily self-limited in exercise of power,authority and knowledge lest he interfere with free-agents' decision making capacity. For example, God is no longer Biblically understood to have Omniscience (Exhaustive Divine/Definite Foreknowledge of future free decisions at the micro level), but is 'updated' to 'Multiscience', knowing a great deal, but not 100% ('extensive temporal forecasting' at the macro level). As engaging as the book is, it fails to engage Scripture in a plenary,accurate,consistent way; it uses selective texts, applies
questionable at best interpretive principles,and falls short as an attempt at serious,even popular level scholarship. These Bible passages are either neglected or mishandled and thus leaves the openness position open to categorical refutation: Psalm 147:5 "His understanding is INFINITE." Unless the Hebrew and English words for INFINITE have changed, the Openness view of the deity's 'Multiscience' is internally imploded. A brief trip through Judges (Gideon&Midianite Dream) and Kings
(Elisha's Tears re Hazael/Elijah's Prior Prophecy; Elisha's Barley Futures; Man of God's prophecy re Josiah -1Ki.13:1-3 -
"A man of God went to Bethel by the word of the LORD and King
Jeroboam stood by the altar. The man of God cried out against the altar by the word of the LORD saying,'O altar,altar! Thus says the LORD:"BEHOLD A CHILD,JOSIAH BY NAME,SHALL BE BORN TO THE HOUSE OF DAVID;AND ON YOU O ALTAR HE SHALL SACRIFICE PRIESTS
OF THE HIGH PLACES WHO BURN INCENSE ON YOU AND MEN'S BONES SHALL BE BURNED ON YOU.'")
Just this one unconditional prophecy, too far distant in the future to be surmised/forecast from present circumstances, unconditional/categorical in nature,involving incalculable free-agent future decisions supposedly unknowable under open theism,
is devastating to the Open Theism position. Nice try, Greg Boyd. But with all due respect, it is recommended going back to the Bible, especially these and other omitted passages, and try again with a more Evangelical and less Processistic approach to your interpretive presuppositions and
post-modernist world view.(...)
Rating: 
Summary: Valiant Attempt at a Popular Defense of Open Theism
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: A more relational view of God, yet not relational enough.
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: WHAT'S POSSIBLE FOR GOD IMPOSSIBLE FOR OPENTHEISM
Review: The subtitle for this book should be a self-admonition: "Are you not in error because you do not know the scriptures or the power of God?" This is the heart of what is so aberrant about the Open view of God (which can be called 'Exhaustive' Temporal Foreknowledge, vs. the Classical view Exhaustive Definite/Divine Foreknowledge). Openness views God as essentially temporal as He relates to temporal beings. What the future is for us is pretty much how it is for God. A few Scriptures are devastating to that kind of speculative, humanistic theory (with touches of processistic thinking) 1)ELISHA'S BARLEY FUTURES - 2Kings 6:24-25;7:1-2,16-20. Consider the immense extent,nature and timing of the convergence of individual free-agent decisions,actions,wills that the LORD thru Elisha was able to precisely,definitely,certainly,exactly foretell 24 hours in advance: "about this time tomorrow a seah of flour will sell for a shekel and 2 seahs of barley for a shekel at the gate of Samaria." Clearly an unconditional, Exhaustive Definite/Divine Foreknowledge prophecy, fairly routine for an Omniscient God of the Bible Who could easily foretell (not forecast) exactly what the barley futures market would be within 24 hours and communicate it to Elisha, etc. 2) GIDEON & MIDIANITE DREAM (Judges 7:9-15). Based on Open Theism's own criteria regarding prophecies 'involving free decisions of creatures..which appear unconditional if the acts prophesied are too far in the future to be surmised from the present characters of the agents involved and are self-determining acts..if these conditions are met, then this would in principle refute the open view'. Consider the open view Scripturally refuted, based on openness' own criteria. There is no cogent,objective engagement of these or other crucial passages in any Openness literature, with good reason. They are simply irrefutable. The more one compares books like this with such inconvenient Bible texts (see also ELISHA'S TEARS, 2Kings 8), the more one sees that free-will theism's 'possible god' is impossible to digest or theologically accept. Thankfully, the Classical View (Free-will future is open to us, but settled and Exhaustively Foreknown as Definite to the LORD) is not at risk from such hybrid systems as Openness, which mostly synthesizes Processistic ideas with Classical ones to produce a New, Open-minded theology which is not intellectually or Biblically satisfying. One star for this book is one star too many!
Rating: 
Summary: A sound biblical introduction to Open Theism for laypeople
Review: Greg Boyd sets out a thorough overview of the Biblical Support for the Open View of God. It thoroughly demonstrates how distant the concept of God as being immutable and outside of time is from the portrait of God presented in the Old Testament and New Testament(especially in the life of Jesus Christ). The reflections on the importance of this view of God for Christians are well written and of great importance for Christian Thinking. They emphasize that with freedom comes responsibility. This touches on the point that the theological viewpoint that God has willed all that has been, is and will be may lead to the heresy of fatalism. At its worse, this can lead to the alignment of our fallen, imperfect system with what was decreed by the will of God. Open theists have just touched upon what the implications of their concept of free-will are. Particularly as it pertains to ecclesiology, the study of church structure and leadership. The open view of God puts the responsibility for the institutionalization of anti-semitism, racism within historical Christian churches, and the widespread rejection of Christianity on account of these many failures, on the leadership of Christian churches. The responsibility for this, ultimately, belongs to all Christians to be accountable for the conduct of their leaders. However, the mandate for us to do this is much more emphatically made with a theology that openly admits that the church, as it is, is probably not conformed to the will of God. Greg Boyd's book will hopefully contribute a long way to changing Evangelical Christian's thinking on this important issue for the future development of the Church.
Rating:
Summary: Interacting with a major piece of Boyd's argument
Review: Boyd claims passages such as Genesis 22:1-19, are the "strongest group of passages" to show that "the future is not exhaustively settled" for God. He claims the test was for God's benefit, not Abraham's. However, Boyd's use of Genesis 22 has two massive problems. First, knowledge God gains from the test is only as good as the immediate past, because Boyd insists that God cannot and does not know future human decisions as certain. So what God discovered concerning Abraham could be only momentary. On the basis of Boyd's own assumptions, the Lord's announcement-"Now I know that you fear God." (Gen. 22:12)-could only be expressing sure knowledge concerning the fleeting present and past, not the future. Since, according to Boyd, God cannot and does not know with certainty the future decisions of his creatures, God could not know with certainty whether Abraham would continue to fear him. Boyd claims, "The verse clearly says that it was because Abraham did what he did that the Lord now knew he was a faithful covenant partner. The verse has no clear meaning if God was certain that Abraham would fear him before he offered up his son" (p. 64). Boyd doesn't realize the significance of his adverb "now" in the above quote. The "now" instantly fled away. So with regard to Abraham's future choices, the Lord was in the same spot when he began to test Abraham. By the test: (1) The Lord now had present knowledge that Abraham passed the test and "was a faithful covenant partner." (2) The Lord now had present knowledge of the likely decisions Abraham will make. But for the future, God must wait to see how Abraham responds to the next tests ad infinitum. Otherwise, if God knows with certainty what Abraham will decide next, he would not be a "self-determining agent." On Boyd's own beliefs, at best, God acquires greater capacity to predict what Abraham will decide. However, God cannot have sure knowledge of Abraham's future decisions. So, if "the verse has no clear meaning if God was certain that Abraham would fear him before he offered up his son," as Boyd argues, then the verse cannot also mean that God now knows with certainty what any of Abraham's future decisions will be. The second flaw is that on Boyd's principles the passage must mean that God can know heart intentions of humans only through their external actions and not by way of direct, immediate, and internal apprehension. Otherwise, Boyd's explanation is meaningless and special pleading. If passages such as Genesis 22 are "the strongest group of passages . . . that suggest the future is not exhaustively settled" for God (p. 63), then it follows that God cannot directly and immediately know the intentions of any human by immediate and internal apprehension. For Boyd's explanation of Genesis 22, God can know human intentions absolutely and exhaustively only by observing their external actions. For if there is one case in which God can know the human intention by direct and immediate internal apprehension, then passages like Genesis 22 portray God, at best, as fluctuating in knowledge of his creatures, and at worst, as bumbling, incompetent, self-contradictory, and cruel. Has Boyd forgotten "the Lord does not see as mortals see; they look on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart" (1 Sam. 16:7)? On Boyd's reading God could not know Abraham's inclination when he raised the knife to Isaac. God's knowledge of Abraham's present disposition depended upon externalized action. Thus, if the test is for God to know Abraham's heart intention, then from the initial command until the actual test God endured three days of patient anticipation before he could know with certainty whether or not Abraham would fear him at the crucial moment. This is so despite repeated expressions by Abraham that indicate he already feared the Lord. This means that God could not be certain about Abraham's intention when Abraham commanded: "Stay here with the donkey; the boy and I will go over there; we will worship, and then we will come back to you" (22:5). Despite the fact that writer to the Hebrews recognizes Abraham's faith that God raises the dead on the basis of Abraham's words (Heb. 11:17), God had to have external actions before he could say, "For now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from me" (22:12). For Boyd, neither Abraham's inclination nor his words but only his act caused God to realize that Abraham feared him. Only Abraham's raising the knife gave God knowledge about Abraham he did not have before the test. Yet, if consistency matters to Boyd, God could not know with certainty whether Abraham's raised knife would plunge into Isaac, for at the last instant Abraham must have the freedom to redirect the knife, or else he would not be free. Thus, according to Boyd's reading of Genesis 22:12, God still could not know with certainty whether Abraham would follow through and slay his son, as commanded. So if the test was for God's benefit, what a cruel and excruciating ordeal he imposed upon Abraham to acquire such momentary and fleeting knowledge that could only aid him in developing a profile of the man's character little better than another human might have. So for Boyd, Abraham's expression of belief that God would raise his son from the dead was insufficient for God to have sure and present knowledge concerning Abraham's heart intention. Boyd's reading means that God needed more than Abraham's words: "God himself will provide the lamb for a burnt offering, my son" (22:8), an expression of belief that God would provide a substitute so Isaac would not die. If deeds are the only basis upon which God can have sure knowledge of our intentions, then God comes to know human intentions the way humans gain such knowledge, by way of external deeds. Such is Boyd's god.
Rating:
Summary: Heterodox Doctrine of God
Review: This is not a book of Orthodox theology. It is not even on the fringe. One of the most basic teachings of the Bible about the nature of God concerns his divine foreknowledge, that it is not limited by man's choices. There are countless examples of specfic prophecies, that from our perspective are dependant upon human choices, that come true. Judas' betrayal and Peter's denial, are examples of Jesus foretelling events that would come to pass, and Scripture paints these pictures to testify to the deity of Christ. This book simply fails to explain these and operates off of the false assumption that God's Foreknowledge removes human free agency and responsibility. This is not how Scripture instructs us concerning sovereignty and responsibility, and in Mr. Boyd's quest to look at these concepts "logically," he has simply forgotten that God is higher, and has run off the reservation in the process. Do not waste your time with this book, unless you are looking to follow a much smaller and different God than that of Orthodox Christianity. There are much better heresies than this one!
| 
