Rating: 
Summary: Biblically one-sided
Review: In this book, Greg Boyd argues that God's knowledge of the future is limited. More precisely, Boyd believes that some statements about the future are still "open," meaning that they are logically unknowable by anyone -- even God. In particular, Boyd holds that future free actions of people cannot be known with certainty by God.While I was overall disappointed with this work (and do think it's conclusions are "heretical"), compared with some other defenses of Open Theism it did have some noticeable strengths. First, the book relies on the Bible to prove its case. In fact, this book contains the largest collection of openist prooftexts I have encountered. Second strength: the book was well-written and communicated clearly. In terms of argumentation, however, _God of the Possible_ fell seriously short. Much of Boyd's arguments rely on his claiming that his interpretation of the passage is the "clear" one, while more traditional interpretations are forced. But this claim comes dangerously close to denying the principle that scripture should be interpreted in light of scripture. Most critics of open theism do not believe God knows the future because they are holding to an infallible tradition that forces scripture to fit its mold, but because they think the whole of the Biblical data makes a strong inductive case for a closed future. Boyd doesn't seem to consider this seriously. Also, this book was simply too brief and too limited in scope to pose a serious challenge to traditional theism. It just couldn't interact with the opposing viewpoint enough to refute it. Furthermore, while Boyd did collect a lot of verses to support his case, he repeatedly explained away his objectors' arguments by appealing to emotions or weak analogies. Also, while admitting his case collapses if people do not have libertarian freewill, Boyd does not defend this take on freewill, but simply assumes it. For a massive critique of this notion, see freewill.doesntexist.com. It should be noted that Boyd's book has been (in my mind, at least) decisively refuted by Bruce A. Ware's _God Less Glorious: The Diminished God of Open Theism_. One more critique: Boyd claims that the traditional view of God as knowing all things future is a result of "Greek" corruption of Christian concepts. I am not a historian, but this claim is suspect on at least two grounds. First, even if certain traditional Christian doctrines were borrowed from Greek culture, this Greek origin does nothing to prove or disprove the doctrines. To claim otherwise is to commit the "genetic fallacy" (rejecting a belief because you can trace it back to its origin). In fact, some Biblical authors explicitly utilized Greek concepts (see the "Logos" of John 1:1). Second, a main line of commentators agree that the Greek philosopher, Aristotle, introduced the concept of an "open future" in his day in for many of the same philosophical reasons Boyd does. So it seems to me that Boyd's objection cuts both ways: If he rejects traditional theism because of its Greek origin, then traditionalists can reply that he ought to reject open theism for the very same reasons. Obviously, simple appeals to Greek "corruption" prove nothing here. In conclusion, I would say (speaking from conscience -- and at the risk of sounding unobjective) that this is a very dangerous book, and should be read with caution. It defends belief in a God who does not know the future with absolute certainty, and its defense is, simply put, lacking in cogency.
Rating: 
Summary: Accessible but strong argument for open theism.
Review: This title is focused on challenging the traditional theological position that God always knows what is going to happen an eternity before it happens. I have been looking for some arguments of open theists, to see if their view is indeed justly motivated by a desire to be faithful to what is written in the Bible, or if it is inconsistent with it. Being a layman, I chose Boyd's work as he often excels when exposing complex theological arguments. Boyd starts by explaining the classical view of divine foreknowledge, the classic theism, which follows the belief that the future is eternally settled, and that God eternally knows it as such. He then proceeds to expose the option of open theism, which in part agrees with some followers of Augustine and Calvin that future events cannot cause God to know them, but Boyd also agrees with the followers of Arminius that if *ALL* future events are determined by God, then he must be ultimately responsible for everything about the future, including evil. However, Boyd fully disagrees with both views that Scripture teachers that future is exhaustively settled, and dedicates a great part of the book providing evidence for why he thinks that God chooses to leave some of the future open to possibilities, allowing them to be resolved by the decisions of free agents. He argues that Scripture not only warrants this conclusion, but requires it, and that part of the problem is that since Plato, Western philosophy has been infatuated with the idea of an unchanging, timeless reality. "Whenever we are used to hearing only one side of a story, it is easy to read our beliefs into evidence rather than allowing all the evidence to speak for itself." The last part of the book tests the theory, facing problems that might be mentioned by classic theists, answering to the most common philosophical and theological objections to the open view. Boyd answers over 18 questions; For instance "How can you trust a God who is uncertain about the future?" I was left with the impression that you can try sum up Boyd's view in a single paragraph: God decides to limit his own knowledge of the future, which then consists of things that may go one way or another. He adjusts his plans, "changes his mind" depending on the free agents he chose to create as such (what does or does not take place). Your conclusion might depend on your own current opinion. In my case, I've heard a few times that this is "dangerous reading", but fortunately, being an open-minded layman who is not (yet?) really a Christian (but who is learning about Christianity and theism), I was completely open to all views. Boyd's approach is not the ultimate truth, I am always ready to hear what the other side has to say, but his arguments were strong and interesting.. This book is also easily captivating to sceptics and even open-minded atheists, since in several ways, it helps making sense out of problematic issues (like the problem of evil). I greatly enjoyed this book, Boyd often caused me to have to stop reading and think about his arguments, no matter if they were based on ancient documents or modern quantum physics. Great food for thought well exposed in only 172 pages, highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: Arminianism taking to logical conclusion
Review: Anyone surprised by Boyd's thesis should realize that it is merely consistent Arminianism - unbridled free will taken to its logical conclusion. Boyd should be commended for his courage, but not certainly not his exegesis.
Rating: 
Summary: Heresy!
Review: After reading this book, this is my inevitable conclusion of this book! I cannot describe otherwise. This is one of the most serious heresy to strike the Church. I am of the firm conviction that if the Church Of Jesus Christ adopts his view she is returning to the dark ages. Let me offer a few reasons: firstly, Boyd is mistaken in his theology. He seeks to understand God from his the human - relationship view-point, science. His exegesis from Scripture is at best shallow. Secondly, his criticism that the classical view of God is founded in Greek Philosophy is mistaken. I recommend this book for critical reading and definitely not for a new Christian.
Rating: 
Summary: God of the Possible
Review: Gregory Boyd is a theology professor at Bethel College and pastor of a large congregation with the General Conference Baptists. Despite his protest of orthodoxy, his unorthodox opinions about the attributes of God have torn gaping holes in the GCB. Calling his position "Openness of God Theology" Boyd argues that God knows only PART of the future; but for the rest, He is open to unforeseen input from His creation. He rests his argument upon the 'literal interpretation' of passages where God is said to 'change his mind'. Why he does not at the same time argue for a literal interpretation of references to God's eyes, arms, & hands...he does not explain. Also, given the interconnected nature of the universe, he cannot explain how God can exercise sovereignty in part of life without being sovereign over all of life. I was particularly disappointed to find that he did not even attempt to reconcile the timelessness of God with his recurring question of whether God knows the future. For the ever-present "I AM" there is no future. Boyd does an unintended favor for Calvinists by convincingly demonstrating that his is the logical conclusion of Arminianism. For an antidote, read God's Lesser Glory by Bruce Ware.
Rating:
Summary: BIBLICALLY IMPOSSIBLE,UNTENABLE THEOLOGY:AJARISM?
Review: One of the latest theological 'fads' hitting the mental marketplace of ideas is 'Openness' or what is better called 'Ajarism': the future is a door ajar to God, part of which He can see and know, part of which He cannot. A few brief Scriptures put Ajarism to rest: 1Ki.19:15-17 (God's command/prophecy to Elijah regarding Hazael, King of Aram and Elisha, successor prophet); 2Ki.8:9-15 (God's prophetic revelation to Elisha about Hazael, confirming the Elijah prophecy many years earlier) Just this Biblical sequence of Elijah, Elisha and Hazael involving exhaustive definite future prediction/prophecy, anointing and specific divine foreknowledge punctures the ajarism concept as unbiblical and untenable. Please read these scriptures carefully as to what God knew and when He knew it, what He communicated to Elijah and Elisha and what was fulfilled in Hazael's life. It would be interesting to see a Biblical, logical, cogent, reasoned rebuttal of this passage sequence from Boyd, but it is not likely.
Rating: 
Summary: The Best Introduction on this topic so far
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: God's Loving Sovereignty
Review: I highly recommend Gregory A. Boyd's "God of the Possible" as a wonderful introduction to understanding the Open View of God. Whether or not one agrees with the open view, this book will prove to engage and reward its readers. Furthermore, it is my belief that this book provides the Biblical framework for an all powerful and sovereign God. However, I am sure many hardcore determinist would disagree with me on these points. Nonetheless, with careful reflection and prayer I believe that you will come out of this book with a greater understanding of God's sovereignty, that is a sovereignty of love!
Rating:
Summary: One of the Most Dangerous Teachings There Is
Review: Boyd's view is simply not Biblical. One must credit him with examining texts. However, his hermeneutic is no where near consistent. He claims we must take all texts at face value, such as God saying to Abraham "Now I know..." Yet, Boyd never once deals with the passage that appears just before this one where God says, "Let us go down and see..." His rule of interpretation, consistently applied, must lead one to conclude that God knows neither the future, past, or present, for that is what this verse implies (and others too, such as "Adam, where are you? Who gave you the fruit, etc."). This is just one of his many flaws. I STRONGLY recommend one read Bruce A. Ware's book "God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism" for a strong defeat of this NON-Evangelical view.
Rating:
Summary: Why I am an open theist
Review: Theology is not like Geometry, eternal, immutable. It is like Evolution, slowly and sometimes dramatically changing. This is the viewpoint of people's conceptions of God as portrayed in the OT. We have no basis for claiming anything different for us today. Throughout Western Civilization history, our understanding of critical aspects of theology, like what it means to be created in the image of God, have been changing, developing sometimes in starts and jumps. Treating theology as an evolving set of metaphysical principles that describe the relationships between the Church, God and the World as revealed and discovered through biblical and natural sources, implies that something does not constitute heresy based on the fact that it differs from what previous teaching has been. The Augustinian Theodicy that the Open View of God denies as capital T truth does not constitute Mere Christianity. It is merely one form of Christianity. The open view of God opens up the possibility that many of the metaphysical arguments that have been utilized by the church through history have been heresy in the sense that they were not putatively based on scripture, but rather a separate hellenistic worldview that was welded to the very different hebraic worldview. This does not say that the Augustinian Theodicy has not been "useful". If we consider the situation within which it came about, Roman Civilization was under attack by barbarians and so much of what Christians had come to value in the order of the Roman civilization was threatened. The dictum to turn the other cheek seemed to difficult to directly exegetically apply to the situation(It is hard to imagine what life would have been like if it had been applied). The Augustinian synthesis justified the concentration of authority that was needed to justify a just war and to marshall the resources needed to defend roman civilization and establish the Catholic Church as the intellectual base for the resulting society. This has to do with the problem of "order" which is the intrinsic difficulty of reconciling the desires to embody within society the "love" principle of Christianity by, among other things, promoting individual freedom (since love entails not only obedience but innovative expressions of adoration and kindness to others) and the intrinsic difficulty of permitting such freedoms in a world populated by sinners that will abuse their freedom at the expense of themselves and others. The augustinian theodicy elevates the eternal, immutable, God-determined at the expense of what is by its very nature often contingent and inexorably human-determined. Its emphasis on capital T truth and the goal of realigning the earthly city along lines of a deterministic God-designed eternal city, has justified the extreme concentration of power along platonian lines and elevated good instrumental reforms of a given situation(such as the required celibacy of the priesthood in a society rife with nepotism) to absolute dictums for how the church should be organized. The Bible, unlike the Koran, does not outline a particular correct ecclesiastical or political structure as the God-ordained means of organizing society or the embodiments of the Church. These are to be worked out by members of the Church since we possess the ability to innovate and alter the order that we find ourselves in. The God of the Possible indicates that this act of innovation can and should be an expression of devotion to God. There is no biblical basis to denigrate that which is specific and human determined in lieu of some correct absolute standard and yet there still is a standard that is interwoven throughout reality but that is critically underdetermined and requires the complementary exercise of our God-given reason and creativity. This is part of my understanding of the role assigned to humanity in the creation account and it is not just my understanding. Many refuse to believe that God would permit so many in the church could have believed in something that is not a putative capital T truth for so long. However, this is based on the presupposition that Theology is better characterized along the lines of Geometry and not Evolution and this view point is not biblical. One could also add that apparently it was the same God that permitted the institutionalization of Anti-semitism within the Christian Church for a large portion of its history. I for one refuse to attribute either action to the will of God. Is the open view of God dangerous? Yes, I know this first hand. Is it capital T truth? I am betting good money that is it not. Is it a step in the right direction? I am sure of it. Paraphrasing Kierkegaard, it does requires a much stronger faith to take action in a world where one cannot accept any particular viewpoint, particularly one's own, as infallible. However, it is better to proceed with humility and caution and an openness to one's own weaknesses and potential fallibility than to erect a metaphysical fortress designed to justify the unnecessary and potentially very dangerous extreme concentration of authority within any church. I see a need for economies of scale and believe that Chrisians all over the world would be far more united if we would be willing to give a Pope-like figure or body stronger say-so on many critical issues of faith and doctrine, but this concentration of scriptural authority need not be deterministic and the precise means through which such a body would be established and maintain its' authority would have to be worked out. However, It cannot be based on a claim of infallibility as most Christians would never accept that on the behalf of any human except Christ. But this is not that critical since the traditional perceived importance of infallibility of interpretation is only meaningful within the misinterpretation of Theology as being like Geometry, immutable.
|
