Rating: 
Summary: Mostly excellent refutation of Boydism
Review: Bruce Ware has been one of the more prominent evangelicals leading the charge against open theism in evangelical circles. He was one of the key speakers at the most recent meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society which ultimately voted better than 2 to 1 to reject open theism's proposal of a God of limited omniscience. This book is Ware's written attempt to discredit the theology, philosophy, and claims of open theism. For the most part, I think he succeeds.For everything that is taken up in this book, Ware's analysis is devastating to open theism. Ware effectively cuts through much of the sweet talk that's popular in open theism and methodically exposes the many negative ramifications of the openness view in terms of theology and daily Christian living. Ware's critique is very good in taking somewhat complex theological and philosophical material and making it accessible to lay people without watering down the concepts. He also does a good job of quoting extensively from a number of prominent open theism apologists, particularly Greg Boyd. In my view, after reading this book, it would be highly difficult for someone to try and suggest that Ware was erecting a strawman and arguing against that, rather than fairly discrediting the actual premises of open theism as articulated by its leaders. I gave the book 4 stars instead of 5 because I thought that Ware's analysis, while outstanding in the areas that are covered, could have been more exhaustive. To me, among the most problematic ramifications of open theism is the reality that open theism, by definition, must acknowledge at the very minimum the possibility of biblical errancy and fallibility. In my view, one cannot consistently be an open theist as well as a believer in biblical inerrancy, since a great deal of the prophetic material written in the Bible requires the exact kind of divine foreknowledge of the future that open theists say God doesn't possess. At the very least, open theism has to acknowledge that their view requires, for example, that the entire book of Revelation MIGHT prove to be wrong, since by their own view, the prophetic proclamations only represent God's best guesses of what might happen, rather than being part of a divine blueprint that's already in place. In addition, the other major theological problem with open theism is that it requires a fundamental redefining of the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death on the cross. If God doesn't know the future, that means that God could not know with absolute certainty that Christ's death would accomplish anything, since it is conceivable that nobody could have responded to it and believed. This raises huge problems both about the character of God (what are we to think of a God who willingly allows His only Son to be brutally sacrificed if He didn't know for sure that anything good would come from it), as well as what Christ's death on the cross is supposed to represent. Ware has verbally expounded on these critical points in various speeches and lectures, but neither issue is discussed in this book. Because I believe these issues represent monumental theological deficiencies in the openness view, a book worthy of 5 stars would have comprehensively explored these issues. Because Ware does not, I am compelled to give the book 4 stars instead because of its non-comprehensive critique. But having said that, I strongly stress that what Ware DOES cover in this book is outstanding and represents a very able and formidable refutation of open theism and its implications on the faith overall, as well as individual believers. He effectively shows that open theism is purely a human concoction that requires repeated caveats in order to cover up its rather obvious shortcomings - caveats which are actually in contradiction with the stated principles of open theism. Similar to Geisler's refutation of 'neotheism' in another book, Ware effectively shows not only that open theism is an internally inconsistent mess as a matter of scholarship, but also that open theism cannot deliver on many of the rosy promises it makes to undiscerning Christians who are intrigued by this redefinition of God. Ever since this book came out, Boyd and company have been playing defense, and it is clear why this is.
Rating:
Summary: Mostly excellent refutation of Boydism
Review: Bruce Ware has been one of the more prominent evangelicals leading the charge against open theism in evangelical circles. He was one of the key speakers at the most recent meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society which ultimately voted better than 2 to 1 to reject open theism's proposal of a God of limited omniscience. This book is Ware's written attempt to discredit the theology, philosophy, and claims of open theism. For the most part, I think he succeeds. For everything that is taken up in this book, Ware's analysis is devastating to open theism. Ware effectively cuts through much of the sweet talk that's popular in open theism and methodically exposes the many negative ramifications of the openness view in terms of theology and daily Christian living. Ware's critique is very good in taking somewhat complex theological and philosophical material and making it accessible to lay people without watering down the concepts. He also does a good job of quoting extensively from a number of prominent open theism apologists, particularly Greg Boyd. In my view, after reading this book, it would be highly difficult for someone to try and suggest that Ware was erecting a strawman and arguing against that, rather than fairly discrediting the actual premises of open theism as articulated by its leaders. I gave the book 4 stars instead of 5 because I thought that Ware's analysis, while outstanding in the areas that are covered, could have been more exhaustive. To me, among the most problematic ramifications of open theism is the reality that open theism, by definition, must acknowledge at the very minimum the possibility of biblical errancy and fallibility. In my view, one cannot consistently be an open theist as well as a believer in biblical inerrancy, since a great deal of the prophetic material written in the Bible requires the exact kind of divine foreknowledge of the future that open theists say God doesn't possess. At the very least, open theism has to acknowledge that their view requires, for example, that the entire book of Revelation MIGHT prove to be wrong, since by their own view, the prophetic proclamations only represent God's best guesses of what might happen, rather than being part of a divine blueprint that's already in place. In addition, the other major theological problem with open theism is that it requires a fundamental redefining of the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death on the cross. If God doesn't know the future, that means that God could not know with absolute certainty that Christ's death would accomplish anything, since it is conceivable that nobody could have responded to it and believed. This raises huge problems both about the character of God (what are we to think of a God who willingly allows His only Son to be brutally sacrificed if He didn't know for sure that anything good would come from it), as well as what Christ's death on the cross is supposed to represent. Ware has verbally expounded on these critical points in various speeches and lectures, but neither issue is discussed in this book. Because I believe these issues represent monumental theological deficiencies in the openness view, a book worthy of 5 stars would have comprehensively explored these issues. Because Ware does not, I am compelled to give the book 4 stars instead because of its non-comprehensive critique. But having said that, I strongly stress that what Ware DOES cover in this book is outstanding and represents a very able and formidable refutation of open theism and its implications on the faith overall, as well as individual believers. He effectively shows that open theism is purely a human concoction that requires repeated caveats in order to cover up its rather obvious shortcomings - caveats which are actually in contradiction with the stated principles of open theism. Similar to Geisler's refutation of 'neotheism' in another book, Ware effectively shows not only that open theism is an internally inconsistent mess as a matter of scholarship, but also that open theism cannot deliver on many of the rosy promises it makes to undiscerning Christians who are intrigued by this redefinition of God. Ever since this book came out, Boyd and company have been playing defense, and it is clear why this is.
Rating: 
Summary: COGENT,CONVINCING,SCRIPTURAL REFUTATION OF OPEN
Review: Dr. Ware has done a tremendous service with the publication of this polite but pointed refutation of Open Theism. Using careful reasoning,insightful analysis of key Scriptures and thorough research, Open Theism simply has been 'shut out' biblically, intellectually,philosophically,logically,metaphysically. See also Norm Geisler 'Creating God in the Image of Man','Chosen but Free' and Millard Erickson, 'Evangelical Left', 'God the Father Almighty' for additional refutation of Openness and powerful reinforcement of Classical evangelical view. The more one looks into Openness, the more one sees associations with Process thought, acknowledged by both Open Theists and Process Theists such as Pinnock,Rice,Boyd and Process Theologian Cobb. See also BGC Foreknowledge discussion board postings and articles by A.B.Caneday, Erickson et al for daily updated informational debate between proponents of Classical view and Open Theists. One major Open Theist, Greg Boyd is coming out with two new books related to his Open-Process Synthesis view: Myth of the Blueprint (Aug.2001) and Satan and Problem of Evil (Sept.2001). Ware's book will be a great arsenal of defense of the Classical evangelical view, with more expected from him, Caneday and Erickson,Geisler before it's all said and done. Enjoy!
Rating:
Summary: HIGHLY RECOMMEND!
Review: Dr. Ware rates 6 stars for his fair and Scriptural expose' of Gregory Boyd's Open Theory of Bible interpretation,a Bi-Polar Processismic Philosophy lensing to synthesize a Neo-Theology. Dr. Ware systematically dismantles Openism by bringing the Bible to bear on Boydism. What are the major aberrancies of Openist Neo-Process Theory? 1)Rejection of Inerrant Bible. Boyd's own denomination Bapt. General Conference has as Affirmation of Faith "The Bible is Inerrant". Yet Boyd in his across-the-boundaryline latest book 'Across the Spectrum' patronizes the Historic Christian position of an error-free Word of God in favor of an error-ridden Scripture in matters not touching on 'faith & practice'.
Ware and the rest of the Evangelical community wonder: just where,and who gets to decide which, Bible matters DON'T touch on matters of 'faith & practice'? Boyd's allegations cast doubt on Bible reliability. It is wondered why BGC Pres. Jerry Sheveland and Bethel College Trustees haven't counseled with Boyd about his anti-BGC Affirmation views (while on the clergy roster and a college prof), asking for retraction or resignation?? Will the BGC annual convention in June side with Boyd or the Bible on this one? The world wonders! 2)Rejection of specific Exhaustively Divine Definitive Foreknown Factuality prophecies like Elisha's Barley Futures in 2Kings; Gideon & Midianite Dream Sequence; Zechariah the prophet naming King Josiah 300 years in advance; Peter's triple denial (where Boyd has God 'squeezing' Peter to force 3 denials out of him, unwittingly eviscerating openism's libertarian agency with a divine override!); Jeremiah stating as future factuality that 2 false prophets would meet with a doom so memorable, Judah would quote a curse based on the judgment - Jer.29:21-22. 3)Boyd claims the title 'Evangelical' while advocating Neo-Processist ideas like non-literal hell, annihilationism, etc. Boyd claims that the Bible's descriptions of hell as 'outer darkness' and 'flames of fire' are self-contradictory, and can't both be true. Wrong again, Gregory! Aren't there heat energy waves not in the visible light spectrum (ultra-violet, micro-waves, etc.) that can generate tremendous heat energy yet no visible light? Or maybe Boyd hasn't heard of the out-of-body experience of a person who ended up in hell (instead of the usual tunnel of light or paradise). He stood on the shore of a huge lake or sea of flame, but it was dimly lit like zippo-blue-lighter fluid or propane flame emitting hardly any light. He was surrounded by a horrible,inky, suffocating pitch-blackness in the atmosphere all around. Like having it rain and shine at the same time, this man experienced 'outer darkness' and 'flames of lake of fire' simultaneously. Or just think of aerial photos of a forest fire or volcano lava flow at night. All darkness in the sky, with barely a glow of flame. Both at the same time. And both devastatingly real.
All of the Bible's descriptors of hell, while hard for Boyd to imagine, show that the real hell must be infinitely worse than words can incompletely convey. 4)Finally, Ware shows how Openism fails the 'Glory Test'. Does the Bible's portrayal of Divine Attributes like Eternal Exhaustively Definitive Foreknown Factuality of free futures reflect Who the True Jesus is? Or Boyd's 'extensive indefinite forecasting' combined with 'infinite chess grandmaster level intelligence', processism's 'theo-repentism', limited quasi-omniscience, surrendered 'pre-creation-omnipotence', finitized pseudo-omnipresence, etc. more accurately depict the Bible's God to fullest magnified Glory? Which Jesus is to be worshiped?? He who has ears, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches! Stay tuned for Ware's forthcoming God of Greater Glory. Also, see the fine 'God Under Fire' and 'Beyond the Bounds' for equally devastating expose's of the misguided, misbegotten, misinterpretive neo-processist heterodox philosophtheology called Open Theory, with its origins in Boyd's doctoral dissertation TRINITY & PROCESS, a hybrid sterile mule mutated from a healthy horse(Historic Christianity)+ diseased donkey(Hartshornian Process Philosophy). "God is greater than our hearts, and He knows EVERYTHING."
Not 'everything there is to know' or 'everything logically knowable' or 'everything as fact except free futures' or
'pretty much everything' or 'everything our genuine freedom confines Him to' or 'everything possible'. But EVERYTHING. Categorically. Unqualifiedly. Unrestrictedly. Unreservedly. Exhaustively. Free Future Factuality. Limitlessly. Omni-presciently. Without risk of contradiction. Settled in Transcendent Infinity-Eternity as if accomplished fact in Immanent Space-Time (though the Lord may change His stated intentions based on His unstated ones - see Jesus & Philip and the feeding of the 5,000 in John 6:6). "Dear children, keep yourselves from idols." (1John 5:21)
Rating: 
Summary: Maybe we should all just stop and count to ten.
Review: I had a nice, long, maybe even scholarly review of this book ready to go but then I thought, "You know, there's been toomuch angry ink spilled over this subject already." So I ditched all my really juicy points and am just going to give you the short version: On the whole, this book is an unwelcome addition to the open theism debate. Even if Ware's arguments are correct (a big if, in my opinion), his unending sarcasm and invective pretty much guarantee that no open theist is ever going to be able to listen to him. If you want to learn about open theism, this book is definitely not the place to start. Ware just doesn't seem able to sustain the fair-mindedness he manages to show in his early chapters. He draws too many unwarranted conclusions and produces too many distortions of the open thiesm position. Instead, I would suggest the Intervarsity Press book "Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views", and the many works referenced therein. (This is available from Amazon, by the way.) I will give Ware credit for one thing: he does show that the open theists have not produced iron-clad arguments in defence of their position. He shows that they have their work cut out for them, particularly in regard to prophecy. (He thinks his arguments along these lines pretty much put an end to open theism, but I think that is far overstating the case.) If you are somewhat familiar with open theism and are maybe thinking of taking the open theism plunge, you should definitely look before you leap and familiarize yourself with some of the arguments Ware makes. But I really don't think this book is the place of choice to do it. Again, I would start with "Divine Foreknowledge" and move on to the works referenced there. If you want a very good overview of the more traditional approaches to the foreknowledge question, I can't think of a better book than Linda Zagzebski's "The Dilemma of Freedom and Foreknowledge" (ISBN 0195065581 -- don't know if Amazon carries it or not), but be prepared to digest some real philosophical red meat!
Rating:
Summary: from a student of Dr. Ware...
Review: I had the privilege to hear much of this book in lecture form in Dr. Ware's class on the Doctrine of Providence. In response to a few of the other reviews let me say: 1) Dr. Ware does indeed understand the issues he has written about. He is good friends with Greg Boyd and has spoken to him about the issue many times. Dr. Ware knows the position of Open Theism as good as any Open Theist does. Yet he disagrees with the position. Why? Mainly, because Open Theism does not adequately deal with the teachings of Scripture. As he points out, Open Theism has serious flaws both on theological and philosophical levels. 2) Calvinism doesn't really play into the discussion. I believe Dr. Ware would think that an Arminian view of God would be closer to the Biblical text than that of the Open Theist. Open Theism comes close to, if not crosses, the line of evangelicalism. Regardless if Dr. Ware if a 5,4,or 3 point Calvinist, the point of the book is whether or not Open Theism accurately interprets the Biblical text, giving us a Biblical view of God. In the end, I believe he rightly says "no" and that with Open Theism we are given a God of "lesser glory."
Rating:
Summary: HIGHLY RECOMMEND!
Review: I was so thankful to find this book. I had some disturbing feelings about the open view and Greg Boyd. I visited Boyd's church several times, but something was not right. I also knew a couple who attended there. The wife was a HUGE Dr. Boyd follower. She ended up divorcing her husband and neither Dr. Boyd nor his church stepped in to help. His advice was similar to the advice he shares in another book about the woman named Susanne. Open theism is a very harmful belief system and Bruce Ware has the knowledge of it to be able to present it as he does in this book. It was not until I read this that I really understood why I was so inwardly bothered at Boyd's church and I understood why this wife felt there was nothing wrong with divorcing her Christian husband. The open view is actually very liberal and it is an extreme teaching of grace that pushes grace beyond the "boundaries" in the Bible. This made sense when I thought of this couple's divorce. She would say, "Well God is going to forgive me" and I know her beliefs came from Dr. Boyd's teachings on God who is truly a "lesser" God because Boyd's God does not require obedience. Ware presents this philosophy clearly although some of it was hard for me to follow because I am not familiar with philosophy and various beliefs (like Armenism). I hope he will write another book on the open view and I would encourage this for all Christians to read so that they are not deceived by the open view's teachings. I do hope though that all future books like this will be more in layman terminology because for those unfamiliar with many of the terms, it can be hard to read.
Rating:
Summary: A Commendable Response to Open Theism
Review: Of all of the evangelical theologians today who are clamoring to counter the spread of Open theism, Bruce Ware is finally the one to launch a worthy primary assault on behalf of all those in the evangelical Classical theism camp. Though at times, particularly when dealing with Open theism's hermeneutical discrepencies, one would have hoped for him to delve a bit deeper, overall Ware delivered a well-rounded and an as-close-to-objective-as-possible look at Open theism and its immediate ramifications. For all of the laypersons in the evangelical community (and those outside of it, for that matter), this book will give you a tangible grip on that sinking feeling you felt when you first learned of Open theism's theological framework--most particularly, clear and logical reasons why you should maintain your Classical theism viewpoint. For all of the laypersons in the growing Open theism community, this book will give you something firm to grapple with and to effectively challenge your belief system. Either way one looks at it, in "God's Lesser Glory" Bruce Ware makes a great contribution, not only to theological thought as a whole, but also to the mounting Open theism debate that has begun to rage across the nation. This book is a must-read for anyone interested or even dabbling in the realm of the Open theism controversy.
Rating: 
Summary: Good, not Great arguments...
Review: Recently I spent some time reading Boyd's book "The God of the Possible". I wanted to hear from a supporter of Open Theism what they believed. While I found Boyd to be a good writer, I found his exegetical analysis irresponsible and his logical arguments untenable. I don't know everything about Open Theism. It makes some interesting points. I might even consider the view if I found a compelling argument. But Boyd's argument was anything but compelling and I felt he left the door wide open for a cataclysmic counter-argument from the classical view.
Being interested in the classical response, I picked up God's Lesser Glory. But when I read Ware's book I found it somewhat dry and redundant. Don't get me wrong, Ware made some promising points that defended the classical view admirably. But I felt he spent too much time repeating and reinforcing his arguments than building upon them. And I enjoyed reading Ware's scriptural correction of Boyd's exegetical blunders, but I felt there was opportunity to attack open theism from a philosophical position as well - a missed opportunity.
If you look at how Boyd argued, time and again you will notice how he trips over his own feet. But Ware did not expose these arguments as elementary. Granted, Ware adressed some of the issues men like Boyd raised. But I fear Ware may have held back attacking Boyd's aruments in fear of seeming malevolent toward Boyd himself. It is unfortunate as Boyd deserves to be called out on every fallacious argument he makes (as anyone, either classical or open does)!
Open Theism has everything to prove if it wants to be taken seriously. If Boyd is the best Open Theism can produce (which I doubt he is), I fear open theists will be dissapointed; longevity will not be their companion. As I read through Boyd's child-like logic, the conslusions left me wondering if Boyd was even concerned with being cogent. But Ware did not take full advantage of this. Ware did not counter with a knockout punch.
An example of where one should have been given was the problem of evil and determinism for the open theist. Boyd argues early on that God does not know what any individual will choose, but he does know with great certainty what a group of people will choose. To put it another way, he proposes that it is easy for God to predict the actions of a mob but difficult to predict the actions of an individual.
When this is applied to his own worldview, it follows that God can predict with great accuracy how many people will suffer the fate of eternal damnation. God may not know which individual would not choose him, but he does know that most individuals will NOT choose him!
God knows that most of his creation will suffer the pain of hell. What, then, does open theism offer in this area that classical theism doesn't? Nothing. Boyd criticises the classical view in which God creates people he knows will enter the gates of hell, yet his criticism is self-defeating as the God of open theism suffers the same problem (if you want to call this a problem). The God of Open Theism knowingly creates people who will go to hell, there is no recolciliation here. But Ware never made this argument, he never even mentioned the open theistic idea that God knows with great certainty what the mob will freely choose. The door Boyd left wide open was never walked through.
This being a book review I won't take the time to polish my own argument. I realize there are holes in it, but this is not the place to fill them in. Ware's book, however, IS the place for these arguments and I feel he left the cupboard empty in some areas. I suppose Ware had to choose what he wanted to battle, but I would have liked to see a retaliation against Boyd in full force.
Thus this was a good book but it was not a great book.
Rating:
Summary: Fine Review
Review: Solid critique of a very controversial movement. Try alos John Frame's *No Other God* (2001).
|
