Rating: 
Summary: Rigorous exegesis, sound thinking and careful discrimination
Review: Sometimes the Openness debate generates more heat than light, but Ware's book is a delightful exception. The volume is shot through with sound exegesis that demonstrates God's exhaustive and definite foreknowledge of the future choices of free agents. Chapter 4 corrects exegetical errors made by Openness Theology, and chapter 5 is Ware's refreshingly careful exegesis of a long list of passages that teach the traditional view. The book's argument is both penetrating and devastating. Rather than sweep the "partly open future" motif into the "dustbin of anthropomorphism," Ware shows that if an exegete takes the "open future" passages at "face value," as the Openness theologians think we should, then God would be ignorant of the present as well as the past, and He would need reminding of things. A "face value" hermeneutic proves too much for the Open Theists (reductio ad absurdum). The book also gives a helpful definition of the all too often undefined category of "anthropomorphism" on page 86. Unlike some theologians who have taken up their pens against this contemporary error, Ware rightly and judiciously discriminates between Open Theism and Arminianism. The former is outside the camp of evangelicalism, not the latter. This book never targets Arminianism; instead, it aims directly at the diminished god of Open Theism and proves that he is not the God of the Bible. Finally, throughout the entire work, the author's tone is urgent but kind, firm but loving, and polemical but pastoral. I heartily recommend this book to everyone who wants to know what the Bible says about God's knowledge of the future.
Rating:
Summary: Rigorous exegesis, sound thinking and careful discrimination
Review: Sometimes the Openness debate generates more heat than light, but Ware's book is a delightful exception. The volume is shot through with sound exegesis that demonstrates God's exhaustive and definite foreknowledge of the future choices of free agents. Chapter 4 corrects exegetical errors made by Openness Theology, and chapter 5 is Ware's refreshingly careful exegesis of a long list of passages that teach the traditional view. The book's argument is both penetrating and devastating. Rather than sweep the "partly open future" motif into the "dustbin of anthropomorphism," Ware shows that if an exegete takes the "open future" passages at "face value," as the Openness theologians think we should, then God would be ignorant of the present as well as the past, and He would need reminding of things. A "face value" hermeneutic proves too much for the Open Theists (reductio ad absurdum). The book also gives a helpful definition of the all too often undefined category of "anthropomorphism" on page 86. Unlike some theologians who have taken up their pens against this contemporary error, Ware rightly and judiciously discriminates between Open Theism and Arminianism. The former is outside the camp of evangelicalism, not the latter. This book never targets Arminianism; instead, it aims directly at the diminished god of Open Theism and proves that he is not the God of the Bible. Finally, throughout the entire work, the author's tone is urgent but kind, firm but loving, and polemical but pastoral. I heartily recommend this book to everyone who wants to know what the Bible says about God's knowledge of the future.
Rating:
Summary: EXCELLENT!
Review: Thank you, thank you, thank you! This was an excellent book that helped me understand open theism more. I had heard of the controversy but did not quite understand it, but it left me feeling uneasy. That much I knew. Open theism is frightening. I have loved ones who attend a church that teaches open theism, and they never seem to grow past baby Christian status, making choices and decisions in their lives based on emotions and not true mature understanding of God and the Bible, even though they claim their decisions are "of God." In reality, they are very self-serving decisions that have resulted in much pain. This book really shed a lot of light for me and I will recommend it to friends and family who are also uninformed or confused over this whole open theism movement. THANK YOU Bruce Ware!!
Rating: 
Summary: A commendable defense against Open Theism
Review: This is a thought provoking book, although I was not always satisfied with Ware's answer and arguments presented. Ware did a fine job in explaining what Open Theism is and why people are attracted to it. His critique of Open Theism was quite detailed and it shows that he knows his opponents well and is familiar with the materials. However, there are a few major shortcomings in his arguments: i) Ware's position would have a hard time dealing with the "Problem of Evil" due to its God-will-always-succeed approach. Ware admitted this in the book. He said he would deal with it in his forthcoming book but I doubt a satisfactory answer would be given. Let's wait and see. ii) Ware has to have faith in God's benevolence given his position and the problem of evil, while Boyd has to have faith in God's power to be in control even if he does not completely foreknow the future. I do not see any obvious advantage in adopting Ware's position. iii) Ware did not really address the problem of interpreting some passages in the Bible which portray a God who is vulnerable, say, for example, the book of Hosiah. Boyd's position would be simpler and more consistent than Ware's in explaining this. To me, a vulnerable and suffering God, who is not only loving but is also Love, is a more accurate portrayal than a sovereign king who controls everything. iv) Ware did not really solve the problem on prayer. Does prayer make any difference after all? How could God truly "respond" to my prayer if the future is already, so to speak, fixed? Again, I could not see any obvious advantage in adopting his position. I have to say some of Ware's arguments were well put and the overall presentation was clear. I enjoy reading the book. I was nearly convinced by him at some points (e.g. when he talked about Abraham's offer of Issac and God's knowledge about Abraham's thinking and intention). But when I come to think about the overall picture as presented in the Bible, I still tend to agree with Open Theism. I am glad that Ware pointed out some of the weaknesses in the Open Theist position, which made me reflect upon them seriously. The book serves two purposes: a) to reconfirm the belief of those agree with Classical Theism (with some good arguments); and b) to push Open Theists to think about their own position and try hard to rebut through sound exegesis. Personally, I think Ware's work is the best defense of Classical Theism against Open Theism so far. It is certainly better than Geisler's "Creating God in the Image of Man", which did not present Open Theism's position fairly. I am now anxiously awaiting Boyd's reply. It will be an interesting debate.
Rating: 
Summary: Good Classical Presentation, lacks interpretative depth
Review: Ware is excellent in his presentation of Classical Theism. The problem I run into is his lack of hermeneutical theory. He says that you cannot always interpret Scripture in a straightforward manner. On this point, he is correct. But then he turns around and wants the reader to believe the classical view, which is based upon the reading of Scripture in a straightforward manner. The problem with these types of classical theistic works is that they tell us that open theism is using metaphor incorrectly. Metaphors don't really tell us a whole lot about God, but then classical theists don't tell us what these passages are supposed to mean. They simply dismiss open texts as metaphorical deviance and never tell us how open texts fit in to the classical model. In other words, they ignore open texts. My other major problem with Ware's book comes on page 145 when he tells us that we should not use the life of Christ as the foundation for telling us what God is like. If we use Christ's life as a road-map to understand God, then "we conceive of God wrongly as being subject to experiencing those aspects of human weakness and limitations which Jesus underwent for the purpose of his mission." It seems to me that the more you try to make razor-thin distinctions between Jesus and God, the more you drift into polytheism. In other words, what characteristics or features would make Jesus God if you deny some of the aspects of humanity? In my opinion there are serious trinitarian issues in Ware's approach. Here is the question that Ware raises in my mind, does our concept of God come from the Old Testament or the New? Ware thinks Old Testament. This is shown by his concentrated look at God from the OT. Is the OT authoritative and overrides the NT in our conception of God? I don't think so. You cannot take the OT out of context when looking at the NT. If our conception of God comes from both the OT and the NT, then the life and humanity of Jesus should included in our look at the conception of God. What it comes down to is that classical theists are trying to tell us that their idea of God has more scripture than the openness position. Big deal. The contextual integrity of the Scriptures does not give classical theists the right to ignore open texts. All of scripture tells us about God not just classical scriptures.
| 
