Creating God in the Image of Man?

Rating:
Summary: God Created Man in His Image: Openness Returns Compliment
Review: Cogent and persuasive refutation of 'free will'theism. Much food for thought for both sides of the issue. Makes excellent observation of Control Beliefs' determinant influence on presuppositions,regardless of contrary data. Openness premises in, openness out(no surprise there!) Of course the same could be said for Classical position. Granted. The point is: which presumptions are most plenarily biblical, not selectively (Is God tenseless, or tensed or somehow both? Is God timeless, bound by time or both? Is God transcendent, immanent, or both? What can God know about the future and when can He know it? Can God timelessly operate in time?) Which premises are most tenable and Scripturally demanded? Which do the authors of the Bible themselves presume or intend to convey to the interpreter? Suggestion for future editions: a few more concrete citations from Scripture, such as Elijah's prophecy/Hazael's anointing (1Ki.19:15-17), Elisha's Tears re Hazael's anti-Israel destiny (2Ki.8:7-15; 10:32; 13:2-7; Hosea 13:16). God specifically tells Elijah to anoint Hazael as king of Aram to judge/punish Israel. Many years later, Elisha prophesies to Hazael about his master king Ben-Hadad's death in detail, then weeps as God reveals to him the evil Hazael will surely do to Israel's young men, infants, pregnant women in brutal conquest. The problem for open theism: how did the Lord know all this, plan for it, arrange for it to freely occur, predict and prophesy it and ascertain these definite future facts in advance to both Elijah and Elisha? Could God appoint and anoint Hazael to freely do what he was definitely foreknown to voluntarily carry out as God's certain instrument of judgment to lead Israel to repentance? Why anoint and declare as certain, surely, definitely, precisely if there was any 'openness','risk of unfulfillment','indefiniteness', 'partial unsettledness' about these detailed matters or if there was any chance for them not to occur just as God said they must? In fact, God got His two big prophets both involved in the anointing and prophecy as if to double-guarantee the outcome! Also, the fact Elisha was weeping seems to indicate a settled reality to quite a level of detail. Real tears reflect genuine,definite future reality/certainty, otherwise the show of emotion is premature overdramatics for only an 'open possibility' vs. a real, gut-wrenching reaction to a vivid, definite certainty. A plain, literal reading of these texts doesn't seem to allow for hypothetical, potential, possibility, maybe/maybe not, perhaps, 'one option among many' or worst case scenario forecast that may have turned out differently (Jesus' bloody sweat/tears in Gethsemane also reflect a settled knowledge/consent/will of God). Here is a certain, literal, definite, specific, foreknown future individual destiny/decision set prophesied and anointed by God many years in advance (first through Elijah, then years later thru Elisha) and precisely fulfilled in vivid, graphic detail which Elisha was given a foreglimpse of eliciting real tears of genuine grief over a definitely ascertainted future. More biblical examples like this would have strengthened this otherwise outstanding defense of Biblical Omnitheism, refuting the 'openness deity' of penultimacy,quasi-eternity,multi-presence, pseudo-omniscience posited by some.

Rating:
Summary: Good explanation, but refutation misses the mark
Review: Geisler succeeds in detailing classical theism in his usual readable fashion. He also succeeds in refuting process theology (panentheism), but is less successful in his refutation of the open view of God, which he refers to as "neotheism". He uses less Biblical support than I would have liked to see, and relies on logic, which is not always coherent. For instance, I was not convinced by his arguments that God is "outside of time". The biggest disappointment, however, is his attempt to show the practical implications of the open view of God. Prayer and evangelism make much more sense under an open view paradigm than they do under the classical model (Augustine / Aquinas) which insists that God is outside of time, predetermining events either by foreknowledge or foreordination.

Rating:
Summary: EXPOSES OPEN THEORIST INTERPRETIVE FLAWS/SKEW
Review: This book warns of a dangerous aberration by the evangelical left
(and so-called 'moderates')of fabricating the deity in man's image. The 'Open Theory' or 'Neo-Theism' deviates from the Historic,Classical,Orthodox interpretation of the Bible held as
generally accepted from Old Test.,Apostolic,Church Fathers,
Reformation eras to Contemporary Conservative Evangelical times
and strays off into the land of neo-Socinian,Post-modernist,
unorthodox skewage.

To understand the Open Theory of Bible interpretation, it is
paramount to grasp the Classical Contemporary Evangelical
Orthodox truth as accurately and fairly summarized (for example
by Millard Erickson's Christian Theology,God the Father Almighty)
Then,compare this balanced Biblical position to the exaggerated
caricature set up by neo-theists such as Pinnock,Rice,Sanders,
Boyd &Co. which is the 'straw theology' they are overreacting
against. Finally,compare the Open Theory with Process Theology
(also called 'panentheism'-God is in all, all is in God, or
pantemporalism -all is in time/temporal,including the deity,
i.e.non-transcendent immanence)from which neo-theists borrow
heavily on their misguided path to aberrancy.

The unfortunate,misbegotten result is a hybrid,blend,synthesis,
hodge-podge of quasi-classical/processistic Bible interpretation
that is less exegesis(objective,plenary extraction of textual
data) than eisegesis(subjective,presuppositional,selective
insertion of extra-textual data).

The orthodox sine qua non of "SCRIPTURE AS A WHOLE INTERPRETS TEXTS IN THEIR PARTS" is turned on its head by the Open Theory to 'Selective,favorable texts in their parts interpret/inform
Scripture as a whole'. Evangelical exegesis has Declarative
texts control Narrative texts,i.e ATTRIBUTE TEXTS CONTROL
ACTION/ALLUSION/NARRATIVE texts, never vice-versa.

For example,Orthodox exegesis takes all Scripture depicting God
as Spirit,invisible,immortal,eternal,infinite,etc.(FIRST SET) as
determinitive/controlling over those texts saying God has
physical form:Right Hand,eyes,ears,sitting,coming down,looking,
wings,etc.(SECOND SET) The First Set is properly understood as
literal,declarative,doctrinal and thus informs/interprets the
Second Set as non-literal,figurative,metaphor,anthropomorphic,
analogy,figures of speech) to arrive at Biblical truth.
Even Open Theorists agree that to reverse the process of having
the Second Set be literal and controlling over the First Set
results in improper interpretation, e.g.'God has wings'.
Equally erroneous is to equate First Set and Second Set as
synonymous/equivalent,e.g.'God is a winged Spirit'.

Sadly and unwittingly, the Open Theory commits this very fallacy
when it comes to non-physical form texts,claiming such 'fresh
exegesis' is superior to Orthodox interpretation. For example,
instead of properly taking all texts depicting God as Spirit,

invisible,immortal,eternal,infinite,all-wise,all-knowing,all-
present,transcendent-immanent,perfect,sinless,infallible,divine,
all-powerful,all-loving/just,kind/stern,self-sufficient,
self-existent,constant/unwavering/unvarying/stable as normative,
literal,declarative doctrinal texts(First Set), it takes texts
saying God 'repents','changes mind','alters plans','adapts to changing circumstances','perhaps','if only','Why?''How long?'
'regrets','rues','risks','takes chances','wonders','is surprised
're-evaluates'(i.e. all favorite texts cited by Neo-theists to
prove their theory)(Second Set) as controlling or at least
equally normative,declarative doctrinal texts on a par with
First Set texts, inconsistent with how they take the physical-form texts.
In other words, one interpretive principle is applied by the Open
Theory for God's EXTERNAL descriptive texts, and another
(the reverse) is applied to God's INTERNAL descriptive texts.
The mortal language of the Bible for God's EXTERNAL characteristics is considered anthropomorphic/metaphor/non-
literal, but for God's INTERNAL characteristics,mortal language
is now deemed literal,non-anthropomorphic,definitive equally with
First Set texts! This is the key to Open Theory: Anthropomorphism is allowed for EXTERNAL mortal language texts,
but NOT for INTERNAL mortal language texts (non-physical form).
No explanation or defense of this inconsistent reversal of
generally accepted Orthodox interpretive principles is ever
given; it is assumed as a presupposition tacitly,a given.

Open Theorists cite and recite about a dozen or so favorite,
selective texts that show God apparently regretting decisions
about making the world (Oops!);repenting of making Saul king
(What have I done?);testing Abraham (I wonder if..);threatening
Nineveh then at the last minute reversing course with a change of heart/mind (Whew,that was close!);warning Hezekiah he would die then,after reconsidering the remorseful king's tears/prayers
revising original plans (Oh,all right, I give in, you win),etc.
These Second Set texts (narrative,not declarative) now become
determinitive and normative to interpret/inform the First Set
texts. So we have "I the LORD do not change (except when it is
expedient/beneficial..)"; "the LORD is not a son of man that He
should repent (except when confronted with new information/
free-agent reality as their unforeseeable futures are activated
necessitating unexpected divine response/reversal..)"

The Open Theory of Bible interpretation both reverses the Orthodox Evangelical Generally Accepted Principles (Second Set
INTERNAL qualities mortal language expressions control or equate
to First Set IMMORTAL,DIVINE ATTRIBUTES)and is inconsistent in applying their backward hermeneutic to these texts, not EXTERNAL
qualities mortal language expressions)
Neo-theists have a deity which repents,rues,runs risks,reverses,
reconsiders - regardless of what clear,literal,doctrinal,
declarative First Set texts say. He repents even though he is not a son of man and thus doesn't repent. He changes when
beneficial though he is the LORD who does not change.
This is what happens when figurative,narrative language texts
interpret or equate with literal,declarative texts, when
metaphor is jettisoned for wooden literalism, when valid
anthropomorphisms are selectively acknowledged and mostly ruled
out as a given before the interpretive process gets started.
This book makes these crucial points abundantly clear to the
reader open to Scriptural witness.
It's either DECLARATIVE,ATTRIBUTES CONTROL ACTION/ALLUSION/
NARRATIVE (Orthodox Exegesis) or vice-versa (Open Theory)
Let the informed reader decide.

Rating:
Summary: Good Resource
Review: This is a good resource for proponents of classical theism to better understand the specific areas where neotheism has retreated from classical theism to align itself more with panentheism, which among other things, professes to believe in a god that is essentially a work in progress. I thought that Geisler did a good job of describing the major tenets of both classical theism and panentheism, and then describing how neotheism attempts to find middle ground between the two.

There are a number of positives about this book. There a couple of charts in the book which are very helpful in comparing the three views discussed in summary form. This gives the reader a very good visual idea of how the three views compare with each other on key points. I thought Geisler also did a good job of demonstrating the incoherence of neotheism as a result of trying to blend various aspects of both classical theism and panentheism together to form a distinct worldview. As Geisler effectively demonstrates, neotheism is in the intellectually dubious position of embracing tenets of both classical theism and panentheism which not only contradict each other, but many of the tenets that they embrace logically require embracing other tenets which they reject. Because of its intellectual incoherency, neotheism becomes a worldview which essentially says that nobody knows anything for sure, including the neotheist version of God. Not exactly a strong foundation to adopt a worldview that we can be confident about. I also thought Geisler's refutation of various Biblical arguments raised by neotheism were adequate in demonstrating the falsity of neotheism, in addition to showing that neotheism's proposal of a God of limited omniscience almost automatically forces an argument for the fallibility of the Bible. Given that this is the logical result of neotheism's proposal about God, it is intellectually dishonest to then try to support their position through Scripture passages, since their own worldview greatly diminishes the divine authority of the very Book they are using to try and support their position. This is one example of the intellectual quagmire that neotheism creates for itself. I thought Geisler handled all this pretty well, in part by affirming the infallibility of Scripture with a few solid evidences that squarely refute neotheism, while referencing other works that go into more exhaustive analysis on the infallibility of the Bible.

I did not give the book 5 stars for a couple of reasons. First, there is a lot of repetition in this book that was not needed. There were a number of instances where Geisler seemed to analyze the same problem multiple times, providing the same answer each time. I also thought that some of the analysis was too summary level and could have stood for more depth, particularly in the area of analyzing the practical consequences of the neotheist view.

But overall, this book provides a solid defense for the intellectual credibility of classical theism and the infallibility of the Bible, while casting significant doubt upon the intellectual and practical credibility of both panentheism and neotheism as a result of their insistence to make God look more like fallible, finite and imperfect humans than the perfect, eternal and holy God of the Bible which actually deserves our worship. This is a needed book that I would recommend for all defenders of classical theism as well as for open minded disciples of process theology or the open view theology. In my mind, neotheism is a very logical consequence of the Christian church not doing a good job discipling and equipping their people on the fundamentals of the faith and why they make sense. And since the Church is not showing many signs of actively reversing this trend, it is my opinion this book becomes all the more critical since neotheism is likely to increase absent a concerted effort on the part of the Church to refute it the way Geisler does here.