<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: As soon as I see that name
Review: As soon as I see James Scott's name I know the agenda I'll be reading in his review. Read the book, then read his reviews. That's the proper order. Make up your own mind, don't let his scare tactics keep you away from other believer's thoughts and ideas.
Rating:
Summary: A Well Written Support for Openness and Arminian Theology
Review: Dr. Sanders' book is very well written and thought provoking. He raises legitimate philosophical and biblical objections to both classical and Arminian theology. As an Arminian I agree with much more than I disagree with this book. Consistent Arminians affirm libertarian freedom (freewill), general sovereignty (God taking risks), & God's passibility (God being affected by his creation). Classical theists attack this book on much of the shared territory between openness and Arminianism. Because much of the attack against openness is an attack on Arminianism, Arminians should join the debate in defending our relational view of God even though some of views are different from Sanders' and openness. The God Who Risks is a well written case against the classical non-relational view of God, while supporting Openness and Arminian theology. Sanders integrates biblical theology with philosophical theology very well and in an easy to understand manner. Sanders challenged me to evaluate many beliefs I have held over the years and to suggested many new and valid understandings of scripture. This book is a must read for anyone seeking to understand God's relationship with humanity.
Rating: 
Summary: Book that risks credulity
Review: Thank you, Mr. Niles for showing us your "proper" order to find enlightenment. For me the bible came first,then the book itself, then Dr. Ardel Caneday's review on the internet, then Mr. Scott's and others' reviews. Sorry, Mr. Niles. You cannot ignore Dr. Caneday and Mr. Scott and other thoughtful reviewers. They are not taken in by the author's clear agenda to lambast the traditional Christian position and replace it with his own doctoral dissertation's novel opinion. John Sanders is an engaging writer. But his risky views are not engaging me. Nor do they engage the Bible in a fair way as it is to be properly understood. To claim God risks (taking chances on unknowable future outcomes) in the same way humans risk is to anthropomorphize the Lord Himself. This does not come across in a clear, unforced, natural reading of Scriptures. It has to be read into the verses with a pre-agenda control-belief system. Mister Sanders' agenda is to declare traditional Christianity guilty of exegetical malpractice and serious interpretive error in important doctrines. He and his cohorts are on a mission to usher in a neo-reformation of theology to set the church back on course, an open theology user-friendly version. Should he and his supporters be surprised that traditionalists would object to his attacks and, no less fervent, refute them biblically? Should they stand by and let Sanders take such potshots at them for allegedly leading Christendom astray for so long by supposed capitulation to Greek philosophy? This book has an agenda. Which succeeds only with those open to openly misunderstanding the word of God and being captivated by their own brand of philosophies. Better advice is to read the Bible 1st, then these reviews (pro and con) on amazon.com. Then if God leads you, try the book and see if it bears any resemblance to True Christian Beliefs. I think and pray you will find it does not. Dios le bendiga.
Rating:
Summary: Book that risks credulity
Review: Thank you, Mr. Niles for showing us your "proper" order to find enlightenment. For me the bible came first,then the book itself, then Dr. Ardel Caneday's review on the internet, then Mr. Scott's and others' reviews. Sorry, Mr. Niles. You cannot ignore Dr. Caneday and Mr. Scott and other thoughtful reviewers. They are not taken in by the author's clear agenda to lambast the traditional Christian position and replace it with his own doctoral dissertation's novel opinion. John Sanders is an engaging writer. But his risky views are not engaging me. Nor do they engage the Bible in a fair way as it is to be properly understood. To claim God risks (taking chances on unknowable future outcomes) in the same way humans risk is to anthropomorphize the Lord Himself. This does not come across in a clear, unforced, natural reading of Scriptures. It has to be read into the verses with a pre-agenda control-belief system. Mister Sanders' agenda is to declare traditional Christianity guilty of exegetical malpractice and serious interpretive error in important doctrines. He and his cohorts are on a mission to usher in a neo-reformation of theology to set the church back on course, an open theology user-friendly version. Should he and his supporters be surprised that traditionalists would object to his attacks and, no less fervent, refute them biblically? Should they stand by and let Sanders take such potshots at them for allegedly leading Christendom astray for so long by supposed capitulation to Greek philosophy? This book has an agenda. Which succeeds only with those open to openly misunderstanding the word of God and being captivated by their own brand of philosophies. Better advice is to read the Bible 1st, then these reviews (pro and con) on amazon.com. Then if God leads you, try the book and see if it bears any resemblance to True Christian Beliefs. I think and pray you will find it does not. Dios le bendiga.
Rating:
Summary: A Systematic Theology that has more Bible and less Opinion
Review: This book gave me finality to the argument between both extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism. ...I agree with Sanders that, on the other hand, man is mostly a "theomorph" of God since we are created in His image instead of God having anthrophomorphic qualities in order to communicate with man. I especially agree with his implied hermeneutics, i.e., we cannot know God outside of Biblical revelation and SHOULD not attempt to guess His attributes and its qualities outside of revelation. Worse, we should not develop dogmas and doctrines out of these guesses/extrapolations especially when they contradict the rest of scripture, i.e., God relents, God repents, God weeps, etc. The hyper-Calvinist side is especially fond of making "intelligent" guesses about God which redound to creating a different God other than the God of revelation. This is subtle idolatry. Sanders builds his case impliedly on the example of Christ. Christ is God, BUT he limited His omnipotence (Philippians 2), He limited His omniscience ("Only the Father knows..."), etc. One must remember that Christ is co-equal with God, is the image of the invisible God and, hence, God can do what Christ can do including that of limiting Himself. Hence, God's sovereignty, according to Sanders, should not be limited to what man "thinks" God should be, but WHAT HE IS according to revelation in scripture. This book has made me say a final GOODBYE to Calvinism and its roots in Classical Greek philosophy and its attempt to extrapolate a God BEYOND the Bible.
Rating:
Summary: As soon as I see that name
Review: This book gave me finality to the argument between both extremes of Calvinism and Arminianism. ...I agree with Sanders that, on the other hand, man is mostly a "theomorph" of God since we are created in His image instead of God having anthrophomorphic qualities in order to communicate with man. I especially agree with his implied hermeneutics, i.e., we cannot know God outside of Biblical revelation and SHOULD not attempt to guess His attributes and its qualities outside of revelation. Worse, we should not develop dogmas and doctrines out of these guesses/extrapolations especially when they contradict the rest of scripture, i.e., God relents, God repents, God weeps, etc. The hyper-Calvinist side is especially fond of making "intelligent" guesses about God which redound to creating a different God other than the God of revelation. This is subtle idolatry. Sanders builds his case impliedly on the example of Christ. Christ is God, BUT he limited His omnipotence (Philippians 2), He limited His omniscience ("Only the Father knows..."), etc. One must remember that Christ is co-equal with God, is the image of the invisible God and, hence, God can do what Christ can do including that of limiting Himself. Hence, God's sovereignty, according to Sanders, should not be limited to what man "thinks" God should be, but WHAT HE IS according to revelation in scripture. This book has made me say a final GOODBYE to Calvinism and its roots in Classical Greek philosophy and its attempt to extrapolate a God BEYOND the Bible.
Rating:
Summary: Moved
Review: This book has been an eye opener to me. It's essential assumption is the question, how can we know God? And the answer: only in asmuch as He has revealed Himself. I always thought that Scriptures that wrote about God as changing His mind were an anthropomorphism, a human way of speaking about God. But where would we get the knowledge about God to decide if this were the case? We would need higher information, so to speak. But there is none.......
So reluctantly, at first, I had to admit that most of my views on God were actually based on what I thought God would be like. We know all the "omni's". Sanders challanges this idea and he does so forcefully.
To my surprise, this did not diminish God. On the contrary, in stead of being a director dictating His play, He actually uses the input of the actors (good and bad) and still proceeds towards His goal. Like using David's sin to have the Messiah come forth (ultimately) from Bathseba. An amazing God, a great God indeed. Reading this book I was moved to tears and I stand in awe before the Lord of Lords. My Lord and my God!
Rating:
Summary: Moved
Review: This book has been an eye opener to me. Its essential assumption is the question, how can we know God? And the answer: only in asmuch as He has revealed Himself. I always thought that Scriptures that wrote about God as changing His mind were an anthropomorphism, a human way of speaking about God. But where would we get the knowledge about God to decide if this were the case? We would need higher information, so to speak. But there is none.......
So reluctantly, at first, I had to admit that most of my views on God were actually based on what I thought God would be like. We know all the "omni's". Sanders challanges this idea and he does so forcefully.
To my surprise, this did not diminish God. On the contrary, in stead of being a director dictating His play, He actually uses the input of the actors (good and bad) and still proceeds towards His goal. Like using David's sin to have the Messiah come forth (ultimately) from Bathseba. An amazing God, a great God indeed. Reading this book I was moved to tears and I stand in awe before the Lord of Lords. My Lord and my God!
Rating:
Summary: GOD & RISK NEVER FOUND IN SAME BIBLE VERSE
Review: This PhD dissertation from a prominent Open Theorist shows why this movement is beyond borderline evangelical, but somewhere between Historical Classical Orthodoxy and Processistic/Neo-
Socinian Rationalistic Ultra-Libertarianism. Some brief quotes from a rebuttal from BOUND ONLY ONCE -FAILURE OF OPEN THEISM: "Openness movement as showcased in Sanders' God Who Risks violates fundamental principles of Bible interpretation, one of which is that passages clearly asserting a Doctrine or Divine
Attribute (didactic) are to shed light on narrative/mortal referent/interactive texts, consistent with how language describing God in corporeal terms is properly interpreted by such 'Seat of Doctrine' texts as John 4 "God is Spirit".
Sanders turns this principle on its head, going to great lengths to establish patterns from narrative,interactive texts and then
superimposing those templates onto clear,didactic
Doctrinal/Divine Attribute texts.
Voila'! Lo and behold! By this Interpretive Theory (used by
Socinians in 16th Century) their deity changes his mind,repents,
is sorry for misjudgments,regrets unfortunate decisions,is caught off guard,surprised,learns new things,grows in knowledge,
is ignorant of self-determining free-agent futures,runs risks,
is vulnerable,etc." "Sanders charges two-thousand years of Church History/Biblical
Interpretation (including Church Fathers, Roman Catholic,Eastern
Orthodox,Reformers,Historic Evangelical Theologians,Scholars and
Laity,etc.) with 'hermeneutical(interpretive) malpractice'" with woefully inadequate substantiation." "With its skewed presuppositions that God has only 'limited omniscience',i.e.multiscience of what will happen in free-agent
futures, Openness must reconstruct plain verses to the contrary.
The story of Joseph is a case in point. The clear text,even accepted by rabbinic/Jewish teaching as well as centuries of historical protestantism, is taken at face-value "You (Joseph's
brothers) meant evil against me; but God meant the evil for good,in order to bring it about as it is this day to save many people alive."(Gen.50:20)
Sanders' spin is dismissive at best-"I TAKE this to mean God has
brought something good out of their evil actions..Joseph suggests that everyone look on the bright side - what God has done through this."
From a profound,theological declaration of God's unmitigated
providence (using sinners' evil as His tool for worldwide good,though Joseph had to suffer in the interim in slavery/prison
through no fault of his own - much like Job), Sanders reductionism yields "Serendipity!" "Whether intentional or not, the Openness reading of Scripture,if
applied throughout Theology, renders direct teachings of the Bible vacuous if not incomprehensible." "Contrary to Scripture's plain,millennia-long recognized emphasis/textual saturation of God as King/Sovereign, 'Sanders is quite eager to replace God as King with 'Risk-taker'.
The 'risk' of creation had a 'great chance of success and little possibility of failure..although sin was possible -given this sort of world-it simply was not plausible in view of the good
environment God established and the love he bestowed.'
Sanders' Open Theism reduces the deity to a cosmic gambler, and not a very winning one at that." "Sanders and his Openness colleagues reduce God to the level of a t.v. meteorologist -one who makes astute,professional,expertly informed prognostications based on all known variables/possibilities and their probabilities,i.e.educated guesses. It is one thing to base your picnic plans on a
weatherman's forecast. But the Openness deity is,unfortunately,
on multiple occasions, not much more infallible with the goings on in His Own universe, especially in the lives of all the billions of self-determining free-agents who activate their libertarian futures in ways unbeknownst to God in advance, creating all sorts of unlikely scenarios that take Him by divine
surprise, like Holocausts,Pogroms,Terrorism,Wars,Persecutions
and countless personal tragedies/horrors. And we are expected to trust a God like that?!?" "A deity who risks is by implication one who has faith. Yet in all the Bible, neither 'faith' nor'risk' is ascribed to the LORD,
whether explicitly or implicitly. Actually, the Holy Spirit
declares '(mortals) live by faith, not by sight'. It is clear
from Declarative/Didactic texts that The LORD lives by Divine/Definite/Exhaustive Hindsight,Insight,Foresight." "Events as significant as the Fall were, in Sanders'opinion,
'totally unexpected', and even the cross was unplanned. Sanders
realizes he is making an outrageous/shocking claim '-The notion that the cross was not planned will seem scandalous to some
readers.' Nothing short of a direct assault on the Deity of not only Christ, but the Father Himself! A cursory review of all
the prophecies/fulfillments in John's Gospel alone show this to be sheer fabrication and borderline blasphemous." The only 'risk' is in the imaginative mind of the postgraduate
student who chose such a 'risky' topic for his dissertation and those who choose to run the risk of leaving the Bible farther and farther behind with each passing page! The evangelical envelope has been successfully stretched - and torn to tatters no longer able to contain the Word of God or the God of the Word.
Rating:
Summary: Balancing it out...
Review: What the author is claiming with his book of a 'risk-taking' deity boils down to: the Classical,Historical,Evangelical
Orthodox view of Jesus Christ as He Who
1)Has uncoercive exhaustive divine/definite foreknowledge of all free-agent futures;
2)Has a Father Who was not finitized/temporalized/self-limited
in His Divine Attributes/Nature in the Incarnation or ever;
3)In His Own Divine Nature,not to be confused with His human
nature, was not finitized/temporalized/self-limited in either His
Pre-incarnate or Post-Resurrection/Glorified state;
4)Never sinned,erred,lied,misspoke,failed,misprophesied,faulted,
got things wrong necessitating repenting,regretting,being sorry,
changing the Divine Mind/Will;
5)Gave us His Written Word Infallible,Inerrant,Perfect and Holy as He is the Word of God Incarnate/LOGOS according to Sanders turns out to be the WRONG Jesus. There is ANOTHER Jesus he would like to introduce the reader to. Augustine,Athanasius,Hus,Wycliff,Luther,Melanchthon,Calvin,Knox,
Zwingli,Arminius,Wesley,C.S.Lewis,et al GOT IT WRONG,not just in minor,peripheral,disputable doctrinal points, but MAJORLY wrong in the Major,Cardinal,Fundamental,Non-negotiable Doctrines of
Christianity such as: Omniscience (redefined by Open Theory to include an element of
NESCIENCE,i.e.ignorance of a significant part of the Future)
Omnipresence (redefined by Open Theory as not always entirely present in His Presence in all point-moments of space-time at once, sort of 'quasi-omni')
Omnipotence (redefined a la Charles Hartshorne's Processism as a type of power-sharing arrangement whereby some of God's power/autonomy/sovereignty is transferred to creatures to give them a say in how the universe is run)
Nature of the Future (NOT REAL to Open Theory until created by free agents,thus non-existent for even God to know as definite)
How to interpret anthropomorphism texts (Open Theory bases its whole premise on not reading its Bible correctly, or even
consistently with their own misbegotten hermeneutics, taking what has always been understood as figurative,metaphoric,man-
likeness,analogous language and woodenly literalizing it into
Theomorphism,i.e. God-likeness correlates to man-likeness in terms of repentability,risk,surprise,error,regret,limitation,etc)
Monopolar Theism (Sanders' colleague Clark Pinnock seems to hold to more of an LDS view synthesized with Processistic views and posits a Neo Bi-Polar Theism).
Divine Nature/Attributes of Father,Son,Holy Spirit (In Open Theory tweaking,redefinition,downgrading of Divine Attributes,a different christ is unwittingly fabricated contrary to Historic
Christianity). It would be understandable and acceptable to concede that some of the above great theologians/Church Fathers/Reformers got some peripheral points wrong in some areas and still remain safely within the boundaries of Evangelical Orthodox Church. But for ALL
of them to be Majorly Wrong in ALL these Major areas,requiring
Open Theory sympathizers to act as latter-day 'reformers' to get the Church's Theology back on track the way the Apostles would have understood(as if we didn't already have their definitive
teachings in the Epistles!!)is more than presumptuously stretching credulity! Sanders even accuses those disproving his
Risky Open Theory of exegetical malpractice as if it has been going on for centuries! If Open Theory and Sanders in this book are right, Classical
Historic Christianity has been Heterodox all along in these Major
Doctrinal areas. Why the Lord of the Church allowed this Classical-Traditional aberrancy to prevail and persist for so long is the Open Mystery of the month! But fear not! Open Theory to the rescue! What Luther did for the Catholic Church, the author will gladly undertake to reform the Evangelical Protestant
(and Eastern Orthodox,Roman Catholic) Church and Rabbinic Judaism
for good measure regarding these Major Monotheistic Doctrines about the Divine Nature/Attributes of the LORD GOD! If only the Open Challenge to Classical Historic Christianity were a minor debate about the nature of the future. Or an intra-
mural peripheral dispute about some fine points of theology. Or a denominational/theological rivalry between Calvinism and
Arminianism re: the SAME JESUS. Alas, it's much more than that. It's literally WHICH JESUS CHRIST
is the REAL JESUS? One contestant(the reigning Champ) is the Classical Jesus. The
underdog contender/challenger for the Title is Open christ.
The World and the Church need to know for sure Who the REAL
JESUS CHRIST is. The Exhaustive Definite/Divine Foreknowledge
Jesus, or not? The Omniscient Jesus, or the part-Nescient one?
The Unrepentable Jesus Who never erred/sinned/misprophesied/was
unaware of His sin-bearing mission of fulfillment of prophesy,
or not? The Perfect,Holy,Sovereign-beyond-risk Word of God
Incarnate of the Perfect,Infallible Hindsight-Insight-Foresight
Holy Word of God Written, or not? The Jesus for Whom the Future is just as REAL/Knowable-as-Definite as Past/Present, or not? They are mutually exclusive. There can't be both of these, the
Reigning Champion and the underdog challenger, holding the Title
simultaneously. One must displace/defeat the other. They can't
co-exist in the same Church and have Truth be True Truth and the Bible be correctly understood. Which is it to be?
Norm Geisler has it right in his new book BATTLE FOR GOD. It
literally is a Battle for JESUS. Sanders' claim that Classical has developed/inherited a deity of its own making via philosophy
and non-biblical premises,consigns legitimate anthropomorphism
texts to the scrap-heap of irrelevancy,is guilty of interpretive
malpractice,misrepresents God and Christ,etc. cuts both ways.
Someone's claims are invalid. Someone's premises and postulations
and pontifications are not viable. Someone's not reading their
Bible right. Four stars deducted for departing from the Bible with each passing page; one star for making his Open Theory christ so patently/egregiously at variance with Scripture as to be self-
exposed as Heterodoxy. See also Dr. A.Caneday's review of this book on the web and John Frame's excellent critique NO OTHER GOD.
<< 1 >>
| 
