 |
| 
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 2/18/2003 10:14 AM (GMT -6) |   | 
Endorsements
The downsized deity of open theism is a poor substitute for the real God of historic Christianity-as taught by Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox theologians through the centuries. This book offers an important analysis and critique of this sub-Christian view of God. Well researched and fairly presented. --Dr. Timothy George, Dean of Beeson Divinity School, Samford University and an executive editor of Christianity Today
Here is a weighty tract for the times, in which a dozen Reformed scholars survey the "open theism" of Pinnock, Sanders, Boyd, and colleagues, and find it a confused, confusing, and unedifying hypothesis that ought to be declared off limits. Some pages are heavy sledding, but the arguing is clear and strong, and the book is essential reading for all who are caught up in this discussion. --Dr. J. I. Packer, Professor of Theology Regent College
Contents
Foreword (John Piper)
Introduction (Justin Taylor)
Part 1 Historical Influences
1 The Rabbis and the Claims of Openness Advocates (Russell Fuller)
2 Genetic Defects or Accidental Similarities? Orthodoxy and Open Theism and Their Connections to Western Philosophical Traditions (Chad Brand)
Part 2 Philosophical Presuppositions and Cultural Context
3 True Freedom: The Liberty that Scripture Portrays as Worth Having. (Mark R. Talbot)
4 Why Open Theism Is Flourishing Now (William C. Davis)
Part 3 Anthropomorphisms, Revelation, and Interpretation
5 Veiled Glory: God's Self-Revelation in Human Likeness-
A Biblical Theology of God's Anthropomorphic Self-Disclosure (A. B. Caneday)
6 Hellenistic or Hebrew? Open Theism and Reformed Theological Method (Michael S. Horton)
Part 4 What Is at Stake in the Openness Debate?
7 The Inerrancy of Scripture (Stephen J. Wellum)
8 The Trustworthiness of God and the Foundation of Hope (Paul Kjoss Helseth)
9 The Gospel of Christ (Bruce A. Ware)
Part 5 Drawing Boundaries and Conclusions
10 When, Why, and for What Should We Draw New Boundaries? (Wayne Grudem)
11 Grounds for Dismay: The Error and Injury of Open Theism (John Piper)
Bibliography on Open Theism (Justin Taylor)
Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8
Edited by - Electra on 02/18/2003 3:16:28 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 2/18/2003 11:44 AM (GMT -6) | | I can't help wondering what Donald Larson (Linguist) would say -- he told stories.
Either Open-ers can dig in their heals, draw lines in the sand, declare themselves a new religion, and proceed to never talk to the rest of "them"...
Or, Open-ers can carry on meaningful, heart-level (because, as G.K. Chesterton said, "To accept everything is an exercise, to understand everything a strain.") dialog about something OTHER than the whole of your disagreements...
And share a common faith.
But, if at every new book there grows a reflex of feeling hurt, and skulking, gazing into the air to decipher glint from gawker...
Then the world shrinks to the size we define our faith as being.
Edited by - Al2Si2H4O9 on 02/18/2003 4:46:51 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
apo64
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 2/18/2003 1:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Just another book out there telling us why somehting isn't true. Post-moderninsm continues.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/18/2003 7:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Who said this (and in what movie)?--"Looks like meat is back on the menu boys!"
Can't wait to get my copy! Yummy. I've heard Caneday on anthropomophic language already. I'll be eager to see what the other contributors say.
Question about the title: Beyond the bounds of what? What are open theists "beyond"? Beyond the bounds of evangelicalism? Beyond the bounds of Christianity? Are they going to come out and say what I've feared they really believe, i.e., that we are not Christians?
Tom
Love never ends
Edited by - TGB on 02/19/2003 07:10:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/19/2003 3:08 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Electra
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611
| Posted 2/19/2003 5:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Al, you’re a hoot. I would agree with Starky’s assessment of the eloquence of your post, except we are Open-ists, not Open-ers! 
apo64, I agree, the hermeneuts of suspicion are at it again! 
glinting and gawking,
Electra
Love in action is a harsh and dreadful thing. ~ Dostoevsky | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/19/2003 12:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Gads! Just look at some of the titles.
Foreword (John Piper)
It should be Backwards (John Piper) (There. I got my snootiness out of the way!)
Introduction (Justin Taylor)
Retrogression (Justin Taylor) (Sorry, I guess I'm not over my snootiness yet!)
2 Genetic Defects or Accidental Similarities? Orthodoxy and Open Theism and Their Connections to Western Philosophical Traditions
How could I have missed it: it's all genetic. So, THAT'S why I believe the Open View, eh! (Well, wait, it could be that there was an accidental similarity.)
Part 2 Philosophical Presuppositions and Cultural Context
3 True Freedom: The Liberty that Scripture Portrays as Worth Having.
To have the authors suggest what is True Freedom (that Scripture Portrays, of course) isn't the least bit presuppositional, is it!
4 Why Open Theism Is Flourishing Now (William C. Davis)
Maybe because it makes sense from a Scriptural perspective.
Part 3 Anthropomorphisms, Revelation, and Interpretation
5 Veiled Glory: God's Self-Revelation in Human Likeness-
A Biblical Theology of God's Anthropomorphic Self-Disclosure (A. B. Caneday)
Well, remember: that which is and is not considered anthropomorphic . . . according to the authors.
7 The Inerrancy of Scripture (Stephen J. Wellum)
I believe in the Inerrancey of Scripture. (By the way, what's this got to do with the Open View, again?)
8 The Trustworthiness of God and the Foundation of Hope (Paul Kjoss Helseth)
I see (if I see where the author's are going): the Open Theist can neither have faith in God as trustworthy, nor can he have a foundation of Biblical Hope. Further, the Open Theist cannot possibly offer a trustworthy God and a foundation of Biblical Hope to another person.
9 The Gospel of Christ (Bruce A. Ware)
Eeek! I'm glad Ware didn't write this part of the book. (Unfortunately, Tom, it is beginning to look as if they will shorty be saying that we Open Theists are not . . . Christians.) But let's just clear this one up.
The Gospel: The Second Person of the Trinity became Flesh, is called the Son God, the Eternal One. He was born of a virgin (I include this, for the sake of ensuring that I am pretty orthodox, all the way around, in my beliefs), He lived and died on a cross to shed His blood so that we might not be eternally seperated from God and that we might overcome Satan's power over us: death. Forgiveness is found only in and through the Christ; "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." One cannot earn one's way a righted relationship with God: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast." The Son of God, will return to earth one day (or at least take us to be with Him forever, however you wish to believe it.)
That's the Gospel. What's this got to do with the Open View?
Part 5 Drawing Boundaries and Conclusions
Well, I can draw conclusions with the best of 'em, but I only draw boundries when I don't want someone crossing over it. And that takes something pretty drastic, much more drastic than someone believing in the Open View, before I'll draw boundries.
10 When, Why, and for What Should We Draw New Boundaries? (Wayne Grudem)
Yes, I was asking the same question. (Well, I was thinking more like, "Why would someone want to put boundaries up to keep me, an Open Theist, out [that's what a boundary is supposed to do, isn't it?]? I certainly do not want to put up boundaries to keep non-Open Theists out.)
11 Grounds for Dismay: The Error and Injury of Open Theism (John Piper)
This, I'm sure, was supposed to have been written "Grounds for Dismissal," but, those darned typos, you know. (I'm not at all injured, nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, injured anyone else, merely because I'm an Open Theist.)
It seems to be getting more than just nasty, folks. Tom's words may be far more omnious than they should ever have to be.
Starkman
Edited by - Starkman on 02/19/2003 5:36:32 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/19/2003 1:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Who said this (and in what movie)?--"Looks like meat is back on the menu boys!"
Alan: The lead Uruk-Hai of the group that captured Merry and Pippin in "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers".
Tom: Question about the title: Beyond the bounds of what? ... Are they going to come out and say what I've feared they really believe, i.e., that we are not Christians?
Alan: At least one of the endorsements seems to say as much:
quote:
The downsized deity of open theism is a poor substitute for the real God of historic Christianity.... This book offers an important analysis and critique of this sub-Christian view of God.... --Dr. Timothy George
As most of you have probably observed, there has long existed a gruding tolerance among the Calvinist/Reformed establishment for Arminianism. If Piper, Sproul, Horton, et al. could put classical Arminians "beyond the bounds" I think they would leap at the chance--the only problem is there's too darned many of them! If you can't beat 'em, then tolerate 'em. Open theists, who simply take the free will aspect of Arminianism to its logical conclusion, are still few in number and have little political clout, however, so the C/R establishment folks see OVers as a convenient target. Attacking open theism is a way to release a couple centuries of pent up hostility that they would like to openly direct at Arminianism in general but can't without marginalizing themselves within evangelicalism.
Anyway, that's my theory as to why the establishment reaction against open theism has been so vitriolic.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/19/2003 6:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: Who said this (and in what movie)?--"Looks like meat is back on the menu boys!"
Alan: The lead Uruk-Hai of the group that captured Merry and Pippin in "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers".
Tom: A man after my own heart! Yes!
Alan: If Piper, Sproul, Horton, et al. could put classical Arminians "beyond the bounds" I think they would leap at the chance…Attacking open theism is a way to release a couple centuries of pent up hostility that they would like to openly direct at Arminianism in general but can't without marginalizing themselves within evangelicalism.
Tom: I think you are soooo right.
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 2/20/2003 3:51 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm in the process of reading this book. So far, looks like something of a mixed bag. There's some new ground forged for the anti-openness cause (e.g. appealing to the views of Rabbis; responding to my neo-Molinist argument) but mostly rehearsing the old arguments. I will say that, so far, at least the tone of this book is not as vitriolic as some previous critiques have been.
It might be fun, if there's enough interest, to do a group discussion on the book. Chapter 1 assigned for March 7th. (our track record on book discussion is admittedly poor. I/we tend to peter out after four chapters. But heh, why not give it another go?)
Doc
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 2/20/2003 4:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Sounds good! But I won't get a copy until I'm in St. Paul next month, but I'll follow along!
Tom
Love never ends | | Back to Top | | |
|
geebob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 94
| Posted 2/21/2003 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Does the book have a name? I just see a broken picture link at the top.
I will gladly pay you teusday for a hamburger today.
-Wimpy | | Back to Top | | |
|
Alan Rhoda
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680
| Posted 2/21/2003 9:07 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Does the book have a name?
It's "Beyond the Bounds: Open Theism and the Undermining of Biblical Christianity", edited by John Piper, et al.
Alan | | Back to Top | | |
|
GODesteem
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 2/23/2003 12:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman writes:
Foreword (John Piper)
It should be Backwards (John Piper) (There. I got my snootiness out of the way!)
Introduction (Justin Taylor)
Retrogression (Justin Taylor) (Sorry, I guess I'm not over my snootiness yet!)
etc, etc....
Me: It might be productive to read the book first, instead of attacking the messengers in the book. I for one don't quite understand your "snootiness" towards John Piper or Justin Taylor.....
God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure! | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 2/23/2003 1:00 PM (GMT -6) | | I think, unless Piper has done a drastic about face, we all know his attitude about open theism, Godsteem.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/24/2003 2:33 AM (GMT -6) | | I was kind of hoping that the "There. I got my snootiness out of the way!" and "Sorry, I guess I'm not over my snootiness yet!" was somewhat of a self-confessional because of my making note of my snootiness. Oh well, I tried. (Been a while, though, since I've not been as hospitable as I like to be, HOWEVER, I wasn't being snooty at Piper (almost wrote Popeye!) or Taylor, only at their position and snootiness toward the Open View. Well, okay, maybe I get a little frustrated with them sometimes also.)
Starkman
| | Back to Top | | |
|
GODesteem
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 34
| Posted 2/24/2003 2:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman writes:
"I was kind of hoping that the "There. I got my snootiness out of the way!" and "Sorry, I guess I'm not over my snootiness yet!" was somewhat of a self-confessional because of my making note of my snootiness. Oh well, I tried. (Been a while, though, since I've not been as hospitable as I like to be, HOWEVER, I wasn't being snooty at Piper (almost wrote Popeye!) or Taylor, only at their position and snootiness toward the Open View. Well, okay, maybe I get a little frustrated with them sometimes also.)"
Me: Just what are you referring to in your definition of snootiness? If someone strongly disagrees with an issue they are defined as
"snooty"? I suppose that makes Mr. Boyd rather snooty himself....
God loves Himself more than anything... He is our greatest treasure! | | Back to Top | | |
|
SeanG
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 278
| Posted 2/24/2003 12:03 PM (GMT -6) | | 
Book Description
A positive presentation of the God of classic Christian theism, the One who in recent years—as for hundreds of years--has become the God Under Fire.
quote:
From the Back Cover
God Never Changes
Or does he? God has been getting a makeover of late, a "reinvention" that has incited debate and troubled scholars and laypeople alike. Modern theological sectors as diverse as radical feminism and the new "open theism" movement are attacking the classical Christian view of God and vigorously promoting their own images of Divinity.
God Under Fire refutes the claim that major attributes of the God of historic Christianity are false and outdated. This book responds to some increasingly popular alternate theologies and the ways in which they cast classical Christian theism in a negative light.
Featuring an impressive cast of world-class biblical scholars, philosophers, and apologists, God Under Fire begins by addressing the question, "Should the God of Historic Christianity Be Replaced?" From there, it explores issues as old as time and as new as the inquest into the "openness of God." How, for instance, does God risk, relate, emote, and change? Does he do these things, and if so, why? These and other questions are investigated with clarity, bringing serious scholarship into popular reach.
Above all, this collection of essays focuses on the nature of God as presented in the Scriptures and as Christians have believed for centuries. God Under Fire builds a solid and appealing case for the God of classical Christian theism, who in recent years—as through the centuries—has been the God under fire.
Have you read this book yet Dr. Boyd?
SeanG!"I quote others only the better to express myself." Michel de Montaigne | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/30/2003 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm in Chapter 4 right now, William Davis', "Why Open Theism is Flourishing Now." I know I'm gonna write up a speil on each chapter, but I would like to know what some of you thought about it so far? Greg? Tom? honorman?
Thus far, I have to say that I agree with Greg that the venom doesn't seem to be so poisonous. But I would like others to weigh in on the book to some extent for now. Can y'all do that?
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/30/2003 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings, all. Long time, no see. Howyadoin?? I've missed you guys. And things are more casual around my way...sooooo....
Say, this may be a good spot for me to start creepin' back into this bad boy. Judging by the names involved and the title, I think I should have some fun with this one. Yeah, I think perhaps so. Heh.
We'll see how it goes. Slowly, but surely. But at least I know what to read at Border's now, if I get bored...
Ta ta for now with mad love,
PS: Doc, two things. One, I'ma holla at you REALLY soon one on one, 'kay? Been thinking about ya. Two, I have some time but not TOO much time (something you can well understand, I'm sure). So level with me. IYHO, are there some really good "new" ideas in the work that we haven't already discussed to death on this board over the years? Is it worth the the time and psychic energy expenditure? Are there particular ideas that get your attention more than others? If so, what are they? I think we'd vibe on the same wavelength with that, for the most part. I've missed ya, man. Stay up. 
PSS:To all the encouraging, praying folx here that's been down with me in my situation, "Thank you" is inadequate to express my gratitude to and love for you...but that's all I can say. So...Thank you. You know who ya are!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/30/2003 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh, and Alan said (with emphases mine):
quote:
As most of you have probably observed, there has long existed a gruding tolerance among the Calvinist/Reformed establishment for Arminianism. If Piper, Sproul, Horton, et al. could put classical Arminians "beyond the bounds" I think they would leap at the chance--the only problem is there's too darned many of them! If you can't beat 'em, then tolerate 'em. Open theists, who simply take the free will aspect of Arminianism to its logical conclusion (Meph's note: Tell it like it is, brah!) are still few in number and have little political clout, however, so the C/R establishment folks see OVers as a convenient target. Attacking open theism is a way to release a couple centuries of pent up hostility that they would like to openly direct at Arminianism in general but can't without marginalizing themselves within evangelicalism.
Right on, I think. Cool thoughts, Alan.
Edited by - MephEternal on 03/30/2003 2:02:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 3/30/2003 4:34 PM (GMT -6) | | Very elegant Al.
You are so right Starkman:
4 Why Open Theism Is Flourishing Now (William C. Davis)
Maybe because it makes sense from a Scriptural perspective.
Yo Meph! It's good to have you back. I'm glad you're getting some answers to prayer. Hope to see you this summer.
Tom! How's the Sunshine state? Will you ever be able to go home with the war on?
I'm hoping to pick up a copy of the book this week. I can't wait to read more about neo-Molinism. ha.
Thy love did read by rote and could not spell. - Friar Laurence. - Shakespeare | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 3/31/2003 3:10 AM (GMT -6) | | MEPH-MY-MAIN-MAN!!!!! Bout time dude! Get your booty back on this board straight time! You got me straight tripp'n boo. I, and we, miss you a great deal. Been thinking and praying about you quite abit, especially the last three weeks. I've been planning on giving you a call one of these days, just to check up. Well, you're "creep'n" your way back onto the discussion board, so we're moving in the right direction.
Meph: are there some really good "new" ideas in the work that we haven't already discussed to death on this board over the years? Is it worth the the time and psychic energy expenditure? Are there particular ideas that get your attention more than others? If so, what are they?
Doc: Dude, we've about hashed over EVERYTHING -- and numerous time. But there's value in repetition... you sometimes get new perspectives and such. Its pretty much all the same stuff, sometimes argued a little better, sometimes worse, than previous books. I think it would be fun to discuss.
The only new piece is chapter 2 which discusses the Rabbi's. Prima facia, I see some flaws in the research and methodology. But this is a real caveat in my education, so I need to at some point dive into this material and deal with it. I don't know if its worth discussing on the board since it deals with historical material, not just biblical or philosophical arguments. And this is the kind of stuff you either know or don't. I don't. If someone out there DOES, and has read this chapter, I'd be interested in hearing from them.
Lets talk.
Greg
ps. I've been acused of MANY things, but "snooty" has never been one of them.
pss. I've confess I've never read God Under Fire. I paged through it and it didn't "grab me." It seemed a rehashing of all the same stuff, and I was at the time to tired and bored with the topic to read another book on it. If I ever plan on writing a response to critics, I will certainly read it.
"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6 | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/31/2003 4:29 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Say, this may be a good spot for me to start creepin' back into this bad boy. Judging by the names involved and the title, I think I should have some fun with this one. Yeah, I think perhaps so. Heh.
Hee, hee, hee...Ooooo...the fire's gonna be taking off soon! I'm starting to feel the heat already! Greg, you're right on man. I think it is well worth it to go over this stuff, really. As a matter of fact, as each anti-open theist book pops off the shelves, while I think it would be good for there to be a particular response to THAT PARTICULAR BOOK, with another book? We could consider this (this thread) to be the starting place for THIS book. But I still say, something ultimately needs to be put down on paper. Whacha think? Anyway, I see some stuff here that I think the Meph Man would agree with, fo sheezy, i.e. libertarian freewill (Chapter 3 Mark R. Talbot).
I had some of the hardest time understanding the Meph Man on this, but Talbot has made it ALL soooo clear now!! Praz ya Jeeeesus. Still, I would want to know where the Meph Man would agree or disagree and where you (Greg) would agree or disagree. I mean I really need the lo' down on that. But I also want the to see this for the whole book. I want to try to get the "whole picture." Though I get it? I still need some clarity on some things. Clear vision. Smooth it out. Shoot, I still want that for the 9/11 thread...MEPH!! Anyway, we'll get to that. Sooo...Meph man??? Terry??? Alan??? TGB??? Modes??? Electra??? honorman??? and the rest of you guys...shake it!
Brandon
"Mommy, I know now that the terms, 'I'll knock yo' teeth down yo' throat!' meant you'd love me in the special way you do everyday of my life."--Darwin Hobbs
www.darwinhobbs.com | | Back to Top | | |
|
chance
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 157
| Posted 4/1/2003 5:06 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm still waiting for THE book on openness and classical theism to be sent to my door - Sanders and Hall's Does God Have A Future. Sanders got his over a week ago. Where's mine? Anyone else who preordered the book get it yet?
This would be the book to focus on in the debate because of its excellent dialogue (so I am told).
Onward to worldwide theological domination!
chance
A God who has fixed every detail beforehand may retire or die --Markus Barth | | Back to Top | | |
| 80 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:51 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|