 | | |
| God's Lesser Glory: The Diminished God of Open Theism | 
 enlarge | List Price: $17.99
Buy New: $8.31
You Save: $9.68 (54%)
Buy New/Used from $3.90
Avg. Customer Rating:  (based on 25 reviews)
Sales Rank: 405069
Category: Book
Author: Bruce A. Ware
Publisher: Crossway Books
Studio: Crossway Books
Manufacturer: Crossway Books
Label: Crossway Books
Languages: English (Original Language), English (Unknown), English (Published)
Media: Paperback
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 240
Shipping Weight (lbs): 0.6
Dimensions (in): 8.3 x 5.4 x 0.6
ISBN: 1581342292
Dewey Decimal Number: 231.5
EAN: 9781581342291
ASIN: 1581342292
Publication Date: November 7, 2000
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
Christians throughout history have been strengthened by their confidence that God knows everything about the future. But consider this: What if it simply is not true? What if God can only rely on His best guess about tomorrow--just as you and I do? Would it not affect your trust in Him, your confidence in facing the future, your worship, and your motivation to leave everything in His hands? And yet this is the consequence that has to be faced if you trust what a number of leading voices in evangelicalism are proposing under the doctrine of open theism.
In its redefinition of the nature of divine providence, open theism adjusts the entire picture of God's sovereignty and involvement in our lives. Bruce Ware carefully summarizes and critiques this dangerous doctrine from a thoroughly biblical perspective, providing an excellent treatment of both the classical and openness views. He explores their implications and faithfully pinpoints the subtle ways that open theism undermines our trust in God and lessens His glory in our lives.
|
| Customer Reviews: Read 20 more reviews...
Outstanding Book in Giving God Glory for His Sovereignty October 8, 2008
Bruce Ware's book God's Lesser Glory is an outstanding work defending the classical belief in a God who has exhaustive knowledge of all things both possible and actual in the past, present, AND future. This is one of only a few book-length critiques that deal with open theism's proposal of a God of limited omniscience. Open theism has been attacking this vital doctrine of God's omniscience and Bruce Ware kindly, yet firmly, puts his exegetical skill to work in defense of God's complete foreknowledge.
The book is divided into five parts--three primary ones with an introduction and conclusion. In the introduction Ware addresses the "so what?" question of the reader by familiarizing his audience with the mounting controversy surrounding open theism examines. The introduction is appropriately titled, "Why You Should Be Concerned."
The second section and first major part, "What Does Open Theism Propose?" builds directly on the introduction by succinctly dealing with the development of open theism as a theological framework and as a departure from the classical Arminian position (chap. 2). Ware also deals with "The Perceived Benefits of Open Theism" (chap. 3) in Part One.
Part Two, "What's Wrong with Open Theism's View of God?" responds to Boyd's God of the Possible and Sanders' The God Who Risks (two chief proponents of open theism). In Chapter 4, "Assessing Open Theism's Denial of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge," Ware evaluates both the exegetical method of open theism and its application to key Scriptural passages often touted by open theists as support for their position. Chapter 5 outlines a "Scriptural Affirmation of Exhaustive Divine Foreknowledge" as Ware presents a careful discussion of select passages of Scripture, against which open theists cannot really argue effectively. Chapter 6 then addresses an often unnoticed problem with open theism: "The God Who Risks and the Assault on God's Wisdom."
Part Three exposes the challenging practical ramifications of open theism. Ware discusses how this position harms the Christian's prayer life (chap. 7), results in diminished confidence in God's guidance (chap. 8), and creates outright despair in the midst of suffering and pain (chap. 9). Finally, in his conclusion "God's Greater Glory and Our Everlasting Good," Ware restates the weaknesses of open theism and outlines the orthodox view of God's sovereignty.
The strength of Ware's book is its expository method. Ware doesn't build straw men to tear down. He seriously and honestly interacts with the writings of open theists like Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders, answering their arguments from texts which apparently support openness theology and also presenting the full gamut of biblical passages which a lot of open theists fail to mention (such as, Isaiah 41:21-29, 42:8-9, 43:8-13, 44:6-8, 44:24-28, 45:20-23, 46:8-11, 48:3-8, and 48:14-16). Just a brief perusal of those texts should reveal the many holes in open theism. Also questions of God's immutability and "repentance" are handled with care and answered well.
As well written as Bruce Ware's book is, there are a couple of areas where I believe that it could be improved, both of which deal with how exhaustive the book is. 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 does not 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 teachings, the prophetic proclamations only represent God's best guesses of what might happen, rather than being part of a divine blueprint that is already in place. One other area that I think Ware could have been more comprehensive is how open theism requires a fundamental redefining of the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death on the cross. If God does not 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. Neither of these issues is dealt with in much detail and I believe these issues represent monumental theological deficiencies in the openness view. Because of this, I believe, these issues should have been further explored in Bruce Ware's book.
Having said 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, as well as open theism's internally inconsistent mess as a matter of scholarship. I am thankful for Ware's successful attempt to discredit the theological and philosophy claims of open theism as it defames the glory of God. Christians owe this servant of God a great debt of gratitude for putting the accent of God's glory back into His sovereignty.
 Deinitely a solid defense of traditional theology June 11, 2008
This is the second book I noticed on the subject of Open Theism. The previous one was by an author who was Calvinist, and claimed that the error of Open Theism was the natural result of Arminianism (i.e. anything short of five point Calvinism). While a Calvinist, Ware is much more balanced, and realizes that while you would never have an Open Theist who's a Calvinist, Open Theism is not a result of Arminian thinking in all or even most cases.
One thing this book helped teach is the difference between compatablist free will and libertarian free will. A libertarian free will person would say I can go to the cafeteria and have a choice between chicken parmesan, turkey and dressing, or liver and onions. A compatablist will say I do not have free will to get the liver and onions because I don't like liver and onions. Thus, taking this simplistic example a little further, God does not have to worry about protecting me from food poisoning if the liver and onions is contaminated because I would never eat it.
This book does a good job at showing the weaknesses of the open theism point of view. One reviewer seemed critical that the author assumes the classical view. My experience is that those who reject the classical view not because of evidence but out of preference, because they don't like the implications of the classical view.
This book is well outlined, and addresses that open theism not only had problems on the theological level but the practical levels of prayer, guidance, and suffering.
 I was not convinced of his arguments January 11, 2007
5 out of 7 found this review helpful
Ware quibbles with Pinnock, Boyd, Sanderson, and Hasker throughout. Ware's world is the classical view of God, with exception of his introduction of "relational mutability" of God. Essentially he says that God has exhaustive foreknowledge with a new twist. Even though God acted, created, and planned instantly one time trillions of years ago (the Super Big Bang), that when time rolls around to events in our lives, God steps into it takes special notice and gets in the fray emotionally. This makes no sense. It would appear that a God that has exhaustive foreknowledge could have no future. He couldn't plan. There are no such concepts as "plan", "look ahead", "tomorrow", or "the future" or a "now" to such a God. It seems to be his effort to try to soften the stoic, impassible God of Calvin and Augustine. Ware offers us the same classical portrayal of God as microscopically controlling the world and through direct or indirect cause bringing about every act in the human drama. This would include all rape, murder, wars, holocaust, or whatever. He concludes the last few pages by going back to the example Sanders used of the death of Sanders brother. Ware tells us the only way to view events like this is that God "took him." The answer to his death is, as Ware writes, "Yes, the God of all wisdom, goodness, and power has ordained to take these lives." It was all brought about by God personally for reasons we cannot know. This is tantamount to saying God loaded the boxcars personally of those going into Hitler's ovens, or placing select individuals in the WTC when the buildings collapsed. Or, that he takes every sparrow by divine decree. He advises us as we have been advised for centuries by "classical" theologians that all evil, even gratuitous evil, is designed and brought about by God. This thinking is in the same vein of R.C. Sproul, who points out, "not even one molecule" of the universe is moved without God specifically controlling it. All human thought, since it must precede human acts and our behavior, is controlled, motivated, and directed by God, for His "greater" purposes.
His explanations of verses used by open theists, starting with Abraham's example, are through the eye of the beholder. He introduces "relational mutability" which he brings into the Abraham story in Genesis 22. Ware says "he (God) does interact with his people in the experiences of their lives as they unfold in time." God seems to get into the movie he made trillions of years ago since it is now being shown in theaters. "God literally sees and experiences in this moment what he has known from all eternity." He argues against himself somewhat in this area as he feels open theists do in their choices of emphasis of scripture. He points out that these verses as a whole should be taken as anthropomorphic statements, but he stops and chooses God's statement of "for now I know that you fear God", as teaching us "in the experience of this action, I (God) am witnessing Abraham demonstrate dramatically and afresh that he fears me, and I find this both pleasing and acceptable in my sight." He takes what he says is anthropomorphic language describing what goes on and pulls a whole new thought allegedly of God from the exchange of God and Abraham. All of the many other verses he covers to debunk open theology could just as easily be emphasized as open theists do. I didn't come away from any of his explanations saying--"Now I know."
He ends by stating that what gets everyone's ire up (open theists) is that they can't give up the idea there is no "free will" in the universe. He views them and their model as "diminishing" God and how human vanity or pride is swelled. God can't be diminished. One's view or take or image which has been created within their belief system of thought, can be diminished.
It always amazes me that individuals (Ware is one of them) that feel that libertarian free will believers bring God "down" by believing in a world where human beings can choose, make choices, contrary to the will of God. He says in his opinion that is the main problem of "open" theists.
Free will or freedom to choose is the greatest responsibility any human being has on earth. We must make choices. I believe that it doesn't reduce God, bring him down to our level, or elevate us up to his level by his granting us free will or free choice before him. It does just the exact opposite. It makes God a far more powerful God, unthreatened by us - one willing to, for His higher purpose, allow His creation to spurn him, reject him, curse him, and vilify him. God lets his creatures say no to him. Hell is, as C.S. Lewis stated, "locked from the inside." That is a free choice, unconstrained by God, or anyone else. Phillip Yancey made a great comment in his most recent book--Prayer. He wrote that--"History is the story of God giving away power." George Eldon Ladd wrote in his Theology of the New Testament that "evil is the price God paid for human freedom."
I still embrace after reading it concepts of the "open" model, particularly human beings having free will to choose what we do in life and all its decisions, and that God is not microscopically ruling our world. God does have a future. He can plan. He has things which he can look forward to. He is not brain dead. He interacts with us in our time zone. Prayers do move him.
Some parts are good, but some are bad September 25, 2006
6 out of 8 found this review helpful
I recently had to give a guest lecture on Open Theism for a theology course, and thought it would be wise to read some books about Open Theism before I did, to make sure all my information was accurate. I discovered one thing in my research: both the books for and against Open Theism are poor books. The books by Open Theists I find filled with poor arguments, but so are the books against Open Theism. I have yet to find a good book against Open Theism, and I doubt a good book supporting Open Theism can really be written. Why is this a poor book? For many reasons. First, Ware is simply not a good writer. I do not doubt that he is a good professor, but writer, no. Second, as someone who leans more toward Arminianism than Calvinism, I find many of Ware's arguments just as poor as those by Open Theists. In many places, Ware seems to be saying that Open Theism cannot be true because Calvinism is. While Calvinism seems to be slightly less Biblically inaccurate than Open Theism, even if I believed in Calvinism I would still not find Ware's argument against Open Theism especially convincing when he goes into defend-Calvinism mode. When you are writing a book against a certain position, supporting your own positions is something that you should do AFTER showing that theirs is inadequate, for then they will be looking for something else to turn to. If you go up to a non-Christian who is perfectly happy being a non-Christian, it is likely that you will not be able to convert them if you simply support your own position and never give them a reason to doubt their own. I am not saying that Ware does not give any good arguments against Open Theism, but rather that he should have spent more time arguing against Open Theism and less time arguing for Calvinism. If I wanted a book supporting Calvinism I could have found far better books than this.
That said, Ware does provide some good information about Open Theists, and he points out many sources that one can look into if you are interested in reading Open Theist literature (and he makes sure to take their statements out of context somewhat frequently as well).
In all, it's not a great book, but there aren't really many better ones out there (to the best of my knowledge), so I guess it's as good a place to start as any.
Overall grade: C
Good, not Great arguments... January 24, 2005
3 out of 8 found this review helpful
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.
|
|
|
 Powered by Associate-O-Matic
| | |
