Product Description

An authoritative response to neotheism or openness theology—the widely debated recent theological phenomenon that questions the orthodox view of God's omniscience and omnipotence. (20040603)

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1118632 in Books
• Published on: 2001-11-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 256 pages

Review
A must read book forAnyone concerned about the changing views of God within evangelical Christianity. (Paul Virtue Get to the Pointe )

From the Back Cover

What does God know?
When does God know what He knows?
What can God do about it?

God’s understanding, power, and wisdom are at issue in the first consequential theological debate of the twenty-first century. Neotheism, also known by such names as the “openness of God” theology, argues for a limited Creator and Sustainer. He can only guess what the free-willed human beings will do. Sometimes He guesses wrong and must undo the damage.

The Battle for God reminds us how far such a view of God diverges from the traditional understanding of God described in the Bible and also the Triune Being confessed by church fathers through the Reformation. Norman L. Geisler, H. Wayne House, and Max Herrera describe nothing less than a contest to set the course for all of Christian faith, with vast ramifications for the future understanding of God’s essential attributes—His omniscience, omnipotence, eternality, simplicity, and sovereignty.

Here is a clear and unambiguous refutation of arguments in recent writings by the three central neotheists: Greg Boyd, Clark Pinnock, and John Sanders. But more than simply a negative attack on those who propose to redefine God, the authors present a systematic confession of the attributes—what they mean, why we can take confidence as Christians in the God they describe, and why the battle for God is well worth fighting.

About the Author
Norman L. Geisler (Ph.D., Loyola University) is cofounder and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary. Geisler is a widely known apologist who has authored or coauthored more than fifty books, including the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics.

H. Wayne House (Th.D., Concordia Seminary, St. Louis; J.D., Regent University School of Law) is Distinguished Research Professor of Biblical and Theological Studies at Faith Seminary in Tacoma, Washington, and Professor of Law, Trinity Law School in Santa Ana, California. Dr. House serves on the board of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. He is author or editor of more than seventy journal and magazine publications, and a contributor to several books, dictionaries and encyclopedias. He is also the author of more than twenty books, including The Christian and American Law and Israel: The Land and the People. He has been married to Leta Frances McConnell for forty years, has two grown children, and five grandchildren. He enjoys playing with his grandchildren, reading, and traveling to ancient lands.

Max Herrrera is a graduate student working with Normal L. Geisler at Southern Evangelical Seminary in Charlotte, North Carolina.

Customer Reviews

Simple Corrections to an Attempt at Redefining God
Geisler and House have 'put together' a simple but effective response to the neotheist views of Pinnock, Boyd, Sanders, et al. When I say 'put together' this merely means that the book "Battle for God" is, more or less, a series of quotes from historical figures from the Medieval and Reformation periods. Quotes from each period are used in an attempt to correct certain errors which seem to have arisen in the Neotheist's (or openness view) theology.

Battle for God is a very basic text which is formatted in a systematic fashion. In other words, the book systematically covers several attributes of God (i.e. Omniscience, eternality, immutability, simplicity, etc.) and provides a series of remarks and quotes about these attributes and how a Biblical and sound theological examination of such attributes helps to correct certain erroneous thinking from the Neotheist. The traditional attributes of God discussed in these pages are those which have been either rejected, altered, or disagreed upon in some sense by the Neotheist in an attempt to redefine God. One would be in error to deny that the Neotheist is in fact attempting to redefine God (or provide an 'alternative' view as many of the blurbs on the covers of the Neotheist books have indicated).

Geisler actually beat most other theologians to the punch in responding to the neotheists with his book titled "Creating God in the Image of Man." "Battle for God" is not much different from Geisler's former book in that the contents are basically the same (e.g. Geisler takes the traditional attributes of God and lines them up with the changes made by the neotheist and discusses the apparent problems). "Battle for God" as apposed to Geisler's Former book "Creating God . . ." adds a few new things to the discussion - such as the timelessness of God, God's impassibility, etc.

While "Battle for God" is a good basic text it suffers from some problems. One problem, which seems to be the most obvious problem, is taking a series of quotes from certain thinkers and simply stringing them together. While this can serve a certain purpose to provide a very small cursory understanding of certain thinkers, it lacks depth. In other words, a person can read the various quotes which Geisler and House have chosen to provide, but there is a danger in thinking that this exhausts that particular thinker's philosophy or theology for that particular subject. What is more, the limitations in running a series of small quotes together to formulate a certain point of view actually runs the risk of taking certain things out of context. This taking out of context, or misunderstanding a certain view due to less than thorough investigation and citation is seen on pages 57-58. On these pages a discussion of Edwards' view of human free acts is delineated rather rapidly (esp. in footnote 23). Here, the authors have misunderstood Edwards' position and attributed to it things which Edwards, as is clear from his own writings, does not do. For instance, Edwards' view of human free acts is only applicable to volitional creatures this side of the fall. Edwards' view does not attempt to explain the fall of Adam or certain Angels, and to fault it for not doing so is faulting it for a function or purpose it was not intended to serve. Moreover, Geisler and House declare that Edwards' view claims, "God gives the desire to do good or to do evil as their [humans] own fallen nature demands." Edwards never makes this claim. In fact, a more thorough look into Edwards' work the "Freedom of the Will" fleshes out that humans act according to their own greatest desire. Moreover, this side of the fall a human's greatest desire (morally and spiritually) is toward evil, and this desire to evil is not something God is causing in them.
Another problem that seems to surface are the scant remarks regarding Molinism. While I myself am not an adherent to Molinism and would probably be in agreement with Geisler and House's criticisms of the view, it is still incumbent upon them as authors to not misrepresent the view.
For example, on page 140 they declare, "If time is compromised of `moments of before and afters,' and God at one moment did not possess knowledge and at a subsequent moment possessed knowledge (i.e. acquired knowledge), then it is contradictory to say that God atemporally acquired knowledge." There is a footnote that follows and declares "This would also apply to the Molinist position." I am not sure what these authors are trying to communicate by this footnote since the Molinist account does not communicate God's knowledge as - first, something that is acquired, and two, something which is at one moment possessed and at another moment not possessed. Of course, looking at the footnote as it refers to the quote in which it represents the quote would apply to any system which actually held that view, but Molinism does not hold that view.

Overall, the book is quite helpful for anyone who is just beginning research on the issues. It is well organized, easy to follow, and provides its reader with enough material and quotes to actually go and research each thinker in a more thorough fashion (which is ssomething I would recommend each reader do). With that in mind, I recommend this book. For other sources opposed to the Neotheist position see Bruce Ware's work "God's Lesser Glory" and John Frame's work, "No Other God."

Battling with a Self Delusion
This is an extremely disappointing book. It is something of a comic rehash of traditional-fundamentalist theology. It lumps very diverse perspectives together through the use of non-contexual quotations and treats the proponents of Open Theism with disdain. It lacks both academic respectability and basic Christian charity.

A number of criticisms might be leveled at the book on the immediate surface:

1. It renames Open Theism with Neo-Theism. This has the effect of disallowing academic opponents the privilege of defining themselves. This is a subversive and cruel attempt to malign the perspective before it is discussed. Apart from a brief introductory discussion and direct quotations, the authors refuse to use the lable Open Theism. It seems they need a little more openness if they are going to honest participants of theological dialogue.

2. They identify Open Theism as a development of Process Theology. However, Open Theists have repeatedly denied such a connection and have even offered critiques of Process Theology that are superior to those offered in this book. In short, Process Theology teaches that God needs the world. Open Theism does not have a God that is dependent upon the world nor does their God need the world in any way. The God of Open Theism has a more intimate connection with the world than that of Geisler, House and Herrera. Particularly in that Open Theism posits that God works in partnership with his creation and not simply in a relationship of absolute dictatorial dominence. This of course is the appeal of Open Theism, its democratic rather than autocratic or despotic relationship between the Creator and the creature. This is an area that needs to be better worked out by both sides, and the dialogue will no doubt be refreashing and educational for all.

3. The book fails to note the varieties or strands within Open Theism nor does it acknowledge developments within Open Theism. The Openness Theologians have all developed their positions in response to evaluations of earlier papers and books. Some have changed their positions moderately; all have reworked hypotheses to answer various challenges. Furthermore, the three main theologian, Sanders, Boyd and Pinnock, have significant nuance differences that are not addressed indicating that is somewhat unfair to speak simply of Open Theism. It may be better to speak of Open Thesims. The trite and cynical quoting of the most outrageous elements of each Open Theism writer and then lumping them together into one huge "heresy" as if the worst of all of them together represents the best of the whole is unfair and represents a depraved scholarship.

4. The key matter, which is to reckon with the issues Open Theism takes up, has not been done. An aggressive exegetical challenge to Open Theism has not been made. Simply appealing to tradition and a spate of historical figures does not answer the questions. In many respects, Open Theism is simply reworking questions that have been addressed for ages and signifies that what Geisler, House and Herrera consider to be inspired answers are not yet universally accepted. Rather than speaking louder as a means to convincing their opponents they really need to start dialoging and responding in good faith to what Open Theists are actually saying, rather than what they want them to say.

5. Finally, the tone of the book is reflected in its title -- it is truely a "Battle." The question is, "Would God sanction this battle?" I am guessing the answer is, "No!" The polemic is carried through the whole book and constitues the dominant rhetorical feature. Given that Open Theists have set for their persepective as a working hypothesis for discussion, the "battle" response trivializes the importance of good theological discourse in the course of developing a faithful community. Their battle tactics would seem to signify a lack of faith rather than a faith response.

Responding to neotheism
What God knows and when he knows it has become a very hot topic in Christian circles today. It seems to be a common question regarding how much God knows about the future. Does He make things happen? Does He merely know about future events? Or does God, as neotheism so states, limit Himself by not knowing the future, meaning that the future really is up in the air and is contigent on the decisions made by humans?

As it can be obviously seen, this is a pretty big issue because how we view God is vital. In fact, the Bible very clearly says it can be very dangerous to have a wrong view of God. Geisler, House, and Herrera show how neotheism is the "new kid" on the block as neotheist theologians have combined aspects of panentheism, or process theology, with traditional theism. It has implications on the way we worship as well as how we view and interpret the scripture. The book takes a look at certain key qualities about God, including His omniscience, eternality, immutability, and sovereignty, and compares the traditional Christian view with the neoorthodox view. Actually, The Battle for God serves as an overview of the attributes of God, so a study in who God is can't be all bad!

I like the way that the authors treat this issue with as much simplicity as possible, attempting to show through biblical evidence and historical Christian quotes that neotheism is problematic for the evangelical Christian. It should be pointed out that, in the limited number of pages of a paperback text, the quotes from church fathers are pieced together, so the danger of the context being destroyed is certainly possible, especially since the average reader won't look them up. However, I saw nothing that appeared to be unusual with the people being quoted. The end of each section delves into the neotheists' objections to the texts and their own interpretations. This might be the most valuable part of the book, as Geisler and company show why neotheism is not bibical or hisotrical.

Overall I recommend The Battle for God to those who want an evangelical response to what I feel is the problem of neotheism. I'm thinking the debate is far from over. May truth prevail!