Product Description

If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, can he in any way be vulnerable to his creation?

Can God be in control of anything at all if he is not constantly in control of everything?

In The God Who Risks, John Sanders mounts a careful and challenging argument for positive answers to both of these profound theological questions. In this thoroughly revised edition, Sanders clarifies his position and responds to his critics. His book not only will contribute to serious ongoing theological discussion but will enlighten pastors and laypersons who struggle with questions about suffering, evil and human free will.

• Pastors
• Thoughtful laypeople

• Considers God as divine risk-taker.
• Presents an inspiring and informed model of "relational theism".
• Offers an in-depth reading of relevant Old and New Testament texts.
• Draws on biblical, philosophical, historical, systematic and practical theology.
• Contributes to ongoing scholarly discussion of free will and divine sovereignty.
• Addresses practical implications for questions of suffering and evil.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #148506 in Books
• Published on: 2007-06-15
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 384 pages

Customer Reviews

A GOD AFAR OFF?
I thank God for this book.

Although I was not raised within the Church--my Father was an unbeliever, and forbade me to attend church--I came to know Christ as my Savior as an adolescent. Perhaps because of my peculiar circumstances, I soon experienced an overwhelming hunger to know my God more intimately. I devoured whatever books pertaining to God and theology (esp. apologetics) I could lay my hands on. Men like R. C. Sproul, Francis Schaeffer and J. I. Packer were powerful influences in my formative years.

As a Philosophy major in college, I was also profoundly influenced by the works of Plato and Aristotle. I was not infrequently amazed, even delighted at the ways in which the Platonic conception of the Divine seemed to dovetail with the Biblical portrait of God.

Because of these various influences, however, I eventually began to have difficulty relating to God. How can an immutable, impassive God feel anything for or with me? Can such a God truly relate to my sufferings? And if not, then is He truly loving? To my mind, at any rate, love necessarily entails openness, vulnerability . . . A God Who remains eternally unaffected by the sufferings and joys of His creation is indeed Wholly Other; we might describe His actions as loving, but not His nature.

Worse, I found myself deeply troubled by the question of evil. What is one to think of an omnicausal God in light of the Holocaust? It is one thing for those who have never experienced such horrors to piously assert that "All is well; God is control!"; it is another matter entirely, however, for those who have suffered the horrors of an Auschwitz.

Despite the oftentimes Byzantine strategies of the defenders of the omnicausal view of God to maintain some sense of human accountability, I could never free myself of the awful sense that this God was like Nietzsche's Superman--i.e., beyond Good and Evil. In fact, the more I thought on it, the more their God acquired an almost Machiavellian cast: The Divine ends justify His means, however painful or horrific or wasteful.

As a child, I suffered abuse (mostly verbal) at the hands of my Father; how could I not conclude that it was ultimately the hand of my omnicausal God that had struck me? He had sovereignly ordained that I be made strong, and my Father had apparently been the means to that end.

"Ours is not to question why," a Calvinist friend once told me. Yet I could not let it go . . . As painful as my own sufferings had been, they were trifling when compared with those of the African slaves or the Jews of Nazi Germany. As a Christian, what was I to say to them? Should I insult them with pious platitudes like "Be not troubled; God is control! Our God reigns!"? It is an easy way out, to be sure; but is it Biblical? Could it be that people embrace this theology because they do not wish to truly grapple with these questions, preferring to treat them as abstractions, as intellectual puzzles to be pondered in the security of their libraries and studies?

Could it be that they (unconsciously) fear genuine intimacy with God?--For how can a God Who is Wholly Other be in any sense intimate? How can God love what is only object to Him?--For the omnicausal God is sole Subject; all else--mankind included--is object. Such a God is not so much a Person as an abstraction, a philosophical explanation like and unlike Aristotle's Unmoved Mover. Just as it easier for many to love Man the abstraction than individual men, so, too, is it easier for some to relate to God as an abstraction, a distant Wholly Other, than as a Person desirous of genuine intimacy.

It is long past time to abandon this unbiblical conception of the Divine as Unmoved Mover and return to what Abraham Joshua Heschel aptly called the "Most Moved Mover" God of the Bible. John Sanders' _The God Who Risks_ is indispensable to this task. Along with _God of the Possible_ and _The Openness of God_, _The God Who Risks_ is destined to become a manifesto for a new Reformation, a return to the Biblical faith of the Apostles.

ABSOLUTELY recommended!

True Scritpure, Reason and Experience
Contrary to Justin's opinion (he must not have read the book very carefully), Sanders presents a view of God that harmonizes with Scripture (something the clasical/reformed tradition cannot do without discarding thousands of texts), reason and our experience as human beings. Sanders takes the reader through those pesky Old Testament texts that so many want to dispose of, as well as the New Testament, and demonstrates that God's interaction throughout salvation history has been one of relation and risk. He further explores Christian tradition, and shows the relational aspect of much of the thought of the early Church Fathers and other avenues of Christian thought. While more of a survey than an exhaustive analysis, there are numerous endnotes which direct the reader to more expansive research. There is enough about this book to keep you studying for a long time.

Despite what has been asserted, Sanders does not contradict himself. God could have chosen to create a world in which relationaily was not a component, although trinitarian theism recognizes the eternal relational aspect of God's being. However, because God IS relational, He sovereignly chose to create a universe in which relationship, not control, was the primary focus. Those who dogmatically define "sovereignty" as meticulous control will certainly not agree with Sanders' conclusions, but will have a hard time refuting him without resorting to name calling and charges of "heresy".

This is not a book one can skim through, it must be read thoroughly and studiously. This book requires thought on the part of the reader, something that is not too often evident which much "evangelical" Christian material these days.

A Systematic Theology that has more Bible and less Opinion
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.