from: InterVarsity Press
Regular marked price: $20.00Discount Price: $13.60
Cost Savings: $6.40 (32%)Price fluctuation possible.
How soon does it ship: Normal ship time within one day
Shipping? Absolutely FREE if you qualify for Super Saver Shipping.
Type of bind: Paperback
Dewey Decimal Number: 231.4
EAN num: 9780830826520
ISBN number: 0830826521
Label: InterVarsity Press
Manufacturer: InterVarsity Press
Quantity: 1
Page Count: 221
Printing Date: 2001-11
Publishing house: InterVarsity Press
Sale Popularity Level: 135976
Studio: InterVarsity Press
Other books you might be interested in perusing:
Editor's Notes and Comments:
Product Description:
The question of the nature of God's foreknowledge and how that relates to human freedom has been pondered and debated by Christian theologians at least since the time of Augustine. And the issue will not go away. More recently, the terms of the debate have shifted, and the issue has taken on new urgency with the theological proposal known as the openness of God. This view maintains that God's knowledge, while perfect, is limited regarding the future inasmuch as the future is 'open' and not settled. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views provides a venue for well-known proponents of four distinct views of divine foreknowledge to present their cases:Gregory A. Boyd of Bethel College presents the open-theism view, David Hunt of Whittier College weighs in on the simple-foreknowledge view, William Lane Craig of Talbot School of Theology takes the middle-knowledge view, and Paul Helm of Regent College, Vancouver, presents the Augustinian-Calvinist view. All four respond to each of the other essayists, noting points of agreement and disagreement. Editors James K. Beilby and Paul R. Eddy introduce the contemporary debate and also offer a conclusion that helps you evaluate the relative strengths and weaknesses of each view. The result is a unique opportunity to grapple with the issues and arguments and frame your own understanding of this important debate.
User popularity level:
Rated by buyers 
-
I keep coming back to this book, re-reading the various arguments, especially Craig's and Boyd's summaries of their positions. A very useful Four Views book.
Rated by buyers 
-
Rather than repeat what has been written by the prior reviewers I wish to add some useful observations.
First: The exegesis of scripture in this work ignores several important facets of proper exegesis. Particularly, the English translation is referenced rather than the original Hebrew or Greek. This results in the author arguing the meaning of the English rather than considering the nuances inherent in the ancient Greek of Hebrew for which no adequate English structure exists. Along these lines, the authors tend to treat scripture as a treatise on God's Divine Attributes rather than what scripture is: a witness to Divine revelation. This divine revelation is not concerned with the issue of God and time, knowledge and foreknowledge, but of God, man and salvation history. Scripture witnesses through and by men what God has unveiled to man and what remains veiled remains beyond our accessibility.
Secondly: Logic cannot solve the problem of God's knowledge and experience of time. Logic operates inside creation and God exists outside of creation. Thus, the authors miss a key issue involving the necessary difference between the infinite creator (of which there can only be one) and the creature (of which man and time both are). As creatures, man and time cannot share in God's infinitude or in the infinite nature of any attribute. Man is not God and the author's flip back and forth carelessly between the two as if they can be considered under the same rubric. An example may be found in Adam's sin. The authors miss the biblical point that Adam sinned because he is a creature and as a creature is not infinitely perfect like his creator. When God gave Adam a choice, God made it a human possibility to choose rightly or wrongly. Adam's fall is the result of his being a creature and not God. This has nothing to do with God's foreknowledge or God's omnipotence. God saw fit to create and anything created (including time) must be finite.
Third: The authors throw around terms such as free will and quote the great authors on the subject (Augustine, Calvin) without defining what the will is or what freedom of the will means in the context of the theological discourse. The controversy over "free will" suffers more from the lack of definition concerning what the will is and what is implied by freedom and bondage. Edwards was the very first to endeavor to define the will and his definition affects his conclusions. The will, by being free or in bondage, is so in relation to sin and not simple choice. Luther concludes that unregenerate man's will is in bondage to sin and is free from sin through Christ and by faith. This freedom is to be free to conform the will to that of God. This concept of freedom/bondage is much different than our modern notions and we must be mindful of this.
Forth: Paul's use of "foreknew" and foreknowledge" in Romans is taken out of context by the authors who apply it universally to all knowledge. Paul's aim was to explain God's plan of salvation, Israel's salvation history and how it has come to completion in the "Christ event." His use of foreknowledge in Romans must be taken in context of the whole argument which is Christological and Soteriologic rather than philosophic and metaphysical. The one God foreknows from eternity is The Son, Christ. In Christ, God has foreordained his plan of redemption of fallen man. If a man is in Christ he is assured of receiving God's Soteriologic promise and what God promises will come to be. Outside of Christ, man is lost. This is corporate salvation and election.
Fifth: Failure to treat time as a creature and consider God's position outside time, man's limitations inside time, man's perception and understanding of time in terms of memory and anticipation is a major omission. No consideration is give to how God interacts with and within time as opposed to how God acts in eternity. Likewise, the question of how and if time is operative and/or determinative in eternity and for God is left unexplored.
Finally, as scripture is biblical witness to divine revelation it was recorded by men for man. The authors fail to consider how ancient man viewed time and how radically different the ancient perception of time was (See von Rad: Old Testament Theology Vol. II). Ancient time was seasonal and circular reflecting nature and the seasonal festivals. The concept of linear progressive time came after the exile and was not fully developed even in the 2nd Temple period. Therefore to make inferences about how the scriptural witness communicates its confession of the revelation it received to the people of the individual author's day requires an appreciation of how time was understood then and now. They fail to ask with Augustine "What is time?"
This volume does succeed in making accessible the four theories of divine foreknowledge. However, the arguments ... Read More
Rated by buyers 
-
If you are looking for more of a philosophical look into the issue of God's foreknowledge at an acceptable reading level, then this is the book for you. I, however, was not. I found that Greg Boyd was the only author to present his view starting with the biblical witness and then move to the philosophical to supplement the biblical work. He was then chastised for his approach because he was not using an "objective" philosophical framework by which to defend the case of "open theism."
I found the articles by both David Hunt and William Lane Craig to be highly speculative and way too dependent upon philosophy to be helpful. BUT, I must say that the worst article was the presentation of the Augustinian view by Paul Helm. For someone who has written an entire book on the Providence of God, this article looked thrown together and showed a complete lack of passion.
If for no other reason, read the the "Open-Theist View" by Greg Boyd. Even if you don't agree with his position, it gives an excellent overview of the biblical data in favor of open-theism.
Fortunately, there is now a better book on the subject of foreknowledge and free will. It is called Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views (Perspectives)
Rated by buyers -
Most of the reviews on this page miss the boat entirely. Rather than actually reviewing or recommending DF the reviewers are merely venting their anger because their particular view is challenged.
Pay them no mind. DF is an excellent book. Buy it and read all the views with as much of an open humble mind as you can. It's better than the alternative spoon feeding that is rampant in many circles of Evangelicalism today.
The glossary is a great idea more publishers should follow.
Keep em coming Eddy, Beilby, Gannsle ....etc.
Rated by buyers 
-
"the prophet who prophesies will be recognized as one truly sent by the Lord ONLY IF HIS PREDICTION COMES TRUE."(Jer.28:9)
This is the inerrant litmus test of Bible prophecy: 100% Definitive Factuality in ADVANCE of freely chosen agent decisions, 0% error rate. Openism is DOA,AWOL,Mene-Mene-Tekel-Uparsin at this point! The handwriting is on the wall!
"Hear the Word of the Lord all you exiles in Babylon. This is what the Lord Almighty says about Ahab and Zedekiah who are prophesying lies to you in My Name. 'I will hand them over to King Neb. and he will put them to death before your very eyes. Because of them, all the exiles from Judah in Babylon will use this curse: The Lord treat you like Zedekiah and Ahab, whom the king of Babylon burned in the fire.'"
An irrefutable case of EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITIVE DIVINE FOREKNOWN FACTUALITY about the future free decisions of Ahab; Zedekiah; King of Babylon specifically using fire for execution; and all exiles using the exact, precisely predicted curse based on the free decisions of Ahab, Zedekiah, King (all inextricably interlinked) in the OMNI-Mind of God, freely played out in time
Openism's 'extensive indefinite forecasting' cannot account for such prophecies. (Too many to list here - see separate reviews for 'Beyond the Bounds'; 'God Under Fire'; 'Bound Only Once'.)
Why must Gregory Boyd set up a hyper-Calvinist view as straw antagonist, then make his 'case' for why his Open Theory is the 'most Biblical' (compared to what??)? Ajarism (Free Futures are seen by God as through an ajar door darkly) can't help but seem more palatable by comparison with the ultra-Calvinist
'Closed door known but to God' or Liberal Process 'Wide-Open door unknown to God'.
The nebulous argument for 'Infinite Intelligence' to compensate for 'Non-infinite knowledge of free futures' (known as Divine Nescience,i.e Ignorance) is verbal legerdemain for denial of genuine, meaningful OMNI-science as the Bible teaches.
God is, according to Boydian theory, MULTI-scient or MAXIMI-scient (God knows a lot, more than anyone, the maximum logically knowable, but not quite EVERYTHING as the Bible says).
Instead, Gregory makes God out to be of such great intellect to work around His deemed lack of Infinite Foreknowledge of all future mortal free Shalls and Shall nots, Wills and Will nots. Boyd invents a new sub-Attribute to compensate for eviscerating another Attribute to allow God to come out O.K. in the end.
But it backfires. It only creates a deity in a limited human's intellectual image. In exchange for the Biblical Jesus of Infinite awareness, foresight, prescience and precise knowledge of all Space-Time events/decisions from Eternity Past to Eternity Future and all in between, we are left with a supreme weather forecaster or chess grandmaster. However as we all know, weathermen are often surprised, wrong, erroneous and mistaken. Garry Kasparov and IBM's Deep Blue have both lost against each other. Is this the sort of Jesus that Gregory Boyd sincerely believes in, trying to persuade others to accept,too?
'Infinite Intelligence' is woeful consolation for 'knowing' free agent futures as predominantly possibles, maybes, contingents, risky what-ifs, potentials, probables, likelihoods,
projections, indeterminates, variables, random chance, unpredictabilities, uncertainties that may after all not materialize to divine expectations/forecasts.
It is here that the equally nebulous Boydian concept of 'Theo-Repentism' must be triggered to explain how Jesus handles free futures that don't work out as anticipated. When confronted with new information, or in relating to free decision makers, the Eternal Lord Jesus then changes the divine mind, repents (of wrong-doing, wrong-guessing,wrong-imagining, wrong-thinking,wrong-prognosticating, wrong-speaking,wrong-predicting, wrong-prophesying, etc.) or regrets, rues prior decisions based on incomplete data, wishing they could be do-overs or in need of retraction or repair. Infinite Intelligence kicks in at this stage for 'divine damage control' to salvage a draw and prevent checkmate from all the free-ranging opponents who act/decide contrary to the limits of divine predictability in the chaotic chessgame/meteorology of life.
Sound puzzling? It is. Especially when you read the seminal book by Gregory Boyd that started it all: 'Trinity & Process' (see separate review), based on Hartshorne's 'Omnipotence & Other Theological Mistakes' (see review where you discover that Boyd's Omnipotence is no less limited than his Omniscience).
It seems OMNI (Latin for All) cannot mean OMNI anymore, at least for Open Theorists. What then becomes of OMNI-presence? Infiniteness? Eternality?
Transcendence? OMNI-sapience (ALL-Wise)? What happens to all the Historic-Evangelically understood Trinitarian Attributes? How are they Openistly ... Read More
Find other books like this one:
