- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Ships from: Chatham, NJ
Usually ships in 1-2 business days
|2||The Nature of the Task||15|
|3||Old Testament Materials for a Relational View of Providence Involving Risk||39|
|4||New Testament Materials for a Relational View of Providence Involving Risk||90|
|5||Divine Relationality in the Christian Tradition||140|
|6||Risk and the Divine Character||167|
|7||The Nature of Divine Sovereignty||208|
|8||Applications to the Christian Life||237|
Posted January 21, 2001
This book proposes that the theory of the Openness of God is true. However, in my opinion, it starts from a premise that God is not Omniscient, which, also in my view, is unbiblical. However, it is a good expose' of his point of view. Both Arminians and Calvinists do not adhere to this view (see 'recommended' below).Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 15, 1999
While this is definetely a work worth reading one will find Sanders interpretation of Scripture upside down in relation to Classical / Historical Theology. The major fallacy lies in his interpretative model. He proceeds to build a theology from the texts in Scripture which are unclear (parables) and different from other more clear (epistle teaching) texts. With the model found within the 'God who Risks' one will discover a god who can fail and is conditioned by humanity. As noted in numerous reviews there is more wrong than just going against the grain of almost 2000 years of Christian History. Sanders view of God strikes remarkably against the very bone of Christian theology. Existentially, for me I am glad and thankful that God does know all (past, present, future, and all possible situations)and that He will not fail. This is what gives me hope and assurance!Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 9, 1999
Throughout his book, Sanders blatantly and irresponsibly caricatures the God whom Christians throughout the centuries have embraced by faith and worshiped. Does Sanders represent his ¿open theist¿ associates as a spokesman when he speaks like this? If so, are he and his fellow ¿open theists¿ consistent when they say that the traditional view of God which they oppose is part of orthodox Christianity? Here¿s the problem. Sanders portrays the God of classic Christianity to be manipulative, micromanaging, non-relational, coercive, one who forces his will upon people without consent, even one who rapes (his own word) humans by imposing his will upon them. How can ¿open theists¿ tolerate this God as anything close to Christian orthodoxy? How can such a deity be accepted by anyone? It is unconscionable and unthinkable for ¿open theists,¿ in general, and for John Sanders, in particular, to concede that belief in such a God is orthodox. Surely they ought to denounce belief in such a deity as unorthodox, and heretical. Do not John Sanders¿ characterizations of the traditional view of God, in this book, tacitly admit that orthodoxy is at stake in this whole discussion? As characterized, it is no minor issue over which John Sanders and classical Christians disagree. The issue at stake in Sanders¿ book entails two radically different views of God, or rather, two very different Gods. The whole of Christianity is under dispute.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.