What do you think?
Rate this book
The Battle for God: Responding to the Challenge of Neotheism
An authoritative response to neotheism—the widely debated recent theological phenomenon that questions the orthodox view of God's omniscience and omnipotence.
- GenresTheology
336 pages, Paperback
First published November 1, 2001
37 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
January 24, 2024
Norman Geisler. H. Wayne House. Max Herrera. The Battle for God: Responding to the Challenge of Neotheism. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications, 2001.
The battle for God, at least on the Open Theist front, is largely over. Open Theism, the view that the future is open for God, has largely been absorbed into other movements. Open Theism, for all its protestations against Greek metaphysics, was still largely metaphysical and metaphysical movements never gained much momentum. However, even with Open Theism no longer an existential threat for Evangelicalism, this book is still worth a careful reading.
The divine attributes are like a row of dominoes or a Jenga tower. The latter analogy is most apt. The concepts reinforce and support one another. Stated negatively, to attack or even weaken one attribute threatens the entire edifice.
Each chapter follows the same format: a positive presentation of the historic position, otherwise known as classical theism; then a survey of patristic, medieval, and Reformation sources; he then states the open theist argument, often in the form of a syllogism. Although the authors are sometimes light on exegesis, there is a method to this format. These attributes are not Greek concepts. They are not even merely Reformed concepts. Arminius, whether consistently or not, said some of the same things. The lesson is clear: reject this view and you are not simply out of step with Reformed theology–you are out of step with most of the church. Notice what I am not saying. I am not saying this is Thomism. Some of it is. I happen to think much of the Thomist view of God is correct, but whether it is Thomism or not is irrelevant to the discussion.
If all of the attributes at the very least imply and entail one another, and at most are one another, then defending one attribute often defends another. We will illustrate below.
Omniscience
We prove God’s omniscience by the following:
Infinity: If God’s knowledge is identical to his being, and he is infinite, then his knowledge is infinite (26).
Causality: “All effects preexist in an efficient cause, since a cause cannot produce what it does not have.” Therefore, all future free actions pre-exist in God.
The key issue is whether we can still have free actions if God’s knowledge of them is already certain. Anselm provides us with some careful reflection. He writes, “For although He foreknows all future events, he does not foreknow every future event as occurring by necessity” (quoted in Geisler 34). In other words, there is no compulsion in the actual event.
Eternality
When we say God is eternal we mean he is beyond time. Like every other attribute, this flows from who God is. Because God is prior to creation, he is outside time (Geisler 69). As Geisler further notes, “The creator of time cannot be part of time” (70). Because God is Pure Act, he cannot be in time. Time is a form of change, and if God is outside of time, he is outside of change.
Immutability
An immutable God is not an immobile God, and in any case, immobility in metaphysics does not mean what people today mean by the word (106ff). As with all the attributes, this is correlative to them, primarily divine simplicity. Geisler writes: “Everything that changes is composed of what changes and what does not change. But there can be no composition in God. He is an absolutely simple being. Hence, God cannot change” (108-109).
Simplicity
Even Open Theists might grant that God is an infinite being, provided how many nuances they can give to the term. Even so, God cannot have an infinite number of parts, because one can always add another part. Ergo, God is simple (148).
Conclusion
Who is the real Greek philosopher? It is not I. In fact, it is no one. Both sides in this debate utilize key aspects of metaphysics. At the end of the day, Open Theists say God is unchanging in his love. He might be a most mutable being in every other attribute, but he is always loving. This sounds like a watered-down view of immutability, and that sounds like it must be Greek metaphysics!
The battle for God, at least on the Open Theist front, is largely over. Open Theism, the view that the future is open for God, has largely been absorbed into other movements. Open Theism, for all its protestations against Greek metaphysics, was still largely metaphysical and metaphysical movements never gained much momentum. However, even with Open Theism no longer an existential threat for Evangelicalism, this book is still worth a careful reading.
The divine attributes are like a row of dominoes or a Jenga tower. The latter analogy is most apt. The concepts reinforce and support one another. Stated negatively, to attack or even weaken one attribute threatens the entire edifice.
Each chapter follows the same format: a positive presentation of the historic position, otherwise known as classical theism; then a survey of patristic, medieval, and Reformation sources; he then states the open theist argument, often in the form of a syllogism. Although the authors are sometimes light on exegesis, there is a method to this format. These attributes are not Greek concepts. They are not even merely Reformed concepts. Arminius, whether consistently or not, said some of the same things. The lesson is clear: reject this view and you are not simply out of step with Reformed theology–you are out of step with most of the church. Notice what I am not saying. I am not saying this is Thomism. Some of it is. I happen to think much of the Thomist view of God is correct, but whether it is Thomism or not is irrelevant to the discussion.
If all of the attributes at the very least imply and entail one another, and at most are one another, then defending one attribute often defends another. We will illustrate below.
Omniscience
We prove God’s omniscience by the following:
Infinity: If God’s knowledge is identical to his being, and he is infinite, then his knowledge is infinite (26).
Causality: “All effects preexist in an efficient cause, since a cause cannot produce what it does not have.” Therefore, all future free actions pre-exist in God.
The key issue is whether we can still have free actions if God’s knowledge of them is already certain. Anselm provides us with some careful reflection. He writes, “For although He foreknows all future events, he does not foreknow every future event as occurring by necessity” (quoted in Geisler 34). In other words, there is no compulsion in the actual event.
Eternality
When we say God is eternal we mean he is beyond time. Like every other attribute, this flows from who God is. Because God is prior to creation, he is outside time (Geisler 69). As Geisler further notes, “The creator of time cannot be part of time” (70). Because God is Pure Act, he cannot be in time. Time is a form of change, and if God is outside of time, he is outside of change.
Immutability
An immutable God is not an immobile God, and in any case, immobility in metaphysics does not mean what people today mean by the word (106ff). As with all the attributes, this is correlative to them, primarily divine simplicity. Geisler writes: “Everything that changes is composed of what changes and what does not change. But there can be no composition in God. He is an absolutely simple being. Hence, God cannot change” (108-109).
Simplicity
Even Open Theists might grant that God is an infinite being, provided how many nuances they can give to the term. Even so, God cannot have an infinite number of parts, because one can always add another part. Ergo, God is simple (148).
Conclusion
Who is the real Greek philosopher? It is not I. In fact, it is no one. Both sides in this debate utilize key aspects of metaphysics. At the end of the day, Open Theists say God is unchanging in his love. He might be a most mutable being in every other attribute, but he is always loving. This sounds like a watered-down view of immutability, and that sounds like it must be Greek metaphysics!
July 19, 2024
TWO NOTED THEOLOGICAL APOLOGISTS CRITIQUE "OPEN THEISM"
Norman Geisler (see also his earlier book, 'Creating God in the Image of Man?') and H. Wayne House wrote this book in 2001 to oppose "Neotheism"/Open Theism books such as 'The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God,' 'God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God,' 'The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence,' 'Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness,' etc. Geisler resigned from the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003, after it did not expel Clark Pinnock, who advocates the "Open" position.
They state that Gregory Boyd "offers ridiculousness as a criterion for determining what (in the Bible) is figurative. But this is not an objective criterion." (Pg. 71) They charge that Boyd states that we cannot know what God's wisdom is like; "However, this is self-defeating because in order to make this assertion, Boyd must know that God's wisdom is like." (Pg. 129) They assert that for the Open Theists, "the basis of their metaphysics is their interpretation of the Bible, and the basis for their interpretation of the Bible is their metaphysics." (Pg. 161)
They note that "Even Satan is under God's control" (pg. 226), and that "human decisions are under God's control. The Bible affirms that God is in sovereign control of everything we choose, even our own salvation." (Pg. 227)
They criticize the Open view, since "if God does not know future acts for certain, then He could not know that Satan will deceive the nations and gather them for war and surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city. (Rev. 20:8-9) Hence, either this prophecy could be false or else neotheism is not correct." (Pg. 257) They add, if God is "only guessing the results of many free choices, it is reasonable to assume that some prophecies ARE in error." (Pg. 258)
This book is a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about this issue.
Norman Geisler (see also his earlier book, 'Creating God in the Image of Man?') and H. Wayne House wrote this book in 2001 to oppose "Neotheism"/Open Theism books such as 'The Openness of God: A Biblical Challenge to the Traditional Understanding of God,' 'God of the Possible: A Biblical Introduction to the Open View of God,' 'The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence,' 'Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness,' etc. Geisler resigned from the Evangelical Theological Society in 2003, after it did not expel Clark Pinnock, who advocates the "Open" position.
They state that Gregory Boyd "offers ridiculousness as a criterion for determining what (in the Bible) is figurative. But this is not an objective criterion." (Pg. 71) They charge that Boyd states that we cannot know what God's wisdom is like; "However, this is self-defeating because in order to make this assertion, Boyd must know that God's wisdom is like." (Pg. 129) They assert that for the Open Theists, "the basis of their metaphysics is their interpretation of the Bible, and the basis for their interpretation of the Bible is their metaphysics." (Pg. 161)
They note that "Even Satan is under God's control" (pg. 226), and that "human decisions are under God's control. The Bible affirms that God is in sovereign control of everything we choose, even our own salvation." (Pg. 227)
They criticize the Open view, since "if God does not know future acts for certain, then He could not know that Satan will deceive the nations and gather them for war and surround the camp of the saints and the beloved city. (Rev. 20:8-9) Hence, either this prophecy could be false or else neotheism is not correct." (Pg. 257) They add, if God is "only guessing the results of many free choices, it is reasonable to assume that some prophecies ARE in error." (Pg. 258)
This book is a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about this issue.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews