No Other God: A Response to Open Theism

Rating:
Summary: It Has Its Points.... but...
Review: John Frame's book, No Other God: A Response to Open Theism, should have been just that. I will briefly clarify some good points to this book, some parts where Frame could have been more careful, and finally, give my over all assessment.

Good points: Frame does a good job addressing the focus in open theism, God is Love. He addresses their emphasis of this, and how the open theists have disregarded what else Scripture has to say. As as result, the open theists have accepted a method of intepreting Scripture along with doctrines that Frame finds wholly unacceptable. I was pleased to see that Frame says it is also their pre-scriptural and philosophical commitment to libertarian agency that has lead to a number of their flaws. Without libertarian agency, there would be no motivation to move into open theism.

I was also pleased to see Frame take a staunchly Reformed approach to the issue, where as others have maintained the more "evangelical" approach (e.g. Bruce Ware or Norman Geisler, both who are worth reading too). Frame's points about God being sovereign, and in control of all things, does have some devastating results for open theism. Furthermore, his emphasis on God being the determiner of all things hurts the open theist.

One issue that I was not expecting to see addressed was God and time (this is currently the hot issue in the philosophical journals). As opposed to most of the philosophers today, Frame says that God is atemporal and omnitemporal. This is prima facie contradictory and untenable, but Frame spells it out clearly that would make people on both sides applause and boo.

Another nice part to this book is Frame's clearness and interaction with Scripture in comparison to people such as John Sanders, Gregory Boyd, Rice, and Pinnock. I finished this book quickly because I was able to read it over without looking at one paragraph for thirty minutes, trying to understand the author. So, this book is accessible for people in say, high school and up.

Now the bad points. Frame lumps all of his arguments together against libertarian agency. He hardly discusses libertarianism in depth like he could. For example, are most open theists agent-causal libertarians, or causal indeterminist libertarians? He does not address this. Secondly, his arguments are classified as being against libertarianism, not open theism. This is problematic because many of his arguments could be handled by some libertarians (e.g. William Lane Craig and Thomas Flint who are Molinists; or Norman Geisler who takes the Thomistic view). On the other hand, Frame does provide arguments that are problematic for them too. But Frame, who has his M.A. in philosophy and worked on a Ph.D. in philosophy for some time, should have been much more careful than he was.

Another bad point was that he only really delt with temporalist theologians and philosopher Nicholas Wolterstorff on the God and time issue. Why not address William Padgett? Or William Lane Craig? Each holding different views (see God and Time: 4 Views). They are libertarians as well. Frame just did not address the majority of the material that he could have. Furthermore, he could have addressed William Hasker (an open theist philosopher) who has published a book on God and time.

So, over all, Frame has some good arguments and addresses clearly (most of the time successfully) the arguments of open theism. If we take his book in terms of his case against libertarian agency to do solely with open theism, what the book is about, then Frame would find my criticisms much more charitable; if not, Frame was not a careful philosopher/theologian. Still, I think Frame devastates the open theist position and that makes his book worth reading.

Rating:
Summary: A Danger From Within
Review: John Frame's response to Open Theism is a scholarly endeavor that exposes the Open view to the litmus of Scripture and Classical Theism. Frame deals with the Open view candidly while maintaining dignity and keeping the discussion focused on the doctrine at stake, God's sovereignty. The Open view carries a compelling argument if one is willing to scripturally and historically mis-define the teaching on the sovereignty of God and John Frame is to be thanked for putting out such a marvelous defense against an idea that is dangerous because it's very sources lie within the framework of evangelicalism.

Rating:
Summary: Predominately Excellent Contribution
Review: When it comes to matters of either theology or philosophy, being in a different camp then John Frame is not fun. Over the last 15 years or so, Frame has published a number of works on various topics that have taken Christian scholarship to a new level of freshness and coherence. This particular book, for the most part, falls into that category.

This contribution to the open theism debate, while not perfect, is a solid attempt to take on open theism on a variety of fronts. Unlike other critiques of open theism, Frame engages in an exegetical critique that is vital. But this book is not a purely exegetical critique, for it also engages open theism's presuppositions in the areas of hermeneutics and emotional imperatives that they bring to bear on the text. As a result, this book is one of the better books around in presenting a full orbed critique of open theism.

The result is a critique that exposes open theism for what it is - a philosophically and epistemically inconsistent worldview supported by dubious biblical exegesis and hermeneutical principles. Frame is outstanding in comparing the stated principles of open theism with the actual exegesis (to the extent that it can be called that) that actually violates their stated principles. He tends to be relentless not only in dismantling the legitimacy of libertarianism which is the lone guiding principle of the open theist program, but is also relentless in exposing the works of open theists as being AWOL when it comes to dealing with numerous biblical texts that militate against their system. It was refreshing to read a competent appraisal of the holes that tend to be gaping in the scholarship of the chief apologists of open theism.

I gave the book 4 stars mainly because while Frame's critique is full orbed and wide reaching, it suffered occasionally in what I felt was its unnecessary brevity. In particular, Frame's last chapter on the various theological ramifications of open theism was far too summary level and came off as an afterthought which was most unfortunate. The same can arguably be said about Frame's treatment of the love of God and how this attribute fits into a responsible attempt at a biblically based theology. Lastly, I would have appreciated a more in-depth critique of the literature that has been produced by open theists. I thought that Frame hit the highlights very well and dismantled many of the most serious errors of the movement as expressed in its writings, but there were many other areas that could have been covered here that weren't.

So overall, a very good contribution to this ongoing debate, but in my view, we are still waiting for a truly definitive treatise that systematically and exhaustively dissects open theism across the board in a responsible fashion. This work by Frame gets at least fairly close, but doesn't quite make it in my view.