Here are a few books I have read lately.
1. Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views edited by Bruce Ware.
This book, edited by Bruce Ware, was good, solid, deep, theological reading. The book, as the title suggests, presents four views ranging from the Classical Calvinist Perspective (Paul Helm) all the way to the Open Theist Perspective (John Sanders). In-between were the views of the Moderate Calvinist Perspective (Bruce Ware) and the Classical Arminian Perspective (Roger Olson).
The tone of the book is one of a “loving debate” between friends. Other than the two Calvinists taking shots at Sanders, most of the authors were quite civil and charitable in their defenses and in their critiques of the other positions.
Oddly, the first perspective is from Paul Helm and Roger Olson quickly points out that it seems Helm must not have received the same guidelines as the other theologians since Helm spends his entire time defending election instead of his view of God. Helm seems to defend the Classical Calvinist position simply by defending the doctrine of unconditional election. Even Ware, the moderate Calvinist, finds Helm’s defense odd. Helm really never gives us the Classical Calvinist view but simply lays out the election views of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, and Calvin. He then proceeds to defend his position against the others before they have yet to even have a word.
Ware does a good job of presenting the moderate Calvinist view of God. Unlike Helm, Ware clearly understood what the book was about and he lays out his views of God point by point. Ware is clearly a five point Calvinist and yet he seeks to add a “middle knowledge” view concerning free will decisions about sin. In this way, Ware seeks to avoid making God the author of sin which is difficult for Helm in his Classical Calvinist position. However, Helm, in his response to Ware, shows the fallacy of such a view. Both Roger Olson and John Sanders, holding to libertarian free will, reject both Helm’s and Ware’s views since both hold to causality from God. Olson notes that while Ware seeks to avoid making God the author of sin, he never really does so since he continues to hold in divine determinism.
Olson defends the Classical Arminian position and does a good job. He gleams from various Arminian authors including Arminius, Wesley, Jack Cottrell, Thomas Oden, and others. He clearly shows that while he holds to free will, the heart of Arminius’ view of God was God’s love and not people’s free will. Further, Olson shows why Arminians distance themselves from both Calvinists and Open theism by presenting the Arminian view of God’s sovereignty through His exhaustive foreknowledge. I also believe that Olson and Sanders were both quite kind in their responses to the others in contrast to the Calvinists especially Helm.
Sanders ends the book with his presentation on the doctrine of God by presenting the Open View. Both Helm and Ware dealt with the open view in their defenses of their positions so by the time you get to Sanders you are aware that Helm and Ware consider Sanders on the verge of heresy. Sanders does make some statements that most evangelicals would have a tough time reading. For example, Sanders makes the claims that God “learns” from passages such as Genesis 22:12 or that God does not know the future completely. Sanders presents the open view with much grace but I tend to agree with Olson that Sanders’ views have many holes in them and lack sound exegesis. Overall Sanders is the weakest of the four theologians despite probably being the most gracious toward the others.
Overall this is a great read. If you enjoy theology, you will indeed enjoy this book. I recommend it.
2. The Bible and The Future by Anthony Hoekema.
Dr. Hoekema presents a biblical view on the future from an amillennialist view of biblical prophecy. Yet I also found the book to be quite well balanced at presenting the opposing views as well especially from the premillennial, pretribulation viewpoint. Hoekema demonstrates that he understands the nature of the debate over the future and so while he seeks to defend his own views, he does a good job of presenting the other arguments as well. By the end of the book the reader is aware of the various positions concerning the second coming of Christ, the tribulation, and the judgement of both believers and unbelievers.
Overall this is a good book for understanding the end times from an amillennial viewpoint. The reader will learn much about how various viewpoints view issues such as modern Israel, the rapture of the Church, and the conclusion of the ages. While many books such as the popular Left Behind books often appeal to our sense of imagination, Hoekema appeals simply to Scripture and you won’t find much glorification of the future in this book.
3. Prayer: Asking and Receiving by John Rice.
Fundamentalist evangelist John Rice’s book on prayer is actually good reading. Many books I have read on prayer often try to teach you how to pray but Rice simply lays out what the Bible says about prayer before the reader and simply ends with “now go pray.” As the title suggests, Rice wants the reader to know that we have a God who hears our prayers (Psalms 62:5). Rice also wants us to know that prayer, in its most basic form, is simply asking God and receiving from God what we ask according to His will (Matthew 7:7-11; James 4:2-3; 1 John 5:14-15). In the middle of writing on prayer, Rice often includes personal stories from his own life or others about what happens when people pray and seek God.
On an interesting note about this book is the amount of time Rice spends on praying for the sick. In sharp contrast to many of his fundamental brethren, Rice believes that we should pray for the sick and anoint them with oil according to James 5:14-15 and Rice writes that he has seen people healed by praying for the sick. Rice writes that he believes that it is the heart of God for the sick which is why Jesus healed so many people during His earthly ministry (Acts 10:38). Rice believes that we should not limit God but pray for all the sick to be healed.
[Link to original post and comments at Roy Ingle’s website.]
