Creating God in the Image of Man?

By Norman L. Geisler

Book Overview

Does God Have Human Limitations?Who is God? What is he like? Why can we trust him?A growing group of Christian scholars is offering new answers to these timeless questions, challenging classical... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1556619359
• ISBN13: 9781556619359
• Release Date: January 1997
• Publisher: Bethany House Publishers
• Length: 191 Pages
• Weight: 0.53 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.5" x 5.5" x 8.3"

Customer Reviews

EXPOSES OPEN THEORIST INTERPRETIVE FLAWS/SKEW

This book warns of a dangerous aberration by the evangelical left(and so-called 'moderates')of fabricating the deity in man's image. The 'Open Theory' or 'Neo-Theism' deviates from the Historic,Classical,Orthodox interpretation of the Bible held asgenerally accepted from Old Test.,Apostolic,Church Fathers,Reformation eras to Contemporary Conservative Evangelical timesand strays off into the land of neo-Socinian,Post-modernist,unorthodox skewage.To understand the Open Theory of Bible interpretation, it is paramount to grasp the Classical Contemporary Evangelical Orthodox truth as accurately and fairly summarized (for exampleby Millard Erickson's Christian Theology,God the Father Almighty)Then,compare this balanced Biblical position to the exaggeratedcaricature set up by neo-theists such as Pinnock,Rice,Sanders,Boyd & Co. which is the 'straw theology' they are overreactingagainst. Finally,compare the Open Theory with Process Theology(also called 'panentheism'-God is in all, all is in God, orpantemporalism -all is in time/temporal,including the deity,i.e.non-transcendent immanence)from which neo-theists borrow heavily on their misguided path to aberrancy.The unfortunate,misbegotten result is a hybrid,blend,synthesis,hodge-podge of quasi-classical/processistic Bible interpretationthat is less exegesis(objective,plenary extraction of textual data) than eisegesis(subjective,presuppositional,selectiveinsertion of extra-textual data).The orthodox sine qua non of "SCRIPTURE AS A WHOLE INTERPRETS TEXTS IN THEIR PARTS" is turned on its head by the Open Theory to 'Selective,favorable texts in their parts interpret/inform Scripture as a whole'. Evangelical exegesis has Declarativetexts control Narrative texts,i.e ATTRIBUTE TEXTS CONTROL ACTION/ALLUSION/NARRATIVE texts, never vice-versa.For example,Orthodox exegesis takes all Scripture depicting Godas Spirit,invisible,immortal,eternal,infinite,etc.(FIRST SET) asdeterminitive/controlling over those texts saying God has physical form:Right Hand,eyes,ears,sitting,coming down,looking,wings,etc.(SECOND SET) The First Set is properly understood asliteral,declarative,doctrinal and thus informs/interprets the Second Set as non-literal,figurative,metaphor,anthropomorphic,analogy,figures of speech) to arrive at Biblical truth.Even Open Theorists agree that to reverse the process of havingthe Second Set be literal and controlling over the First Setresults in improper interpretation, e.g.'God has wings'.Equally erroneous is to equate First Set and Second Set assynonymous/equivalent,e.g.'God is a winged Spirit'.Sadly and unwittingly, the Open Theory commits this very fallacywhen it comes to non-physical form texts,claiming such 'freshexegesis' is superior to Orthodox interpretation. For example,instead of properly taking all texts depicting God as Spirit,invisible,immortal,eternal,infinite,all-wise,all-knowing,all-present,transcendent-immanent,perfect,sinless,infallible,divine,all-powerful,all-loving/just,kind/stern,self-

Good Resource

This is a good resource for proponents of classical theism to better understand the specific areas where neotheism has retreated from classical theism to align itself more with panentheism, which among other things, professes to believe in a god that is essentially a work in progress. I thought that Geisler did a good job of describing the major tenets of both classical theism and panentheism, and then describing how neotheism attempts to find middle ground between the two.There are a number of positives about this book. There a couple of charts in the book which are very helpful in comparing the three views discussed in summary form. This gives the reader a very good visual idea of how the three views compare with each other on key points. I thought Geisler also did a good job of demonstrating the incoherence of neotheism as a result of trying to blend various aspects of both classical theism and panentheism together to form a distinct worldview. As Geisler effectively demonstrates, neotheism is in the intellectually dubious position of embracing tenets of both classical theism and panentheism which not only contradict each other, but many of the tenets that they embrace logically require embracing other tenets which they reject. Because of its intellectual incoherency, neotheism becomes a worldview which essentially says that nobody knows anything for sure, including the neotheist version of God. Not exactly a strong foundation to adopt a worldview that we can be confident about. I also thought Geisler's refutation of various Biblical arguments raised by neotheism were adequate in demonstrating the falsity of neotheism, in addition to showing that neotheism's proposal of a God of limited omniscience almost automatically forces an argument for the fallibility of the Bible. Given that this is the logical result of neotheism's proposal about God, it is intellectually dishonest to then try to support their position through Scripture passages, since their own worldview greatly diminishes the divine authority of the very Book they are using to try and support their position. This is one example of the intellectual quagmire that neotheism creates for itself. I thought Geisler handled all this pretty well, in part by affirming the infallibility of Scripture with a few solid evidences that squarely refute neotheism, while referencing other works that go into more exhaustive analysis on the infallibility of the Bible.I did not give the book 5 stars for a couple of reasons. First, there is a lot of repetition in this book that was not needed. There were a number of instances where Geisler seemed to analyze the same problem multiple times, providing the same answer each time. I also thought that some of the analysis was too summary level and could have stood for more depth, particularly in the area of analyzing the practical consequences of the neotheist view.But overall, this book provides a solid defense for the intellectual credibility of classical thei

God Created Man in His Image: Openness Returns Compliment

Cogent and persuasive refutation of 'free will'theism. Much food for thought for both sides of the issue. Makes excellent observation of Control Beliefs' determinant influence on presuppositions,regardless of contrary data. Openness premises in, openness out(no surprise there!) Of course the same could be said for Classical position. Granted. The point is: which presumptions are most plenarily biblical, not selectively (Is God tenseless, or tensed or somehow both? Is God timeless, bound by time or both? Is God transcendent, immanent, or both? What can God know about the future and when can He know it? Can God timelessly operate in time?) Which premises are most tenable and Scripturally demanded? Which do the authors of the Bible themselves presume or intend to convey to the interpreter? Suggestion for future editions: a few more concrete citations from Scripture, such as Elijah's prophecy/Hazael's anointing (1Ki.19:15-17), Elisha's Tears re Hazael's anti-Israel destiny (2Ki.8:7-15; 10:32; 13:2-7; Hosea 13:16). God specifically tells Elijah to anoint Hazael as king of Aram to judge/punish Israel. Many years later, Elisha prophesies to Hazael about his master king Ben-Hadad's death in detail, then weeps as God reveals to him the evil Hazael will surely do to Israel's young men, infants, pregnant women in brutal conquest. The problem for open theism: how did the Lord know all this, plan for it, arrange for it to freely occur, predict and prophesy it and ascertain these definite future facts in advance to both Elijah and Elisha? Could God appoint and anoint Hazael to freely do what he was definitely foreknown to voluntarily carry out as God's certain instrument of judgment to lead Israel to repentance? Why anoint and declare as certain, surely, definitely, precisely if there was any 'openness','risk of unfulfillment','indefiniteness', 'partial unsettledness' about these detailed matters or if there was any chance for them not to occur just as God said they must? In fact, God got His two big prophets both involved in the anointing and prophecy as if to double-guarantee the outcome! Also, the fact Elisha was weeping seems to indicate a settled reality to quite a level of detail. Real tears reflect genuine,definite future reality/certainty, otherwise the show of emotion is premature overdramatics for only an 'open possibility' vs. a real, gut-wrenching reaction to a vivid, definite certainty. A plain, literal reading of these texts doesn't seem to allow for hypothetical, potential, possibility, maybe/maybe not, perhaps, 'one option among many' or worst case scenario forecast that may have turned out differently (Jesus' bloody sweat/tears in Gethsemane also reflect a settled knowledge/consent/will of God). Here is a certain, literal, definite, specific, foreknown future individual destiny/decision set prophesied and anointed by God many years in advance (first through Elijah, then years later thru Elisha) and precisely fulfilled in vivid, graphic detail

Excellent and vital refutation of a growing heresy

Excellent exposition and evaluation of theism, panentheism and neotheism especially. Also Shows the fatal consequences of neotheism. Depeened my awareness of God's nature, will and knowledge, and his relation with me. This deeper awareness of God's majesty increased my worship. You cna read my detailled review at jude3.org.

Vital Book!

Contents: Introduction 1 The Chief Competitors to Christian Theism 2 The Distinctives of Christian Theism 3 Remaking God in our Image 4 The Biblical Claims of Neotheism 5 The Theological Charges of Neotheism 6 The Philosohical coherency of Neotheism 7 The Practical Consequences of Neotheism Appendix One: Infallible Predictions that falsify Neotheism Appendix rwo: Twelve Objections to a Finite God Glossary General Bibliography Select Bibliography Notes Index