Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: Four Views

I just finished a Perspectives book on the subject of the Doctrine of God; the four contributors and their positions are Paul Helm (Classical Calvinism), Bruce Ware (Modified Calvinism), Roger Olson (Classical Arminian) and John Sanders (Open Theism).

1. Paul Helm was the first (suitably so) essayist; the responses to his essay by all three opponents (Olson, Sanders and to a lesser extent, Ware) seemed for the most part to criticize Helm on the same points, showing consistently where Helm went wrong. What's interesting is that they did not so much criticize Helms position (in regards to Classical Calvinism), there was no space for that after they quite easily dummied Helm by showing how inconceivable it is that someone with his credentials could be so mistaken or misleading. Olson took him to task swiftly and decisively, making Helm look silly. For starters Helm audaciously and arrogantly claims that Classical Calvinism is simply "the Tradition" of Christian belief, so that Classical Calvinism, unlike the other positions, is actually no position at all. Classical Calvinism is simply "the Tradition", and all the other "positions" are deviations from this tradition; this belief of his is simply unsustainable!

Helm opinion is (and was made so) demonstrably false, and for someone with Helm's credentials, it might even be suggested that he is intentionally misleading those who may enjoy his position and who know no-wiser. Another eyebrow raiser, is that while Helm criticise John Sanders and his Open Theism, and Bruce Ware and his Modified Calvinism, I found it interesting that he did not criticize Roger Olson and his Classical Arminianism. When he criticized the Arminian position, he ignored Olson and built his critique around a small fringe or subset group of Arminians who believe in Middle Knowledge as it is articulated my William Lane Craig. It was Olson (along with Helm, Ware, and Sanders), who was the fourth contributor to the book at hand, not Craig, why was it then that Helm avoids Olson's discussion of Classical Arminianism (with his view of Simple Foreknowledge), and brings up a position which has no place in the discussion and purpose of the book at hand?

2. Bruce Ware was the second essayist and I must admit, I was not fully prepared for it. Having read many Calvinistic material in the past, I expected more of the same old dogmatic, mean-spirited, arrogance that I've perceived from them (see Helm above), but not a hint of this was evident in Ware. His was one of the best articulated and most persuasive and fair-minded arguments for the Calvinists perspective of the doctrine of God which I have come by to date. Furthermore, Bruce's acknowledgment of the difficulties with the Classical Calvinists Perspective and his attempt to address and work out some of those difficulties and many of the ideas he purposes are commendable; thus his perspective, "Modified Calvinism".

Throughout his presentation, Ware sought to base his position firmly within the confines of scripture. As an Evangelical Christian, I must admire this commitment; his was a reminder of some of the difficulties I must overcame in articulating a Modified Arminian scripturally based perspective on God. All in all, I respect - though disagree - with Ware's presentation and conclusions.

3. I like Roger Olson; he's a graceful, sharp-witted and reasonable thinker who is open though not easily persuaded by other ideas and positions. I expected Olson's articulation of the Classical Arminian perspective to be the best essay in the book, I was disappointed for two reasons. For starters, it would have been nice to see a more biblical defense involving some specific examples and references. Under the subject of Biblical Evidence he says; "demanding biblical 'proof' of free will is something like demanding proof that George Washington believed in a free market economy rather than communism... the surest biblical 'proof' of libertarian freedom of will lies in the attempt to square divine determinism with God's goodness in the face of sin, evil, and hell" [p.159]. While I agree, as an evangelical Christian it would have been nice to see some scriptural 'proof' anyways.

Secondly, to the question of whether or not Simple Foreknowledge results in a determined future, Olson says "Just because God 'sees' the future does not mean it is determined" [p.157; he recommends Alvin Plantinga's God, Freedom and Evil for a philosophical argument showing that Simple Foreknowledge does not necessitate a determined future]. However, I cannot see any possible way to avoid that conclusion: God sees the actual future - what will happen, not what may happen - therefore the future cannot happen in any other way then how God sees it, otherwise God would be mistaken. Therefore the future is determined by his foreknowledge. Aside from these two points, it is always a pleasure to read Roger Olson.

4. John Sanders was the fourth and final essayist and his position, Open Theism, is beyond a doubt the most controversial one in the book. None the less, his essay - for what it's worth - was quite simply the finest of the four; but don't take my word for it, in a moment I'll quote the responses by Olson (who's favorable to Open Theism) and by Ware (who has written books against Open Theism). I think Sanders entered the discussion knowing he was doing so espousing a position as the "fringe" outsider in the group, and having to defend Open Theism in the past from every possible angle (Sanders, God Who Risks), his was a targeted, methodical, systematic, philosophical, biblical and seasoned defence of Open Theism.

Olson said: "I am not prepared at this point to adopt open theism even though I feel the force of John's arguments, and I do not see what core doctrines of the Christian faith would be negatively affected by it" [p.250]. Olson provides two reasons why he has not accepted the openness view, both of which, I judge, are in consequential.

Ware, who is diabolically opposed to Open Theism, gives an even stronger favorable review of Sanders essay, even though he rejects his system completely, he says:

"John Sanders should be commended for writing a very fine explanation and defense of the openness view... his lucid description of features of his model, his able defense through biblical and theological support, and his astute address of major objections that have been raised to the openness view commend this chapter as a clear and compelling treatment of the open view that Sanders espouses. As one who has interacted with openness literature for many years now, I gladly acknowledge that Sanders has done a superb job representing his own view, showing both a clear grasp of central issues and a maturity in his presentation that no doubt is the result of working hard on these issues over many years." [p.251-252]

I agree with Wares assessment.

Conclusion: As a whole I strongly recommend Perspectives on the Doctrine of God: 4 Views. Paul Helm is the odd ball out because he doesn't really seem to know what is going on, that fact aside, the dialogue between Ware, Olson and Sanders is very helpful in working out and understand a doctrine of God. Two thumbs up.

In Christ,
Derek