Creating God in the Image of Man [Paperback]

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 theism and the infallibility of the Bible, while casting significant doubt upon the intellectual and practical credibility of both panentheism and neotheism as a result of their insistence to make God look more like fallible, finite and imperfect humans than the perfect, eternal and holy God of the Bible which actually deserves our worship. This is a needed book that I would recommend for all defenders of classical theism as well as for open minded disciples of process theology or the open view theology. In my mind, neotheism is a very logical consequence of the Christian church not doing a good job discipling and equipping their people on the fundamentals of the faith and why they make sense. And since the Church is not showing many signs of actively reversing this trend, it is my opinion this book becomes all the more critical since neotheism is likely to increase absent a concerted effort on the part of the Church to refute it the way Geisler does here.

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.

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 which Elisha was given a foreglimpse of eliciting real tears of genuine grief over a definitely ascertainted future. More biblical examples like this would have strengthened this otherwise outstanding defense of Biblical Omnitheism, refuting the 'openness deity' of penultimacy,quasi-eternity,multi-presence, pseudo-omniscience posited by some.

› Go to Amazon.com to see all 5 reviews  4.8 out of 5 stars