Doing a little surfing while the snow melts here in Kentucky.
I ran across this online read.
...Bob :tongue3:
I ran across this online read.
...Bob :tongue3:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The Case for Arminianism
- Thread starter BobinKy
- Start date
Just a question—you do know who Clark Pinnock was—don’t you?
http://www.normangeisler.net/pinnock.htm
Last edited by a moderator:
glfredrick
New Member
You do know where Clark Pinnock (now deceased) stood in his theology, right?
He ended up borderline, if not all the way, heretical (the book you reference was written in 1989). Pinnock led the charge for open theism and a host of other truly liberal expressions of Christian faith, having moved radically in his personal theology from a staunch conservative to a radical liberal.
Jarthur001
Active Member
The late Pinnock maybe the best example of Arminianism taken to its extreme. Pinnock became an open theist in his later years. If he had lived longer, he would have deny Christ.
http://www.svchapel.org/resources/articles/23-doctrine/550-open-theism-part-1
FROM THE LINK...
- 1) God is not sovereign. He is not always and necessarily in control. His will can be thwarted.
- 2) God is at risk. God responds to our responses. While God is endlessly resourceful, He can make mistakes. He can drop the ball in our lives. Our actions can so affect God as to frustrate His plans and force Him to seek alternatives. To some degree God is at the mercy of His creatures' choices and actions.
- 3) God is limited in knowledge. Since God does not know the future He seeks input from His creatures to help Him make decisions. He does not know the future because He is subject to time as we are. He is not infinite in knowledge; He is constantly learning. He is not immutable but is constantly changing, not in essence but in understanding. God truly does not know what anyone will do until they do it.
- 4) God’s ultimate purpose is not to glorify Himself but to give and receive love. His greatest and central attribute is love, around which all other attributes revolve.
Anyone that takes Arminianism to its extreme logical conclusion will be a Open Theist or Atheist in the end. Man has more power then God.
glfredrick
New Member
Wow, three of us cross-posted almost the same thing at the same time...
Just a question—you do know who Clark Pinnock was—don’t you?
http://www.normangeisler.net/pinnock.htm
Ok, I scanned the Geisler link. It appears Geisler does not like Pinnock.
. . .
Here is Pinnock's obituary that was published earlier this year in Christianity Today magazine:
And another obituary published in Associated Baptist Press:
...Bob
glfredrick
New Member
Bob, Pinnock was a very well-known theologian, who drifted widely to an extreme liberal stance before the end of his life.
You may nor be aware of his positions, but those who know of the ETS and of Pinnock's work do. He was bad ju-ju doctrinally, for every position, for he was adrift and ultimately was not a good support for any of the various systems that he held during his tenure as theologian.
Once he became enamored with the Pelagian human-centered point of view, there was no rescuing the man. He just kept moving father leftward.
You may nor be aware of his positions, but those who know of the ETS and of Pinnock's work do. He was bad ju-ju doctrinally, for every position, for he was adrift and ultimately was not a good support for any of the various systems that he held during his tenure as theologian.
Once he became enamored with the Pelagian human-centered point of view, there was no rescuing the man. He just kept moving father leftward.
menageriekeeper
Active Member
What they posted is not what I as a nonCal believe in the least. Which is why I dislike the moniker of Arminian. Pinnock waay out there. Like hyperArminian, maybe.
I agree but I would tweak your statement a bit.
I do not think that Arminianism on the surface, where most keep it, is deadly.
But I think that Pinnock represents where Arminianism LOGICALLY leads when thought through to it's logical conclusions.
It is not necessarily the "extreme" view but the logical end of it, IMO.
Many say the logical conclusion of calvinism is hyper-calvinism and the logical conclusion of arminianism is pelagian or open-theism.
Do not agree with this. Both hyper calvinism and open theism are distinct heretical positions that have nothing to do with the real theology of either calvinistic/arminian teaching.
(BTW, I like some of the earlier writings of Pinnock and appreciated his insights. He did go looney-tune, though.)
Do not agree with this. Both hyper calvinism and open theism are distinct heretical positions that have nothing to do with the real theology of either calvinistic/arminian teaching.
(BTW, I like some of the earlier writings of Pinnock and appreciated his insights. He did go looney-tune, though.)
GBC Pastor
New Member
And Calvinism when thought through to its logical conclusion makes God the source of all evil and Satan becomes God's dark side.
Glad I'm neither Arminian nor Calvinist!
raying:glfredrick
New Member
And Calvinism when thought through to its logical conclusion makes God the source of all evil and Satan becomes God's dark side.
Glad I'm neither Arminian nor Calvinist!
That was the point of Dr. Bob's post. It does not.
I'll say it again... Calvinism is dependent on the Scriptures just like Arminianism is dependent on the Scriptures. We go where the Scriptures goes and stop where the Scriptures stop. Neither true Arminianism nor true Calvinism takes "logic" to its ending point, for we both know that to do so is to become heretical.
Suggesting that either side DOES take their theology beyond the revelation of Scripture is an intentional fallacy and ultimately a lie, unless it can be demonstrated by actual written evidence that the individual has indeed willingly gone to a point beyond the teachings of either, in which point they are neither Calvinist nor Arminian, depending on which direction they move.
I too would say that I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian, but not because I hold some other form of theology. There really isn't another biblically sound theological position that we can take. I disavow myself of the labels because they are no longer useful in any real sense, and because we have done some theological work that transcends both positions and reconciles both ultimately under Scripture.
As long as people continually stereotype the "other side" in ways that are demonstrably not true, we'll end up doing nothing other than the work of the enemy, who seeks to have us at war with each other instead of loving each other according to Christ.
I am VERY interested in this work. It will be fascinating indeed to see these contradictory systems work together.
It will be like reconciling dryness and liquid water in the same space at the same time.
I do not think it is necessary to reconcile the two. I think what Calvin did was RETURN us to the Bible.
His system, as Spurgeon said, IS the Gospel- but not because it is his- because he got it from the Word of God.
quantumfaith
Active Member
What they posted is not what I as a nonCal believe in the least. Which is why I dislike the moniker of Arminian. Pinnock waay out there. Like hyperArminian, maybe.
Good observation M.
quantumfaith
Active Member
And Calvinism when thought through to its logical conclusion makes God the source of all evil and Satan becomes God's dark side.
Glad I'm neither Arminian nor Calvinist!
Be cautious GBC, you are about to incur wrath.
quantumfaith
Active Member
Your opinion of truth.
quantumfaith
Active Member
For purposes of levity only:
Bigot: n: One who is zealously and obstinately attached to an opinion that is not yours. (Ambrose Bierce)
Bigot: n: One who is zealously and obstinately attached to an opinion that is not yours. (Ambrose Bierce)