Clark Pinnock

[Rebel]

Anyone have opinions of him and his beliefs?

(I put this thread in this section so all could contribute)

 

[Revmitchell]

Maybe you could help us out by going ahead and stating what you either like or dislike about him. Not sure what you are looking for here.

 

[Rebel]

Maybe you could help us out by going ahead and stating what you either like or dislike about him. Not sure what you are looking for here.

Well, I like that he was willing to go where the search for the truth led him. He grew up in a liberal tradition but became evangelical. His beliefs were inspired by a wide variety of traditions.

He believed that people might be saved by responding to the light they have.

I am also open-minded on Open Theism.

I like that he was a Baptist.

 

[Scarlett O.]

I believe that when the Bible teaches about the omniscience of God that it truly means that he knows everything - from beginning to end. There is nothing hidden from God - not even future events or our future actions.

God knew and knows every move I will make and every thought I will have until the day I die and God knew and knows all of that before he said, "Let there be light".

God is not limited to only knowing about the present. He does not limit himself on purpose. God's omniscience is unlimited and unfettered - otherwise he would not be omniscient.

Mr. Pinnock would disagree with me on that.

 

[Revmitchell]

So it is your position that a liberal cannot be evangelical?

 

[Rebel]

So it is your position that a liberal cannot be evangelical?

No, not really. I was speaking in general terms.

However, the evangelizing that some liberals do is not, in my opinion, an evangelism of the gospel. I feel the same way about some fundamentalists.

 

[Rebel]

I believe that when the Bible teaches about the omniscience of God that it truly means that he knows everything - from beginning to end. There is nothing hidden from God - not even future events or our future actions.

God knew and knows every move I will make and every thought I will have until the day I die and God knew and knows all of that before he said, "Let there be light".

God is not limited to only knowing about the present. He does not limit himself on purpose. God's omniscience is unlimited and unfettered - otherwise he would not be omniscient.

Mr. Pinnock would disagree with me on that.

The Arminian view is that God foresees what will happen but that does not mean He determines it. An analogy would be that someone standing on a cliff overlooking a river can see that rafters heading toward a waterfall will go over if they do not change course. I'm not sure I buy all of that. For example, if God sees what will happen beforehand, isn't that still a kind of determinism? That's why I tend to think that Open Theism does a better job of explaining free will and sovereignty.

 

[Revmitchell]

No, not really. I was speaking in general terms.

However, the evangelizing that some liberals do is not, in my opinion, an evangelism of the gospel. I feel the same way about some fundamentalists.

The term evangelical has lost any real meaning. Everyone claims to be one much like liberals (moderates) claim to be conservative. People want to be included without any accountability to why they should be included.

 

[Rebel]

The term evangelical has lost any real meaning. Everyone claims to be one much like liberals (moderates) claim to be conservative. People want to be included without any accountability to why they should be included.

I think we search for terms to describe things, even if such terms are not completely accurate. I tend to describe myself as moderate, although I don't think that is wholly accurate. I know I don't fit neatly into any one camp. If I listed all my views, they would span the spectrum. I can affirm without reservation the Apostles Creed, though.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think we search for terms to describe things, even if such terms are not completely accurate.

No, I don't think so. I think people want to be included so their view can be considered credible. W. A. Criswel put it well when he said "Because of the opprobrious epithet "liberal," today they call themselves “moderates.”

 

[Scarlett O.]

The Arminian view is that God foresees what will happen but that does not mean He determines it. An analogy would be that someone standing on a cliff overlooking a river can see that rafters heading toward a waterfall will go over if they do not change course. I'm not sure I buy all of that. For example, if God sees what will happen beforehand, isn't that still a kind of determinism? That's why I tend to think that Open Theism does a better job of explaining free will and sovereignty.

Well, it can be like eating a prickly pear cactus trying to dovetail free-will and sovereignty to everyone's liking. Actually eating the prickly pear cactus would be easier.

I'm not an Arminian nor a Calvinist so, ...

You said, "for example, if God sees what will happen beforehand".

For me, it's not a matter of if God sees, but that he sees it all at one time. He sees the whole canvas so to speak. And that doesn't deny that humanity makes their own choices in this life and to me.

I'll never be able to explain it even to my own satisfaction, let alone anyone else's, but the scripture I read shed that light to me even if I can't verbalize it.

 

[Revmitchell]

Well, it can be like eating a prickly pear cactus trying to dovetail free-will and sovereignty to everyone's liking. Actually eating the prickly pear cactus would be easier.

I'm not an Arminian nor a Calvinist so, ...

You said, "for example, if God sees what will happen beforehand".

For me, it's not a matter of if God sees, but that he sees it all at one time. He sees the whole canvas so to speak. And that doesn't deny that humanity makes their own choices in this life and to me.

I'll never be able to explain it even to my own satisfaction, let alone anyone else's, but the scripture I read shed that light to me even if I can't verbalize it.

Yep, we as Christians need to stop trying to speak for God where He does not speak and learn to be comfortable with saying "I just don't know because God has not given that yet."

God is sovereign even in our salvation and at the same time man is responsible to respond to the call of God for salvation. How do those two ideas exist at the same time without conflicting with one another. I have no idea God has not said. That being true does not change the truth of the former.

 

[Rebel]

No, I don't think so. I think people want to be included so their view can be considered credible. W. A. Criswel put it well when he said "Because of the opprobrious epithet "liberal," today they call themselves “moderates.”

Do you not think there are any that could truthfully be called moderate?

 

[Revmitchell]

Do you not think there are any that could truthfully be called moderate?

I'll tell you what I am open to the idea if someone could actually define it in a clear fashion. I have to tell you though doctrines like Open Theism are extreme in nature and quite heretical. That is not meant as a slam against you or your openness to it but it is what it is.

Doubting the narrative of Genesis and its author is nothing but pure liberalism. I am finding people who do support such notions and call themselves conservatives and moderates. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Any view that runs through science first in order to interpret scripture is extreme liberalism.

Just some examples.

 

[DHK]

In his early years Clark Pinnock was an apologist for the faith, wrote a book about Biblical Inerrancy, and defended the Word of God as being inerrant.

Then things changed. He began to deny that the Bible was inerrant. He started to believe in Open Theism. Many conservatives labeled him as a liberal and some even as an apostate.

So the question is: Which Pinnock are you referring to?

The late Stanley Grenz once observed that Pinnock "has been lauded as an inspiring theological pilgrim by his admirers and condemned as a dangerous renegade by his foes. Yet no story of evangelical theology in the 20th century is complete without the inclusion of his fascinating intellectual journey from quintessential evangelical apologist to anti-Augustinian theological reformist." In his own account of his spiritual journey, Pinnock recounts how he started right, moved left, and then ended up in the center

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/43-22.0.html

A fairly good summary of his life can be read here:

https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2001/the-teaching-of-clark-pinnock/

 

[Rebel]

Well, it can be like eating a prickly pear cactus trying to dovetail free-will and sovereignty to everyone's liking. Actually eating the prickly pear cactus would be easier.

I'm not an Arminian nor a Calvinist so, ...

You said, "for example, if God sees what will happen beforehand".

For me, it's not a matter of if God sees, but that he sees it all at one time. He sees the whole canvas so to speak. And that doesn't deny that humanity makes their own choices in this life and to me.

I'll never be able to explain it even to my own satisfaction, let alone anyone else's, but the scripture I read shed that light to me even if I can't verbalize it.

Even if you can't verbalize that, but your post is well-stated.

 

[Rebel]

I'll tell you what I am open to the idea if someone could actually define it in a clear fashion. I have to tell you though doctrines like Open Theism are extreme in nature and quite heretical. That is not meant as a slam against you or your openness to it but it is what it is.

Doubting the narrative of Genesis and its author is nothing but pure liberalism. I am finding people who do support such notions and call themselves conservatives and moderates. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Any view that runs through science first in order to interpret scripture is extreme liberalism.

Just some examples.

I didn't take what you said as a slam against me.

 

[Rebel]

In his early years Clark Pinnock was an apologist for the faith, wrote a book about Biblical Inerrancy, and defended the Word of God as being inerrant.

Then things changed. He began to deny that the Bible was inerrant. He started to believe in Open Theism. Many conservatives labeled him as a liberal and some even as an apostate.

So the question is: Which Pinnock are you referring to?


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/43-22.0.html

A fairly good summary of his life can be read here:

https://banneroftruth.org/us/resources/articles/2001/the-teaching-of-clark-pinnock/

I don't know, my journey is similar to his. I was quite conservative until I was about 20; then I became liberal, then agnostic. When I came back to historic Christianity, I'd say I landed somewhere in the middle. I know I have a couple of views that many would consider heretical. But I have many conservative views, too. I can affirm all of the Apostles Creed and all of the Nicene Creed except the part about baptism, because I think what they say is scriptural. And as I mentioned, I am unflinchingly traditional on ethics and morality. That wasn't always so. I am always studying and searching for truth. I know Jesus is ultimate truth.

BTW, thanks for the links.

 

[Reformed]

Mr. Pinnock would disagree with me on that.

Well, since Mr. Pinnock is dead, he actually is a convinced believer in the absolute omniscience of God!

 

[Yeshua1]

Anyone have opinions of him and his beliefs?

(I put this thread in this section so all could contribute)

he started up pretty conservative, heu drifted away and became a holder for Open theism, and that there might be salvation in other then jesus for other religions of the world!