Pinnock, Openness Theology, and Amrinianism

What is most sad to me is the acceptance of the idea that God is what one wants Him to be. Truth about God does not depend on how I see things.

 

Pinnock really didn't "embrace" Calvinism either, that's an opinion. It is a VERY HONEST, Most logical, end to the philosophy of Arminianism. As an Agnostic is an "Atheist" without guts to finish out the logical conclusions of his belief, so an Arminian an Open Theist without guts to finish out the logical conclusions of his belief.

 

What is most sad to me is the acceptance of the idea that God is what one wants Him to be. Truth about God does not depend on how I see things. </font>[/QUOTE]Amen.

 

Does this claim against the Arminians entail the belief that the Open Theists are the first logical thinkers to arise in the history of Arminianism, or the first brave ones?

If it does entail such a belief, it is claiming some pretty amazing things. But amazing claims aren't rare around here, are they?

 

I have one of Pinnock's early books, The Scripture Principle. His slide into the heresy of open theism is sad.

 

The debates that the intellectuals have been following for over the last 50 years, Calvinists have cornered the Arminians in the field of the "knowledge" of God re: Rom 8.29. The Arminians disregard the Biblical exegesis of this VERB and use it as a "noun". Though the Calvinist are correct on this issue, they have followed the Arminians in the debate on their (Arminians that is, Wes needs help understanding pronouns) rabbit trail and have still cornered them using knowledge as a NOUN. God still "knew" who would choose Him and STILL made the ones He knew would not choose Him. In this dilemma, they over time instead of repenting of this error, found a way to escape. That escape is "Open Theism" allowing God not "knowing" the specifics of the future. ALL of this though is irrelevant because of the improper understanding of the "foreknowledge" is a VERB and not a noun.

 

One of the recurring criticisms of Calvinism is that it makes God the author of sin. Unless one embraces Open Theism, which is heresy, there is no way to escape this false charge. Even the Arminian who holds to specific divine foreknowledge of all future events, has to be able to defend himself against the charge that God is the author of sin. At the point God purposed to create the world, he "pressed the button" so-to-speak that brought sin into the world. So the question to the Arminian is, "How is God not the author of sin, when he knew it would occur at the moment he decided to create the world?"

Of course, the logical result to escape this charge is Open Theism. And many are moving that way, if they are not there already. However, as one who believes in the sovereignty of God, I know that God will even use the heresy of Open Theism to further His purposes. Who knows - maybe it will "force the hand" of many Arminians to realize the truth of the Doctrines of Grace and God's sovereignty? I certainly hope so.

 

Amen bro. well said.

 

It depends on how you define the term "author of sin." Does Calvinism say that God ordained that man sin?

 

Both the Calvinist and the non-Open Theist Arminian believe that God ordains all that comes to pass. God knew the destiny of man and his sin when he "pressed the button", so-to-speak. He brought it to pass by creating the world. Neither camp can escape the supposed charge; only the heretical Open Theist can.

 

...then that would make God the author of all sin! THAT is heretical!!

 

Webdog,

Are you an Open Theist? Or do you believe that God has perfect knowledge of all things past, present and future?

 

I believe God does have perfect KNOWLEDGE of all things, past, present and future. I do not believe God is the author of all sin, and He does NOT predestine every human alive to commit sin, that is heresy!

 

The point is that the Calvinist argument that God is not the author of sin is just as strong as the Arminian argument that God is not the author of sin. Openness advocates see this and that is why they deny that God knew all that would come to pass when He "pressed the button" in the beginning.

 

Webdog,

I do not believe that God is the author of sin, either, which means He never tempts anyone nor causes them to sin.

 

When you peel all of the layers of calvinism off, and dig deep into predestination, according to this theology, every man and every action of every human past, present and future was predestined since the "beginning". Every sin ever committed then has to have been "planned" by God. This is garbage. God FOREKNEW every action of man, past, present and future, and every sin man would commit. This does NOT mean God predestined it! It only means God has perfect knowledge!

 

Webdog,

If I were an Open Theist, I would see no difference between what you say and what a Calvinist says. When God created the world, he most certainly ordained all that would come to pass. The fact that he knew man would sin, means that when he created the world, there was no other alternative universe where man could not sin (no forks in the road, so-to-speak).

 

There is no real difference on that point... and the point at which the difficulty is shared only requires you to pull one more "layer" off of arminianism to reach the same objection.

 

Guys, guys, guys.......
This is going to be endless until you study the simplicity of God, and God's eternality and infiniteness. Study Aquinas, he made it clear.