Pinnock, Openness Theology, and Amrinianism

And which "layer" would that be?

 

Hey, wait a minute.

Are you saying that we can't settle this?

Look: we all have Bibles, we all have the Spirit of God dwelling in us, we're all smarter than the average bear, and we've all been to school.

Just give us another page or two of postings. At the end, surely we can come to an agreement. After all, in Heaven there will be no Calvinists or Arminians. We'll all be Evangelical United Brethren.

Calvinism says that God ordained man to sin; Arminianism says He didn't. It's the same thing, just worded differently.

See?

 

Interestingly enough, I know Clark. He and I actually had coffee at McMasters a couple of weeks ago. From every single account that anyone gives, he is a true Christian, doing more to further the kingdom by showing love to the Hamilton area than most anyone else I or those who know him know. His open theism doesn't prohibit him from Christianity. In fact, during our last conversation, we talked about everything but open theism, and he is actually quite conservative in other areas.

 

I'm sure Pinnock is a nice guy, personally. I understand that Arius was a very charming person but Athanasius was a very not nice person. But Athanasius stood for the truth and Arius stood for error. Nice guys are still heretics if they deny the Word of God.

 

There really is but a smidgen of difference between moderate Arminians and moderate Calvinists, IMO. In my experience, Arminians are hung up by the words "determined" and "predestined" but, in fact, they do believe that God created everything that exists and eternally foreknew all that would be. They don't want to say that God "determined" that Jones be lost. Instead, they want to say that God knew that Jones would be lost, but it was Jones' own fault. Well, I agree with that, too, and I'm also uncomfortable with saying that God "determined" that Jones would be lost. There's a connotation that the expression conveys that, I think, Calvinists tend to be insensitive toward.
Both sides keep talking past each other. Then more radical exponents of the views speak up and things go really crazy.
I think it's a false slippery slope to say that Arminians really ought to be Open Theists. People stop on all points of the spectrum. I'm not a supralapsarian, but I've been told that I ought to be one in order to be consistent.

 

I don't see how Clark denies God's word. In fact, he has a pretty good grasp on a lot of theology. Have you read "Most Moved Mover?" I don't agree with his conclusions, but you would be hard pressed to say that he's denying the Word of God. I have no doubt that he's a child of God, misguided as he may or may not be.

 

Pinnock denies inerrancy.

 

Which is, of course, one of the things one must believe in to be a follower of Christ, right? (Actually, it's not one of the requirements.) Pinnock does believe in inerrancy, but it's defined differently than you or I define it.

 

Differently than you or I or theological history defines it.

It's sort of like one who believes that he can lose his salvation telling a Calvinist that he (the Arminian) believes in eternal security. He may believe in something having to do with security, but it isn't what others believe when they say "eternal security."

It's not a good idea to use a technical term to mean something different than everyone else in your field means.

 

Webdog,


You may find some that teach as you just said., i think those that teach this are very few. This would be called double predestination. this as you, said is garbage. As a matter of fact predestination as you say some teach is all together wrong.

God does not make any person sin....which some may teach
God knows mankind will sin. But do not conclude that God elects because some seek God.
God also knows mankind will not seek Him, for they can not seek him. This is where election comes in.

election when paired with predestination shows a picture of God pushing some that want to be saved..into hell....and pulling others that want to go their own way...into a kingdom of god..where they do not want to be. This is why you must see election for what it is...and predestination for what it is.

God knowing mankind will sin is not the same as making man to sin. It is also true that if God sees no one coming to Him, because he is God He can elect to share His Word and have the Holy Spirit open the eyes to whoever we wishes. This is election. This is Gods own choice.

predestination is the full salvation plan. When one takes Christ as his Lord, predestination is saying he now can be SURE he will make it to heaven. God made the plan. God knows where the destiny is. We will make it to heaven

Predestination is never talked about in the form of hell bond sinners.
The reason why....is this is where all of mankind is going.

saved means...saved from this path to hell....and now we have a new destiny....heaven.

If you fill in the gaps it is wrong. if you fill in the gaps and say...well when God choses...God is making others go to Hell. No...they will not come to Him. they are going to hell on their own...God chose to elect some to have their bindness removed to understand the gospel.

if you fill in the gaps you say...if predestination is true...God makes other sin.

No...they are sinning already. They sin for they have a sin nature


why did he not remove all blindness? i do not know. all i do know is this...God can have .....

compassion...or.....no compassion
mercy....or......no mercy
love....or.....no love


In Christ...James

 

Back to the subject on Pinnock, if I may. Here is Pinnock concluding his discussion on Open
Theism in Predestination and Freewill:
In conclusion, the Bible contains thousands of verses. I am not claiming that there are none that could be cited which might embarrass my view or any other view about the sovereignty of God and human freedom. I am only claiming that the overwhelming impression the Bible leaves us with is one of significant human freedom and dynamic divine sovereignty. God gives us room to make genuine decisions and works alongside us in the temporal process. What we are and do matters to God. God responds to us like a dancer with her partner, moving at just the right moment in perfect coordination and balance with the living person to whom she is responding."
So Pinnock concedes that Scripture can be cited that would "embarrass" his view, but that is overridden by the "impression" he has of the biblical message. Do we do theology by touchy-feely impressions we get or by stating Biblical propositions? Then, there are the question-begging terms: GENUINE decisions, SIGNIFICANT freedom. God is temporal to Pinnock, a serious defection from orthodoxy. God works alongside us? I can think of Biblical propositions that deny such an assertion, but Pinnock has his "impressions" I guess, that over rule them. But personally, the most upsetting comment is God as dancer. Is there anything in Scripture that remotely depicts God this way? God doesn't even get to lead, according to Pinnock. Are we free to just make things up?

 

Nope, not even remotely. That imagery disturbs me, as does the fact that he would make up something like that.

Maybe he could describe God as a housefly that perfectly avoids colliding with the free wills of billions of people.

Or maybe a cockroach that comes out at night and gets his job done, but cannot be found in the day when men are exercising their wills.

Or maybe a blackjack dealer who doesn't know the value of the down card, but wisely considers it a 9, deals according to the player's request, and comes out ahead because the odds are with the house.

When you're making up a religion, the possibilites are vast. Or, if not entirely vast, they are at least half so.

 

It really concerns me that such obviously unBiblical ideas find a haven among Evangelicals. Does truth matter? How far shall we allow the Bible to be marginalized?
I don't think we should associate Bible-believing Arminians with the likes of Pinnock.
This is why I'm concerned with the tone of some of the posts here over issues that are more or less academic. We need to distinguish between disagreements over, say, the Order of Salvation and serious deviations from orthodoxy as evidenced by Open Theism. If you blow somebody out of the water over a minor issue, you've got no room left to escalate things when a serious issue comes along.

 

Pinnock says Open Theism is attractive. I agree. I myself had considered virtually the same position many years ago. The main driving point was an anti-Calvinism that I espoused. The future hasn't happened yet, I reasoned, so of course God doesn't know what it is. (This has been eloquently stated by one of the Open Theists as "God is deaf to silence.") The whole problem of evil seemed to be manageable. I relate this to say that, on one hand, I can understand the attractiveness of the position. And Pinnock portrays it eloquently. I like outside-the-box thinking. But after meditating on this idea for just a few days, I realized I had to reject it. The Bible flat-out contradicts it. It's one thing to be outside-the-box; it's another to be outside-the-book. We must watch for the seduction of our own cleverness. We must take the truths in the Bible and then try to piece them together. If we end up with a conclusion we don't personally like, too bad. Truth is not a matter of taste.

 

The point of my posts were to not equate Arminians with Open Theists. It was more to point out their inconsistency. I pointed out that when it comes to the "problem of evil" both the Calvinist and Arminian have to be able to defend themselves from false accusation that God is the author of sin. But the Arminian will often accuse the Calvinist of this very thing, not realizing he is in the same boat himself. Unless, of course, he embraces Open Theism, which it seems many are doing these days.

Believe me, I would rather that Arminians remain inconsistent than to embrace Open Theism. But my highest hope is that they shed off their Arminianism and embrace the doctrines of grace.

 

ALLOWING someone to do something is different than MAKING them do it. Calvinsim makes God the author of sin. Anti-calvinist's see God as allowing man to sin, and even through man's sin which separates us from God, uses ANYTHING for His glory. I don't think the two are even close! It's one thing to allow your children to make their own decisions, and telling them exactly what it is they are going to do.

 

Webdog,

From you perspective, how does Calvinism make God the author of sin?

 

By predestinating the actions of man that lead to eternal separation, then predestinating them to eternal separation for those actions. You can't have it both ways. You can't say God predestined the "elect" to hear the gospel "irresistably" without the same God doing the same exact thing with the "non elect".

 

Webdog,

We can discuss double predestination on another thread. What I want to know is how does Calvinism teach that God makes people sin, as you put it earlier?

 

I did. No action from man is his own. According to calvinism, man has no free will. One poster even went as far as to admit as much when he declared men are nothing "but robots", something I have felt calvinists have believed all along, and do not want to openly admit. Whose will do we have then, if it's not our own "free will"? Who's "free will" do we have? If it's not ours...is it satan's? God's? It must be God's because satan only does what God allows him to do, making God the author of sin.