What do you think?
Rate this book
Unbounded Love
Love
190 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1994
29 people want to read
About the author
Clark H. Pinnock
49 books21 followersClark H. Pinnock (d. 2010) was professor emeritus of systematic theology at McMaster Divinity College in Hamilton, Ontario. Widely regarded as one of evangelicalism's most stimulating theologians, he produced several widely discussed books, including The Wideness of God's Mercy and (with four other scholars) The Openness of God.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
November 16, 2022
Challenged my theology in a few ways, makes you think!
August 25, 2021
I just finished "Unbounded Love: A Good News Theology for the 21st Century," by Clark H. Pinnock and Robert C. Brow.
Thank you Curtis Holtzen (check out The God Who Trusts) for the recommendation and the back and forth about it along with Andrew Ray Williams (check out Boundless Love) who gave me some of his thoughts on the book.
This book sets forth how "creative love theism" (Brows name for it) speaks to multiple topics contra--mainly--Augustinian Calvinism. First thoughts are that what creative love theism was when this was published in 1994 was swallowed up by open theism over time. Or that the publishing of this and "The Openness of God" the same year was a frontal attack on determinism with hopes that one would "take." One did.
Part 1, Doctrine of God:
They open with a philosophy of religions style coverage of the three schools of thoughymt avaliable: Atheism, Monism and Theism, and all the major subsets therein. Landing on Theism as the logical choice for a God who is love they move on to a chapter dedicated to this view of God. While speaking to theism they further break down different views within this category: forensic theism is one which includes Islam and Theological Determinists (think court room) the other is the presentation of creative love theism which says that the court room is a motif in scripture but God as Father (parent/child relationship) is a bigger motif of God from which we build our model of God. But that doesn't nail down which theism to go with. How to decide? The resurrection is how. Without getting into more than a paragraph of an evidential presentation of the resurrection, the writers shift gears and speak to what we can expect, which is, like Jesus', a resurrection after death. The writers address the doctrine of the trinity next stating how the (social) trinity is a model of love upon which creative love theism relies. God is and always has been and this didn't force him to create us so we could love him but he was always loving within himself and freely created us in love and we are to emulate him as loving communities.
Part 2, The Doctrine of Sin:
The most pressing point here is that sin isn't breaking of some law but sin is primarily a disruption of a relationship with God, the result of this disruption can be seen in the aforementioned "law breaking." Sin is a refusal to love.
"Biblical writers viewed judgement in the context of salvation, not in opposition to it," p 73.
Topping off this section on sin is a chapter on hell. The writers admit that while we may like to think that there is no such thing as hell one can not read scripture and understand that it speaks to hell. Also, God's love for His people would allow one who wants to freely walk away from that love to do so. Therefore there must be a way to speak about those who ultimately seek to not be with God eternally.
"Hell exists because love can be refused," p 89.
The options laid out after removal of the literal, sadistic real-fire-hell are a C.S. Lewis eternal self-absorbed existence as hell and annihilationism. The writers opt for the eternal death seen in annihilationism. But if this has so much scriptural support how have we landed on a "everyone knows that" view as eternal conscience torment?--the writers suggest that the Greek view of the immortality of the soul is at the forefront. Walking in one assumes that the soul is eternal therefore you go "up" or "down" forever. The tragedy here is that this "traditional" view turns God into Satan as causal to tormenting people eternally, with Satan as the sidekick dealing the justice God desires. Might I add that eternal conscience torment "turns" people to God out of fear rather than love and that is not the God revealed in Jesus (Heb 1:3). A good point which bolsters this position is that if hell is eternal conscience torment then this introduces a dualism which has God not being victorious over evil: its still there eternally screaming (not to mention this brings into question the character of God).
Part 3, the Doctrine of Salvation:
Here is atonement talk. First thing that grabs me is that the writers state that "humanity had to be reconciled to God not God to humanity." This follows a path I've been going for a while: the atonement is subjective. Nothing in God is broken needing fixing so he can draw near to us. The reverse, though, is true.
"We must realize that Jesus did not die in order to change God's attitude toward us but to change our attitude to God," p 103.
The writers cover the sacraments in beautiful detail. The eucharist isn't limited to the crucifixion, and baptism deals covers well how there are many motifs used to express how we pledge Allegiance to Jesus. Later the writers cover credo v paedobaptism, one writer from a paedo tradition and the other from a credo tradition. There was room left for accepting people where theybare found without demanding they get rebaptized and get on with the mission of discipleship.
Part 4, The Doctrine of Faith:
"The Christian life is union with Christ. Much more than judicial acquittal, it is deeply mystical," p 143.
This last section is on the living faith individually and communally. Not a ton of mining though it is good stuff. When dealing with the church Charismatic it is seems that Pinnock had a heavy hand in the writing based off his healing during his time teaching at SBTS, though that is an assumption.
#ClarkHPinnock #ClarkPinnock #RobertCBrow #RobertBrow #UnboundedLove #DoctrineOfGod #CreativeLoveTheism
Thank you Curtis Holtzen (check out The God Who Trusts) for the recommendation and the back and forth about it along with Andrew Ray Williams (check out Boundless Love) who gave me some of his thoughts on the book.
This book sets forth how "creative love theism" (Brows name for it) speaks to multiple topics contra--mainly--Augustinian Calvinism. First thoughts are that what creative love theism was when this was published in 1994 was swallowed up by open theism over time. Or that the publishing of this and "The Openness of God" the same year was a frontal attack on determinism with hopes that one would "take." One did.
Part 1, Doctrine of God:
They open with a philosophy of religions style coverage of the three schools of thoughymt avaliable: Atheism, Monism and Theism, and all the major subsets therein. Landing on Theism as the logical choice for a God who is love they move on to a chapter dedicated to this view of God. While speaking to theism they further break down different views within this category: forensic theism is one which includes Islam and Theological Determinists (think court room) the other is the presentation of creative love theism which says that the court room is a motif in scripture but God as Father (parent/child relationship) is a bigger motif of God from which we build our model of God. But that doesn't nail down which theism to go with. How to decide? The resurrection is how. Without getting into more than a paragraph of an evidential presentation of the resurrection, the writers shift gears and speak to what we can expect, which is, like Jesus', a resurrection after death. The writers address the doctrine of the trinity next stating how the (social) trinity is a model of love upon which creative love theism relies. God is and always has been and this didn't force him to create us so we could love him but he was always loving within himself and freely created us in love and we are to emulate him as loving communities.
Part 2, The Doctrine of Sin:
The most pressing point here is that sin isn't breaking of some law but sin is primarily a disruption of a relationship with God, the result of this disruption can be seen in the aforementioned "law breaking." Sin is a refusal to love.
"Biblical writers viewed judgement in the context of salvation, not in opposition to it," p 73.
Topping off this section on sin is a chapter on hell. The writers admit that while we may like to think that there is no such thing as hell one can not read scripture and understand that it speaks to hell. Also, God's love for His people would allow one who wants to freely walk away from that love to do so. Therefore there must be a way to speak about those who ultimately seek to not be with God eternally.
"Hell exists because love can be refused," p 89.
The options laid out after removal of the literal, sadistic real-fire-hell are a C.S. Lewis eternal self-absorbed existence as hell and annihilationism. The writers opt for the eternal death seen in annihilationism. But if this has so much scriptural support how have we landed on a "everyone knows that" view as eternal conscience torment?--the writers suggest that the Greek view of the immortality of the soul is at the forefront. Walking in one assumes that the soul is eternal therefore you go "up" or "down" forever. The tragedy here is that this "traditional" view turns God into Satan as causal to tormenting people eternally, with Satan as the sidekick dealing the justice God desires. Might I add that eternal conscience torment "turns" people to God out of fear rather than love and that is not the God revealed in Jesus (Heb 1:3). A good point which bolsters this position is that if hell is eternal conscience torment then this introduces a dualism which has God not being victorious over evil: its still there eternally screaming (not to mention this brings into question the character of God).
Part 3, the Doctrine of Salvation:
Here is atonement talk. First thing that grabs me is that the writers state that "humanity had to be reconciled to God not God to humanity." This follows a path I've been going for a while: the atonement is subjective. Nothing in God is broken needing fixing so he can draw near to us. The reverse, though, is true.
"We must realize that Jesus did not die in order to change God's attitude toward us but to change our attitude to God," p 103.
The writers cover the sacraments in beautiful detail. The eucharist isn't limited to the crucifixion, and baptism deals covers well how there are many motifs used to express how we pledge Allegiance to Jesus. Later the writers cover credo v paedobaptism, one writer from a paedo tradition and the other from a credo tradition. There was room left for accepting people where theybare found without demanding they get rebaptized and get on with the mission of discipleship.
Part 4, The Doctrine of Faith:
"The Christian life is union with Christ. Much more than judicial acquittal, it is deeply mystical," p 143.
This last section is on the living faith individually and communally. Not a ton of mining though it is good stuff. When dealing with the church Charismatic it is seems that Pinnock had a heavy hand in the writing based off his healing during his time teaching at SBTS, though that is an assumption.
#ClarkHPinnock #ClarkPinnock #RobertCBrow #RobertBrow #UnboundedLove #DoctrineOfGod #CreativeLoveTheism
September 14, 2024
AN EXPOSITION OF "CREATIVE LOVE THEISM”
Clark H. Pinnock (1937--2010) was Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College, and author of books such as 'Reason Enough: A Case for the Christian Faith,' 'A defense of Biblical infallibility,' 'A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality Of Jesus Christ In A World Of Religions,' 'The Openness of God,' 'Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness,' 'The Grace of God and the Will of Man,' 'The Scripture Principle,' ;Set forth your case, etc. Robert Brow is "a retired parish priest in the Anglican Church of Canada."
The Introduction to this 1994 book states, "The book developed out of an article written by Robert Brow for Christianity today... [which] called for a revisioning of evangelical theology... Clark H. Pinnock came into the picture as a respondent to the original article... As Brow and Pinnock got together and reflected on some reactions to the article and on deeper underlying themes, the conviction grew that there is a shift in evangelical thinking which Brow was pointing to...
"This book, then, is a fuller exposition of Brow's original vision, merged with Pinnock's parallel thoughts... It is an attempt to recover good news for our time. Brow was the one to call it 'creative love theism.' ... Unbounded Love is an invitation to consider God as a dynamic and loving triune being who wants to have meaningful interaction with us... What is needed is... clarification of God's gracious character and actual identity." (Pg. 7-8, 10)
They state, "Because God is love, we can be sure that no one will be excluded from knowing God by ignorance or lack of opportunity. Only those who deliberately reject God's love will be excluded, and they will really have excluded themselves. God has decided to exclude no one---exclusion can happen only as a result of the human decision to love darkness rather than light." (Pg. 32)
Of Romans 9:20-22 they wrote, "If every lump of clay is spoiled with original sin... God is perfectly just in sending any person to hell. And if we are among the few who are lucky enough to be chosen, we can magnify God's grace without feeling bad about the others who get the hell their sin deserves anyway. Of course we question whether this is what Paul was getting at. The passage about the potter has nothing to do with individual guilt and salvation. These words of Jeremiah [18:1-6] refer to God's dealings with the nation of Israel and have not arbitrariness attached to them." (Pg. 64)
They suggest, "When God's anger does burn against sinners, the Bible says it lasts only a moment. His anger passes, but his love endures forever... Because God's anger is rooted in his love for us, it is actually distasteful to him. It is a tragic necessity, not something God ever delights in. It causes him suffering and means he must suspend his mercy for a time... Our point is that God's wrath is not a fundamental disposition inherent in God's nature but a reaction that God experiences because of his love when he is confronted by sin." (Pg. 69)
They admit, "Should there be a final refusal to repent, God's judgments may mean final judgement and irrevocable rejection. The finally impenitent will be swept away in fury---we do not intend to sidestep clear biblical warnings to that effect. But the judgments in history PRIOR to final judgment are not meant as God's last word." (Pg. 70)
Later, they add, "It does appear that some may finally reject God's love and be separated from him forever. The warnings about eternal destruction are clear enough to prevent us from entertaining the hope of universal salvation. Evidently God values human freedom so much that he allows people to reject him finally... We are not suggesting that it is easy for a person to go to hell---only that is can be done. God's love is offered to all, and hell is not a contradiction of that. Hell exists because love can be rejected. God would like to prevent it but cannot. Yes, there are things God cannot do, and this is one." (Pg. 87-89)
They say, "Of course the Bible is reserved in giving us information about the nature of life after death. Yet when it uses the language of death and destruction to refer to hell, it leaves the distinct impression that hell is closure. The Old Testament sets the stage for the New Testament position in speaking of the wicked falling like grass and being cut off forever... This language fits closely with Jesus' warning that God will destroy both body and soul in hell. The apostles use the same imagery of destruction... A fair-minded person might just conclude ... that the Bible teaches the destruction of the impenitent." (Pg. 91)
As controversial as some of Pinnock's other books, this challenging book will nevertheless be of interest to Christians wrestling with doctrines such as Hell and Open Theism---whether they agree with Pinnock and Brow, or not.
Clark H. Pinnock (1937--2010) was Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College, and author of books such as 'Reason Enough: A Case for the Christian Faith,' 'A defense of Biblical infallibility,' 'A Wideness in God's Mercy: The Finality Of Jesus Christ In A World Of Religions,' 'The Openness of God,' 'Most Moved Mover: A Theology of God's Openness,' 'The Grace of God and the Will of Man,' 'The Scripture Principle,' ;Set forth your case, etc. Robert Brow is "a retired parish priest in the Anglican Church of Canada."
The Introduction to this 1994 book states, "The book developed out of an article written by Robert Brow for Christianity today... [which] called for a revisioning of evangelical theology... Clark H. Pinnock came into the picture as a respondent to the original article... As Brow and Pinnock got together and reflected on some reactions to the article and on deeper underlying themes, the conviction grew that there is a shift in evangelical thinking which Brow was pointing to...
"This book, then, is a fuller exposition of Brow's original vision, merged with Pinnock's parallel thoughts... It is an attempt to recover good news for our time. Brow was the one to call it 'creative love theism.' ... Unbounded Love is an invitation to consider God as a dynamic and loving triune being who wants to have meaningful interaction with us... What is needed is... clarification of God's gracious character and actual identity." (Pg. 7-8, 10)
They state, "Because God is love, we can be sure that no one will be excluded from knowing God by ignorance or lack of opportunity. Only those who deliberately reject God's love will be excluded, and they will really have excluded themselves. God has decided to exclude no one---exclusion can happen only as a result of the human decision to love darkness rather than light." (Pg. 32)
Of Romans 9:20-22 they wrote, "If every lump of clay is spoiled with original sin... God is perfectly just in sending any person to hell. And if we are among the few who are lucky enough to be chosen, we can magnify God's grace without feeling bad about the others who get the hell their sin deserves anyway. Of course we question whether this is what Paul was getting at. The passage about the potter has nothing to do with individual guilt and salvation. These words of Jeremiah [18:1-6] refer to God's dealings with the nation of Israel and have not arbitrariness attached to them." (Pg. 64)
They suggest, "When God's anger does burn against sinners, the Bible says it lasts only a moment. His anger passes, but his love endures forever... Because God's anger is rooted in his love for us, it is actually distasteful to him. It is a tragic necessity, not something God ever delights in. It causes him suffering and means he must suspend his mercy for a time... Our point is that God's wrath is not a fundamental disposition inherent in God's nature but a reaction that God experiences because of his love when he is confronted by sin." (Pg. 69)
They admit, "Should there be a final refusal to repent, God's judgments may mean final judgement and irrevocable rejection. The finally impenitent will be swept away in fury---we do not intend to sidestep clear biblical warnings to that effect. But the judgments in history PRIOR to final judgment are not meant as God's last word." (Pg. 70)
Later, they add, "It does appear that some may finally reject God's love and be separated from him forever. The warnings about eternal destruction are clear enough to prevent us from entertaining the hope of universal salvation. Evidently God values human freedom so much that he allows people to reject him finally... We are not suggesting that it is easy for a person to go to hell---only that is can be done. God's love is offered to all, and hell is not a contradiction of that. Hell exists because love can be rejected. God would like to prevent it but cannot. Yes, there are things God cannot do, and this is one." (Pg. 87-89)
They say, "Of course the Bible is reserved in giving us information about the nature of life after death. Yet when it uses the language of death and destruction to refer to hell, it leaves the distinct impression that hell is closure. The Old Testament sets the stage for the New Testament position in speaking of the wicked falling like grass and being cut off forever... This language fits closely with Jesus' warning that God will destroy both body and soul in hell. The apostles use the same imagery of destruction... A fair-minded person might just conclude ... that the Bible teaches the destruction of the impenitent." (Pg. 91)
As controversial as some of Pinnock's other books, this challenging book will nevertheless be of interest to Christians wrestling with doctrines such as Hell and Open Theism---whether they agree with Pinnock and Brow, or not.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews