Michael Harmon

Add friend

Michael’s Bookshelves

to-read‎ (3)

currently-reading‎ (1)

read‎ (0)

did-not-finish‎ (0)

Stats | More…

Michael is Currently Reading

Michael Harmon rated a book liked it

The Openness of God

by Clark H. Pinnock

bookshelves: currently-reading

Reading for the 2nd time

read in June 2010

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Michael Harmon said: " So far, a thorough introduction; I appreciate the logical approach, and the honest attempt to address the main opposition charitably.

At just a few points, I was concerned Rice (the first essay) doesn't make a clear enough distinction between creator So far, a thorough introduction; I appreciate the logical approach, and the honest attempt to address the main opposition charitably.

At just a few points, I was concerned Rice (the first essay) doesn't make a clear enough distinction between creator and created, for example when he says that God's action involves change because he experiences the changes he makes to the world. And in a very well-comprehensive consideration of God's will and what it means for our own, he jumps to saying God's power can be "thwarted," rather than being consistent with his argument and saying that God sometimes ALLOWS his INTENTIONS to be thwarted. Also, Rice states that God cannot entirely predict people's own actions -- this sounds more like Process Theology to me.

That said, it's nice to see a reasonable look at how/why God is relational, responsive, and still sovereign. I don't get the feeling they are trying to make God more human, but instead look at what God created in us and say, "This is what it means for us to understand God by being made in the divine image."

The historical considerations are entertaining to me; they trace not just the inklings of relationality but the causes of extra-biblical understandings, so that it's very clear that God, though still and always God, is always willing to bring his people along through time from a certain capacity of understanding to the next -- much like the giving of the Mosaic Law in the Torah is to Christ's explanations of it when on Earth. While not surprised to see my own influences (particularly Luther), I was especially surprised at how philosophical intrusions into some theologians led them to outright heresy (for example, the idea for Tillich that God does not even "exist," because existence is limitation).

Very much enjoy Pinnock's attempt to root his theology in experience of God -- after all, without experience of life, God and language, the Bible itself would make no sense to anyone; even if we didn't believe it, we could understand it. And so it should be with theology. It's a compelling argument: why do we act one way, as if God can be affected by prayers, and yet adamantly claim God is always and forever and only changeless? I find merit in the idea that God is not always one way all the time, except in His essence: divine, loving, communal, sovereign, and free. It is true that God is often times "both-and": both transcendent and immanent, both sovereign and servant, both gracious and just. Why not both timeless and open to time? The only thing I tend to take issue with is how quickly a few of the writers jump to a bit of an extreme. It only happens a few times (which is something for such a book, being something of such "new ground"), but Pinnock does need to watch against the panentheism of Tillich. I think he would have done better to quote Ephesians 4:6 instead of Acts 17:8, for example, when talking about God being immanent. I absolutely love his willingness to be honest and realistic about taking what the Scripture says as what it means, and that God is truly unlimited -- limited neither by our false dichotomies nor by our fear. I wish he would have addressed a potential logical issue with regard to God's knowledge, as I think he may explore a bit of a pigeon hole when saying God's foreknowledge would mean the future is already determined. And that also yields a bit of a question: if God is unlimited enough to be both-and in all of these areas, why is he limited by the "can be known"? To say that something cannot be known is to say it is subject to a limitation; thus the one who does not know it is subject both to its existence and the condition that subjects its existence to itself. This, I think, is one of the only places I part with Pinnock and agree more with Molinism (God knows everything that can be known... including all possibilities, and what is freely chosen without regard to his intenions). Still, it is a joy to hear biblical concepts admitted for their full logical reality, such as: "Creating free creatures and working with them does not contradict God's omnipotence but requires it," and "God gives us room to rebel against him, and when that happens patiently waits for the prodigal to return."

Hasker is obviously a philosophe. He scatters terms around that make a lot of sense, but at the same time isn't too heavy with them, so as to deter an interested reader. His philosophical treatment of the various, what I would call major, theological systems as it relates to God's level of determinism is comprehensive, and concise enough to avoid disappointment. That said, despite the accurate treatment of each system, he does seem to avoid a few key points; he reduces Calvinism to inadequate due simply to the inability to explain evil in the world; he ignores the commonly understood point that simple foreknowledge is not determining things actively, only that actions are set when viewed from an eternal perspective due to those actions being determined in-the-present by free agents (much like filming real life: just because you can watch the home-movie and know that Bobby will throw Sue in the pool in five minutes, that does not mean Bobby did not freely determine his behavior, much less that you determined it at any time whatsoever). What Hasker does is establish Free Will Theism as a completely viable option -- he does not refute all other systems to the point that FWT is a clear "winner."

For example, a few questions still lingered for me at this point: (1) There's plenty of evidence that God responds to creatures who are his own, but where is the Scriptural evidence that people who are not yet his own can really have a free choice to relate to him? (2) Surely there are some limits to how we can respond to anything; we are not infinite creatures. How does being finite relate to "libertarian free will"? (3) And though I know this isn't an exhaustive text, I'm wondering how they would interpret 1 Cor. 2:14-15; at least according to the various translations I have, none seem to allow the idea that we are so significantly free as to accept/choose/receive God himself if we're limited by a natural mindset. This brings other questions: (4) what's the heart of the gospel, if we weren't freed from something? (5) But if we were freed from something, were we then not liberitarian-ly free before the gospel? Explain. Bottom line: sounds nice, but I still need some explanation about where the freedom really comes from, and whether or not we really need to be freed, or can be free in any and all circumstances before the gospel.

This became even more clear to me in the final chapter, where -- in the attempt to maintain the position -- a number of seeming contradictions sprang. It is the "open view of God," but the view actually CLOSES God's ability to know or determine anything. They claim God can "unilaterally act" within time, but this is never explained, except in a way that only maintains HUMANITY'S ability to "unilaterally act" instead; in other words, God cannot unilaterally act unless we unilaterally act. God has apparently chosen to lock himself into a cage (if this locking is merely for show, I would question their view of God's integrity), whereby we have the key. When pressed, even this view of God "unilaterally intervening" isn't affirmed in its true sense: that God still maintains the right to exercise control over his own creation, whether or not he chooses to exercise it. I also find it troubling that in a system where it is claimed God wants us to be "morally mature," that there is no address of what God does when we are not yet mature enough to freely decide or act in a beneficial way. All forms of Calvinism end up being characterized as hyper-Calvinism (which Calvinists themselves repudiate), and the denial of middle-knowledge is frightening, since that would mean God could never know possibilities until we did -- and in that case, who is subject to whom? I saw absolutely no explanation of the gospel according to this system, which bothers me since it is clear that we are "freed" to live the gospel from something that keeps us in bondage (namely, sin). And finally, I also read no address of potentially troubling texts to them, like Acts 17:28 where God seems to determine exact places for people. To be frank, at times the position feels hollow, as if they are arguing apriori to ensure that they have the freedom they want, and not true to the kind of "both-and" theology (or the acknowledgment of an absolutely free God) that I would hope. ...more "

progress:

(page 155 of 202)
"Essay #5 in The Openness of God: 'Practical Implications.'" — Jun 04, 2010 03:43PM

Jun 10, 2010 02:32PM · see review