A Critique and Evaluation of the Methodological Foundations of Open Theism According to Clark Pinnock
In this article, we try to study Clark Pinnock’s point of view in explaining the methodological foundations of the Open Theism Theory with a descriptive-analytical method so that we can have a fair critique of the strengths and weaknesses of this theory while also understanding it correctly. Pinnock...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
University of Qom
2020-12-01
|
| Series: | Pizhūhish/hā-yi Falsafī- Kalāmī |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_1786_e53beed8d732db52c516abf72d10a018.pdf |
| _version_ | 1797759502675607552 |
|---|---|
| author | Mohammad Ebrahim Torkamani Ahmad Karimi Rasoul Razavi |
| author_facet | Mohammad Ebrahim Torkamani Ahmad Karimi Rasoul Razavi |
| author_sort | Mohammad Ebrahim Torkamani |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | In this article, we try to study Clark Pinnock’s point of view in explaining the methodological foundations of the Open Theism Theory with a descriptive-analytical method so that we can have a fair critique of the strengths and weaknesses of this theory while also understanding it correctly. Pinnock can be considered one of the most important theorists and founders of Open Theism. In his view, Open Theism is one of the theological-philosophical theories that have emerged in the critique of the teachings of traditional Christian theology and consider its claims to be logically and narratively contradictory.
Pinnock believes that open theists (unlike traditional theists) sanctify God as acknowledged in the Bible and that some of the attributes of God in traditional theology should be revised and modified based on the text of the Bible. They believe that God is the God of the Bible; someone who is truly connected to the world, a relationship that requires the most mobility, not immobility. In this view, God is portrayed as a triune relationship-oriented truth, which seeks romantic relationships with human beings and thereby grants them true freedom.
Finally, since open theists believe that theology should be understood by the people of the present age, a better explanation of theology depends on reliance on modern philosophy (rather than ancient philosophy) and its effects. In modern philosophy (considering the idea that the truth of things does not appear to man), method and methodology have become very important. In general, methodology is the knowledge that recognizes “how to go” and the fundamental methodology reveals the hidden principles of each theory and creates the basis for its basic critique. Of course, the purpose of this article is specifically to examine the “basics” of Pinnacle’s method, not his “method.” In fact, the report presented by his method is a platform for examining the basics.
From the author’s point of view, most of the mistakes that have been made in traditional theology are also reflected in Open Theism; leading in another way! That is to say, most of the objections that Pinnock made to traditional theologians also apply to him. For example, why is it bad to be influenced by (ancient) Greek philosophy, but Open Theism’s claims can be influenced by modern philosophy? Do ancient philosophy and modern philosophy have precise and acceptable boundaries at all? On what basis do open theists claim that modern philosophy is more acceptable to modern people than ancient philosophy? Can mere simultaneity justify it? If we take as a basis the claim of open theists – that every thought comes “from somewhere” and that no thought is pristine – the encounter of open theists with the text of the Bible is also done with the presuppositions of modern philosophy, and their pivotal mindset has influenced their understanding of the Bible. How can one be sure that the path taken by theology is more correct than the path taken by its predecessors?
Since a better understanding of each theory is gained by reflecting on its foundations, in this article we intend to examine the methodological foundations of Open Theism by looking at the book Most Moved Mover. In general, from Pinnock’s point of view, the method of open theism can be based on the three main bases of the critical study of the interpretation of traditional theologians, return to the Bible and overcoming Hellenism, and attention to modern philosophy, which we will describe and critique. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-12T18:45:20Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-0ccc67b247104d0489e2fa6222de486a |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1735-9791 2538-2500 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-12T18:45:20Z |
| publishDate | 2020-12-01 |
| publisher | University of Qom |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Pizhūhish/hā-yi Falsafī- Kalāmī |
| spelling | doaj.art-0ccc67b247104d0489e2fa6222de486a2023-08-02T07:37:52ZengUniversity of QomPizhūhish/hā-yi Falsafī- Kalāmī1735-97912538-25002020-12-01224115113610.22091/jptr.2020.5974.23951786A Critique and Evaluation of the Methodological Foundations of Open Theism According to Clark PinnockMohammad Ebrahim Torkamani0Ahmad Karimi1Rasoul Razavi2PhD Student, Quran and Hadith University, Qom, Iran.Associate professor of the Islamic Theology Department of Quran and Hadith UniversityAssociate Professor, Islamic Theology Department of Quran and Hadith University, Qom, IranIn this article, we try to study Clark Pinnock’s point of view in explaining the methodological foundations of the Open Theism Theory with a descriptive-analytical method so that we can have a fair critique of the strengths and weaknesses of this theory while also understanding it correctly. Pinnock can be considered one of the most important theorists and founders of Open Theism. In his view, Open Theism is one of the theological-philosophical theories that have emerged in the critique of the teachings of traditional Christian theology and consider its claims to be logically and narratively contradictory. Pinnock believes that open theists (unlike traditional theists) sanctify God as acknowledged in the Bible and that some of the attributes of God in traditional theology should be revised and modified based on the text of the Bible. They believe that God is the God of the Bible; someone who is truly connected to the world, a relationship that requires the most mobility, not immobility. In this view, God is portrayed as a triune relationship-oriented truth, which seeks romantic relationships with human beings and thereby grants them true freedom. Finally, since open theists believe that theology should be understood by the people of the present age, a better explanation of theology depends on reliance on modern philosophy (rather than ancient philosophy) and its effects. In modern philosophy (considering the idea that the truth of things does not appear to man), method and methodology have become very important. In general, methodology is the knowledge that recognizes “how to go” and the fundamental methodology reveals the hidden principles of each theory and creates the basis for its basic critique. Of course, the purpose of this article is specifically to examine the “basics” of Pinnacle’s method, not his “method.” In fact, the report presented by his method is a platform for examining the basics. From the author’s point of view, most of the mistakes that have been made in traditional theology are also reflected in Open Theism; leading in another way! That is to say, most of the objections that Pinnock made to traditional theologians also apply to him. For example, why is it bad to be influenced by (ancient) Greek philosophy, but Open Theism’s claims can be influenced by modern philosophy? Do ancient philosophy and modern philosophy have precise and acceptable boundaries at all? On what basis do open theists claim that modern philosophy is more acceptable to modern people than ancient philosophy? Can mere simultaneity justify it? If we take as a basis the claim of open theists – that every thought comes “from somewhere” and that no thought is pristine – the encounter of open theists with the text of the Bible is also done with the presuppositions of modern philosophy, and their pivotal mindset has influenced their understanding of the Bible. How can one be sure that the path taken by theology is more correct than the path taken by its predecessors? Since a better understanding of each theory is gained by reflecting on its foundations, in this article we intend to examine the methodological foundations of Open Theism by looking at the book Most Moved Mover. In general, from Pinnock’s point of view, the method of open theism can be based on the three main bases of the critical study of the interpretation of traditional theologians, return to the Bible and overcoming Hellenism, and attention to modern philosophy, which we will describe and critique.http://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_1786_e53beed8d732db52c516abf72d10a018.pdfopen theismclark pinnockbiblemodern philosophychristian theology |
| spellingShingle | Mohammad Ebrahim Torkamani Ahmad Karimi Rasoul Razavi A Critique and Evaluation of the Methodological Foundations of Open Theism According to Clark Pinnock Pizhūhish/hā-yi Falsafī- Kalāmī open theism clark pinnock bible modern philosophy christian theology |
| title | A Critique and Evaluation of the Methodological Foundations of Open Theism According to Clark Pinnock |
| title_full | A Critique and Evaluation of the Methodological Foundations of Open Theism According to Clark Pinnock |
| title_fullStr | A Critique and Evaluation of the Methodological Foundations of Open Theism According to Clark Pinnock |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Critique and Evaluation of the Methodological Foundations of Open Theism According to Clark Pinnock |
| title_short | A Critique and Evaluation of the Methodological Foundations of Open Theism According to Clark Pinnock |
| title_sort | critique and evaluation of the methodological foundations of open theism according to clark pinnock |
| topic | open theism clark pinnock bible modern philosophy christian theology |
| url | http://pfk.qom.ac.ir/article_1786_e53beed8d732db52c516abf72d10a018.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT mohammadebrahimtorkamani acritiqueandevaluationofthemethodologicalfoundationsofopentheismaccordingtoclarkpinnock AT ahmadkarimi acritiqueandevaluationofthemethodologicalfoundationsofopentheismaccordingtoclarkpinnock AT rasoulrazavi acritiqueandevaluationofthemethodologicalfoundationsofopentheismaccordingtoclarkpinnock AT mohammadebrahimtorkamani critiqueandevaluationofthemethodologicalfoundationsofopentheismaccordingtoclarkpinnock AT ahmadkarimi critiqueandevaluationofthemethodologicalfoundationsofopentheismaccordingtoclarkpinnock AT rasoulrazavi critiqueandevaluationofthemethodologicalfoundationsofopentheismaccordingtoclarkpinnock |