User reviews

User Review - Flag as inappropriate

PINNOCK affirms that God is a personal being contrary to impersonal and static God of Greek ontology. Indeed, PINNOCK restores the aspect of God relation, full with love to his creatures. We notice that this design of personal God is reasonable. For this purpose, PINNOCK formulates the doctrines of the creative love around the only topic “love”, which he claims to base on the Bible. For the theism of the creative love, the vision of God while creating, is to have the relation of love so that the man is delighted some and takes part in its love. It is a dynamic and personal vision of God that it tries to develop in his doctrines of God. But We thus have found out certain weaknesses of its argumentation.
In this debate, we notice two major weaknesses in the argumentation of PINNOCK in particular the reductionnism and the pantheist tendency. Indeed, compared to the nature of God, PINNOCK tends to reduce God to the human proportion. The following points clarify this pantheist tendency: God creativity, mobility, relatively immutable and God being depend on the world.
a. Creativity instead of Creator God
Under the influence of the metaphysical principle of creativity like an ultimate reality in the dynamic Process, PINNOCK speaks about God creativity instead of creator God. Indeed, PINNOCK adopts the creativity like a dynamic basic principle in the universe. This principle raises two problems. The first problem is that of creation from nothing, that is creatio ex nihilo theory. And the second problem is that of continual creation, and consequently the dependence of God of the world.
For PINNOCK, God is a personal being which created the universe and controls it, being ontologically distinct from the world, which is the sphere of divine creativity. We note moreover that, in PINNOCK’s Theism, although God created any thing, It unceasingly creates, while accepting also that God created from nothing. Indeed, the creativity implies that the beings created are absolutely dependent on God. In this case, the theory of creatio ex nihilo does not have any meaning. It can be valid only under two conditions: the unilateral action of God and creation from nothing.
PINNOCK draws its theory from creatio ex nihilo from the reason and other texts that those of the book of the Genesis. However, this maxim must be based above all on the biblical revelation. The Bible affirms clearly that God created by his word: "And God said : Let there be light and the was light.” (Gen. 1 : 3, revised standard version). Indeed, according to the Bible, God created the universe, including the man and the matter from nothing.
We notice with BLOCHER that, God creates by the word in a perfect way from nothing. A logic reason of this assertion of BLOCHER is that if God created the universe from nothing, the world depends completely on God. However, God is ontologically independent of the world. Therefore, God created from nothing and not from the matter. Several reasons justify also this maxim creatio ex nihilo and rejects the origin of the universe coming from the preexistent matter:
The first reason, the apostolic tradition generally accepts the creatio ex nihilo and supports it by the text of the Genesis. Therefore, the matter is not eternal and thus does not have life it cannot create. Because, the matter was also created by God from nothing. The second reason, the universe does not come from a preexistent matter, because the matter does not have life. Indeed, we affirm that the life comes only from what is life. As, the matter does not have life, therefore the matter did not create. A third reason, being perfect creator, God created from nothing by its free act and its powerful word in a perfect way; consequently, God does not need to recreate continuously, because, creation is an act of great wisdom of God, accomplished in the perfect union in the Trinity. Another weakness is that of the mobility of God.
b. Mobile God
We notice that another weakness of open theism is to reconsider God like an

All reviews - 1
5 stars - 0
4 stars - 0
3 stars - 0
2 stars - 0
1 star - 0

All reviews - 1
Editorial reviews - 0

All reviews - 1