The Grace of God and the Broken Will of Man: Critiquing Pinnock’s The Grace of God and the Will of Man

Part 1

You wouldn’t know it by reading the title, but Editor C.H. Pinnock believes that our will is at least a match for the power and glory of God, either to thwart His work or to provide the missing piece necessary to complete it. I wager if you’ve read anything else I’ve written, you already know my opinion on this book. I do not believe, like many Calvinist theologians do, that this line of thinking is a tolerable difference in the church between brethren who ultimately desire to glorify God. I believe it is a subtle cancer that has given birth to many atheistic and antitheistic systems of thought. My thesis is that the root of Pinnock’s theology is the same pride which demeaned Lucifer and Adam.

We are in no way a match for God’s will, and there is nothing that we do that God needs from us to complete His will. We do not thwart His plans, nor does God bend His will to accommodate our fleeting and transitory nature. There are instances where God seems to change His mind in response to His creation, but these are not meant to demonstrate that God’s purpose has changed, or that He does not know future events, but that He has emotions in a manner like our own, along with contrasting attributes like wrath and mercy.

If God were a god whose will was subject to every changing whim that passes through our minds, then nothing He desired would ever be accomplished because literally none of us desires to do His will. If His will was subject to ours we would be God. If His will was subject to ours, prophecy would have no meaning for our lives because it would no longer describe God’s intention for us, but our intention for ourselves. I do not want to live in a world like this.

The Universality of God’s Love, by Fritz Guy

The root of pride is not seen more clearly than in Guy’s essay, “The Universality of God’s Love”. His proposal is that God’s love is defined by what He does for His creation, specifically mankind. I have not read any theology essay more self-centered than this offensive little ditty.
His essay can best be summarized by a quote from page 37:

God is “glorified” – that is to say, the divine experience of reality is expanded and enriched – as the humanity created in the divine image experiences more and more of its glorious potential for creativity, understanding, love, and the sheer enjoyment of reality.

God’s experience as God is expanded when we achieve our potential to be gods. Does this sound familiar?

 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God”[1]

If God’s goal was for us to achieve our highest potential, why the fuss over the tower of Babel? Shouldn’t He have helped us build the tower to the sky?

Why does God save the sinner? Why does He chastise Israel?

I will harden Pharaoh’s heart, and he will pursue them. But I will gain glory for myself through Pharoah and all his army, and the Egyptians will know that I am the Lord.[2]
For my own sake, for my own sake, I do this.[3]
What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of His glory known to the objects of his mercy?[4]

Guy is a humanist, a philosophy that believes the ultimate goal of humanity is to glorify humanity: to be better, to improve, to achieve. He throws God in to legitimize his religion. God is our servant and His goal becomes the improvement and achievement of humanity. This is a despicable twisting of His servant message. Yes He came to serve, but as an example of how we relate to each other, not to show us what His role is in our lives.

[1] Genesis 3.4,5
[2] Exodus 14.4
[3] Isaiah 48.11
[4] Romans 9.22,23