نقد و ارزیابی مبانی روش‌‌شناختی الهیات گشوده با تبیین دیدگاه کلارک پیناک

نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری کلام امامیه، دانشگاه قرآن و حدیث، قم، ایران

2 استادیار گروه کلام اسلامی، دانشگاه قرآن و حدیث، قم، ایران

3 دانشیار گروه کلام اسلامی، دانشگاه قرآن و حدیث، قم، ایران

چکیده

«الهیات گشوده»، گرایشی الهیاتی۔فلسفی است، که تفسیر نوینی از برخی صفات خداوند و لوازم آن ارائه می‌‌دهد. این دیدگاه، بسیاری از آموزه‌‌های الهیات سنّتی (همچون منزّه بودن خداوند، علم پیشین مطلق، قدرت مطلق و ویژگی‌‌هایی از این دست) را نه مبتنی بر کتاب مقدّس، بلکه الهام‌گرفته از فلسفهٔ یونان دانسته، و در مقابلْ تصویری از خداوند ارائه می‌کند که مبتنی بر تشخّص، تغییر‌پذیری و تعامل او با انسان است. یکی از مؤسسین الهیات گشوده، کلارک پیناک است. به اعتقاد او - در ترسیم اعتقادات دینی - اگر چه سنّت و فلسفه باید مورد توجه قرار گیرد، اما «کتاب مقدّس» بیشترین اهمیت را دارد و بر این مبنا، آموزه‌‌های الهیات سنّتی باید مورد نقّادی قرار گیرد. پیناک، گرچه ره‌‌آورد تقریرش را «آزادی واقعی خدا و انسان» می‌‌داند، اما به‌‌نظر می‌‌رسد مبانی روشی او به لحاظ منطقی نامنسجم‌اند. از این‌رو، این پژوهش به ارزیابی دیدگاه پیناک در مبانی روش‌‌شناختی «الهیات گشوده» می‌‌پردازد.  به‌‌نظر می‌‌رسد به رغم آن که پیناک - در برخی موارد - ضعف‌های الهیات سنّتی مسیحی، در تبیین معارف الهیاتی را به‌‌خوبی بیان کرده، اما تلاش او در ارائهٔ راهکار - به لحاظ روشی - قابل نقد است. این مقاله با روش توصیفی۔تحلیلی و با رویکرد روش‌‌شناسی بنیادین، در صدد ارزیابی آرای پیناک در مبانی روش‌‌شناختی «الهیات گشوده» است.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

A Critique and Evaluation of the Methodological Foundations of Open Theism According to Clark Pinnock

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mohammad Ebrahim Torkamani 1
  • Ahmad Karimi 2
  • Rasoul Razavi 3
1 PhD Student, Quran and Hadith University, Qom, Iran.
2 Associate professor of the Islamic Theology Department of Quran and Hadith University
3 Associate Professor, Islamic Theology Department of Quran and Hadith University, Qom, Iran
چکیده [English]

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.
 
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Open Theism
  • Clark Pinnock
  • Bible
  • Modern Philosophy
  • Christian theology
جمشیدی، معصومه. (1388). اسکولاستیک. فرهنگ پژوهش. 27(5)، 91۔106.

حمزئیان، عظیم؛ سنایی، علی؛ عرب، زینب. (1396). خدای متشخص و انسان‌‌وار از منظر قرآن و عهد جدید. پژوهشنامه کلام، 4(7)، 113۔139.

شهرستانی، محمد بن عبدالکریم. (1415ق). الملل و النحل. (ج2). (چاپ ۴). (محقق: امیرعلی مهنا؛ علی حسن فاعور). بیروت: دار المعرفه.

کاراندیش، زهرا؛ کشفی، عبدالرسول. (1393). بررسی دیدگاه ویلیام هاسکر دربارۀ «علم میانی» خداوند با تکیه بر آرای توماس فلینت. جستارهای فلسفه دین، 3(1)، 97-125.

Agassi, J. (1981). Science & Society. Reidel Publishing Company

Agassi, J. (2008). Science and its History, A Reassessment of the Historiography of Science. Boston: Springer Press.

Bartley, W. W. (1964). Rationality versus the Theory of Rationality. In The critical Approach to Science and Philosoph. (M. Bunge). London, New York: The Free Press of Glencoe.

Dowden, K. (2010). Olympian Gods, Olympian Pantheon. A companion to Greek religion, 51(53). 41-85.

Hamzaian, A; Sanai, A; Arab, Z. (2017). A distinct and humane God from the perspective of the Qur'an and the New Testament. Journal of Theology, 4(7). 113-139.

Jamshidi, M. (2009). Scholastic. Research Culture, 27(5). 91-106.

Karandish, Z; Kashfi, A. (2014). Examining William Hasker's view of God's "middle science" based on the views of Thomas Flint. Essays on the Philosophy of Religion, 3(1). 97-125.

Miller, D. (1994). Critical Rationalism. Open court.

Miller, D. (2006). Out of Error.Burlington: Ashgate.

Mulberry, G. (1997). Rorty, Davidson, and Metaphor. Virginia: MA Thesis in Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

Munz, p. (1984). Philosophy and mirror of Rorty. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 14(2) 195-238. https://doi.org/10.1177/004839318401400206

Pinnock, C. (1989). The Grace of God, The Will of Man: A case for Arminianism. New York: HarperCollins.

Pinnock, C. (2001). Most Moved Mover: A theology of God’s openness. Michigan: Baker Academic.

Pinnock, C. (2005). Open Theism: An answer to my critics. Dialog: A Journal of Theology. 44(3). 237-245. ‌https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0012-2033.2005.00263.x

Pinnock, C. Rice, R. Sanders, J. Hasker, W. Basinger, D. (1994). The Openness of God. Illinois: InterVarsity Press. 

Piper, J., Taylor, J. & Helseth, P. (2003). Beyond the bounds: Open theism and the undermining of biblical Christianity. Illinois: Crossway Books.

Sanders, J. (2016). Theology in the Flesh: How embodiment and culture shape the way we think about truth, morality, and God. Minnesota: Fortress press.

Ware, B. (2003). Their God Is Too Small: Open theism and the undermining of confidence in God. Illinois: Crossway Books.

 

CAPTCHA Image