Forgive me if this topic has been brought up previously... I've been told by some that Pinnock's slide to openness theology stemmed from his movement from 5-point Calivinism in the 60s to an almost unwavering Arminianism in the 70s and 80s. He held (holds) so strongly to human "free will" in salvation, that intellectual honesty finally demanded that he move to the "open" view of God's sovereignty in everything else. (That's the Cliff Notes' version.) Today I ran across this interview: web page In his own words: HOMILETICS: So in openness theology the future is an “open” question as far as the knowledge of God is concerned. PINNOCK: This is the point that is most controversial. That’s why I speak of it as a variant of Wesleyan-Arminian theism, because it posits a different view of the future. We think it strengthens that way of thinking, but some critics think that it’s too risky, too dangerous. So our view is not that God knows everything that can be known and is therefore omniscient without qualification, but that some aspects of the future are settled and other aspects are not settled. The world is such that certain things are still being settled by the agents in the world, by us and by God, so God knows things as possible as well as certain. Traditionally, God knows everything that will ever happen certainly, so it must happen exactly that way. Whereas we’re saying that God appears in the Bible to know some things for certain because he planned them or because they’re going to happen definitely, but aspects of the future may surprise him. and... HOMILETICS: So are you arguing that God can’t know the future in a certain sense because that kind of knowledge contains a self-contradiction, in the same way that the proposition that God can’t create a rock that is too heavy for him to lift contains a self-contradiction? PINNOCK: We’re saying that omniscience doesn’t mean that the future is exhaustively foreknown because God’s made a world the future of which would be decided by himself and human agents. So it’s really the reality of the human agents as to whether they make any difference for the future. If they do, then it means that certain things are not yet settled, because they haven’t made their choices, or done their thing. and... HOMILETICS: Critics would say that the God that you envision is certainly not the God of classical theology and that he is in fact a diminished God. If you have a God who is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient and so on — this seems to be less of a God than that traditional view. PINNOCK: That depends on your view of God’s perfections. If it is a divine perfection to control everything, then our God is diminished. But we think, “What’s so great about a God who controls everything? Isn’t a God who loves us and enters into relationships with us a wonderful ideal of God?” So it’s partly how you see things. If God’s glory is to determine everything, then we diminish God. But the Bible doesn’t have such a God and we don’t worship such a God. While I don't personally agree with many, if any, of his conclusions or perspectives, I find his honesty refreshing. He saw where "free will" theology eventually leads and he went there.