Creating a Context

The purpose of this chapter has been to raise important insights into how the

conception of God is conceived by Open Theists. In doing this, we have surveyed the relevant passages of each of the authors and explicated how they construct their understanding of God. The purpose here is to take their readings, along with the criticisms which were raised

alongside them, and create a context into which the future comparative work can progress. Recapping the method which runs through the thesis, the specific purpose here is to discover ways that the dialogue with Pentecostalism can speak into and expand the present

understanding of Open Theist thought concerning God. Each tradition carries with it certain beliefs and conceptions regarding God, but present within them is also an inherent level of limitation which the tradition also carries with it. God is not restricted to one tradition or interpretation, and consequently, dialogue is needed to expand our present horizons to incorporate new glimpses of the divine and offer novel insights into how God can be comprehended.

119

With this in mind, we can begin to forge a context into which novel ideas from Pentecostalism can speak. From the onset it is imperative to affirm much of what has been previously presented, so that a continuation in Open thought can develop. In this respect, the central tenets of Open Theism of the primacy of God’s love and His essential loving and relational ontology are strongly affirmed from both the biblical account and the implications of the ‘Social’ Trinity outlined above. There is also a need to reinforce the caution regarding aspects of Classical Theism which inhibit the responsive and relational perception of God. However, into this idea, is the desire to emphasise strongly the co-creative element between God and humanity. While this has been stressed, particularly by Hasker and Oord, in moving forward, it will be heralded as a prime theological motif, as the openness of the future

combined with God’s on-going loving activity shapes our present reality. This is undoubtedly a central key in understanding the purposes and goals of Open Theism. However, in stating a claim for the promotion of the co-creation of reality with the divine, we need to take seriously the criticisms which were levelled against the four authors above. This is particularly evident in how the Trinity has been conceived, especially in the alarming lacuna of Pneumatology.

In some respects, the absence of a strong doctrine of the Holy Spirit is baffling within a system of the openness of God which stresses a robust ‘Social’ Trinitarianism and God’s continual loving interaction in the world. The doctrine of the ‘Social’ Trinity is grounded within the notion of personal beings with their own loci of experiences despite sharing an instance of divinity. But presently within the majority of Open thought, there is a startling omission of one of its members. In addition to this oversight, is the accompanying question that if God is operative in this world now, how can God be seen as being active in any other manner than through the person and presence of the Spirit? Any future discussion regarding of the nature of God, needs to, at the very least, take seriously Pneumatology and

120

seek ways to incorporate it into its wider thought. Notwithstanding the importance of Pneumatology within any future Open discussion, it must be stressed that this has to be constructed within a robust Trinitarian structure, so not as to cause an imbalance in redressing the issue. In rectifying the Pneumatological lacuna, there is also the need to amend the

Christocentrism which was outlined above. Any further developments of the Trinity, must hold in balance how the Son and Spirit co-operate and function together, without one necessarily subsuming the other. Opportunities for this development are currently present within the surveyed works as Hasker particularly has demonstrated how contemporary discussions regarding the Trinity can draw from novel insights. His use of Ayer, Mosser and Plantinga provide new openings for explorations into the inner life of God, moving forward in biblical concepts and traditional language yet also retaining their fundamental essence. This is further echoed by Sanders and Pinnock, who considering the constitution of an Open

Christology, are willing to ecumenically draw from a number of Christological models in reaching new insights. Therefore, the precedent is set within Open Theism to seek new

dialogue partners in expanding the awareness of who God is. This does, though, lead us to our final consideration. In wanting to seek new insights from within the broader Church and its rich tradition, limits must be set on the bounds of what can be legitimately incorporated into Open thought if its aim is to remain biblically faithful and consistent to the Church’s

orthodoxy. Therefore, in light of this, due to the objections which have been raised throughout this work thus far, any engagement of Process ideas, or those adhering to a Process

metaphysic, will be subject to a cautious scepticism due to the differences which exist between the respective traditions.

121