Clark Pinnock in the book, The Openness of God, presents with others a new form of thinking

about the doctrine of God which he argues, with his co-authors is more biblical than the classical
theistic view which has dominated church history. This classical view emphasises Gods
sovereignty ma!esty and glory. Gods will is the final e"planation for all that happens and Gods
glory is the ultimate purpose that all creation serves. #ince Gods sovereign will is irresistible
whatever he dictates comes to pass and every event plays its role in Gods grand design. Gods
relation to the world is one of mastery and control.
Pinnock and others including $oyd and #anders in The Openness of God challenge this view
positing that its deterministic nature is unbiblical and is influenced mainly by Greek philosophical
thought.
$oyd in the previous chapter to Pinnock argues that classical theism has a double origin in Greek
philosophy and the $ible. The attributes of God were shaped and amplified under the influence of
Greek philosophical thought. The %ellenistic ideal of God is one as absolute, timeless, unchanging,
impassible and in control & a $eing who cannot be affected by anything outside itself. On the other
hand there is the $iblical ideal of God as a dynamic, relational person, vulnerable, sympathetic and
committed to relationships. ' God committed to covenant and dialogue not monologue. These two
views are incompatible.
Pinnock, in the introduction of the book states that according to this new view of God, God in his
grace sovereignly granted humans significant freedom to co-operate with or work against %is will
for their lives and to enter into dynamic give and take relationships with himself. (t places the
emphasis upon the genuine interactions that take place between God and human beings) how we
respond to %is initiatives and how %e responds to our responses. (t implies that God takes risks in
these give and take relationships but is endlessly resourceful and competent to still work towards
his ultimate goals. #ometimes God alone decides how to accomplish these goals, sometimes %e
works with human decisions adopting %is plans to fit changing situations. God wants input from
creaturely agents and does not control everything that happens.
Pinnock argues that the classical theistic view has shaped doctrine and theology by
overemphasising the divine transcendence over and above the the divine immanence leading to a
static and distant view of God rather than a dynamic and near view. %e hinges his thesis by
redefining and rebalancing the various attributes of God with the central plank being a social
trinitarian view of the doctrine of God. *ithin this view the ontology of God is based on loving
relationships. ' triune communion who seeks loving relationships with humans bestowing on them
genuine freedom for this purpose. +ove therefore and not freedom is the central concern. Pinnock
argues that genuine freedom is impossible in the classical theistic view, due to its deterministic
nature if the future is inevitable the apparent e"perience of free choice is a an illusion as is the
loving relationship this is founded on. The social trinitarian relational ontology solves this problem
for Pinnock by giving a God who is ontologically other but at the same time constantly relating and
responsive.
Gods impassibility Pinnock argues is the most dubious of the classical theisms definitions of the
attributes of God. %e cites biblical evidence for the suffering and pathos of God e.g. %osea ,,)- and
states that Gods decision to love involves suffering. %e does concede that Gods suffering is a
mystery of his inner life as he cannot suffer in the same way as his creatures e.g. physical pain but
he can suffer the pain of a broken relationship. Gods omnipotence Pinnock defines as not the power
to determine everything but the power to deal with any situation that arises.
This redefining and rebalancing of the divine attributes, this open view, Pinnock acknowledges,
limits Gods foreknowledge. God he states is omniscient in the sense that %e knows all that is
knowable & but not even God can know the future that has not already happened. Pinnock does not
deny that God is infinitely wise, resourceful and competent but cannot know a future that has not
happened and that also relies on the choices of free beings. .The future does not yet e"ist and
therefore cannot be infallibly anticipated by even God./ 0ven $iblical prophecies are open ended
and dependent on human responses to them. God likes it this way & for it would be a serious
limitation if he did not e"perience surprise and delight & which implies God learns things and
en!oys doing so. Therefore as God e"ists and carries on %is life in time he undergoes changing
states. God changes not in %is essential character, %is love, wisdom, power and faithfulness but in
%is thoughts and deeds towards us and creation. Therefore the immutability of God ought to focus
on the faithfulness of God as a relational personal being... not in the direction of immobility and
inertness.
God, Pinnock argues, still knows a great deal about what will happen. %e knows everything that
will ever happen as the direct result of factors that already e"ist. %e also knows infallibly the
content of %is own future actions to the e"tent they are not related to human choices. %e knows
everything that could happen and what he can do in response to each eventuality he is still
sovereign as %e knows the ultimate outcome to which he is guiding the course of history.
1inally Pinnock deals with the timelessness of God within the classical theistic model saying that if
Gods eternity was timeless then %e could not be related to a temporal world. %e states that the
$ible testifies not to a divine timelessness but Gods faithfulness over time. God e"periences
temporal passage as we do and therefore confronts a future that is open. %e is, however, also
transcendent to temporal passage, %e is in the process without being an involuntary sub!ect to it.
Past, present and future are real to God. %is eternity means that there has never been a time when
God does not e"ist. This open view presents a God whose main 2ualities are generosity, sensitivity
and vulnerability not power and control.