Abstract
For Peters, Pannenberg's whole theological system rests on what Peters calls a "retroactive ontology," or "a dynamic view of reality as an open historical process in which the present and past take their final shape and meaning from the yet-to-be-determined divine future" [7]. Peters makes a very persuasive case that the bedrock and animus of the entire Pannenbergian theological system points to an interesting and creative take on the fundamental problem of time, history, eternity and eschatology. Finitude in the sense of distinction-distinction between God and creatures or distinction between one creature and another-can be eternal. [...]the end of the temporal aeon and the beginning of the eternal is more than just one more epochal turning point in the flux of time. (Quote from Introduction to Systematic Theology, 1991) Grenz and Olson go on to acknowledge what Pannenberg's critics contend: with making the future the priority and basis of all that is, the resources and tools of continental philosophy and 21st century Christian theology, even though the intentionalities, goals and content of the two fields are irreducibly distinct and different from one another. [32] In this sense, Moltmann's conclusions about Chalcedon and the Filioque seem philosophically and theologically unsatisfactory regarding an eschatological revelation of a unity to the Trinity's distinctions. [33] It would behoove us to plunge in to Chapters 13-17 in the Gospel of John, or Jesus' long mediation on his pre-existence with the Father and the announcing of his glorification in the Resurrection to come; but we do...