The Trinity: Panentheism & Pantheism

Braganza, Portugal, trekearth

The Trinity: Panentheism & Pantheism

Preface

Segments edited from archived article with new material added.

Panentheism April 01, 2012

Panentheism & Pantheism

David H. Nikkel (2003) defines panentheism as from the Greek meaning ‘all is in God’. Nikkel (2003: 1). Both God’s transcendence and immanence are accepted, as the world and matter is in God, and God is ‘all-encompassing with respect to being.’ Nikkel (2003: 1).

Panentheism is not identical to pantheism which postulates that ‘God is identical with everything’ Martinich (1996: 556). Pantheism reasons God is in everything and that God and the universe are one. Blackburn (1996: 276). Blackburn also explains Benedictus de Spinoza (1632-1677) is noted for this view within Western philosophy

The difference being that panentheism understands ‘God is in all things’ Martinich (1996: 556). The doctrine being that all things exist in God. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94), but is not identical with all things as with pantheism. Martinich (1996: 556).

As example:

God in pantheism may be considered to be equal with a tree.

God in panentheism may be considered beyond the tree, but the vital force within it.

Panentheism attempts to ‘avoid the pitfalls’ of traditional theism. Nikkel (2003: 1). God is prohibited from having a true and genuine relationship with matter and the universe because of traditional theistic views such as that God is immutable, impassible, and eternal and timeless. Nikkel (2003: 1). God is not eternal within this view.

Panentheism is an intellectual compromise between traditional theism and pantheism. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94). Within panentheism, God is more than just the material universe, as there is an unchanging aspect to God’s being and also a dynamic aspect to God as the divine being changes as matter and the universe do. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 94).

In my traditional Christian theistic understanding, God is beyond a tree and sustains it, but is not the vital force within it. This is my example based on Erickson’s presentation. Erickson (1994: 303-307). 

The Trinity

August 10, 2016

Within a trinitarian, biblical perspective, God as transcendent is beyond the finite, material universe. God is the first cause of all things and sustains all finite creation. God is not the vital force within his finite creation, but sustains and maintains it.

God’s nature does not equate to any human nature, for example. The infinite God causes the finite without being finite (This is not contradicted by Jesus Christ, the Word of God taking finite human nature in the incarnation without ceasing to be infinite God). God is immanent within his creation, but his infinite, eternal nature is not mixed with finite nature of any kind. Deity and humanity, two natures, are also not mixed in the incarnation of Christ.

The finite is not infinite. A finite thing is also not eternal. The finite cannot become infinite. The finite cannot become eternal. The finite, can possibly become everlasting. Finite attributes therefore cannot evolve into infinite attributes.

For balance, an academic friend once challenged me that an entity could technically have some infinite attributes and some finite attributes. For example, a being could have eternal life and yet not be omniscient. But the logic of this would be debated. Is not a limitless nature by definition, entirely limitless, lest it be limited? If God was for example, not omniscient, I would reason this would be because infinite, omniscience would be logically impossible. However, an infinite being and first cause could still virtually know all things (divine deduction) even without technical omniscience, in my opinion.

In the same way as God is infinitely good, he cannot logically be infinitely evil. But God is not evil in nature at all, but can use evil for his good purposes. Being evil is not a finite attribute of God. The orthodox view being that God cannot have finite attributes.

Although a reasonable proposition for consideration, I admit. I personally doubt my scholarly friend’s objection as a true.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. AND ROGER E. OLSON (1992) Twentieth Century Theology, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

KREEFT, PETER and RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

MARTINICH, A.P. (1999) ‘Pantheism’ in Robert Audi, (ed.), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

NIKKEL, DAVID H. (2003) ‘Panentheism’, in Encyclopedia of Science and Religion, MacMillan Reference USA, New York.

---

Pinterest: Post-fall....

The Trinity: Relating to humanity in different ways

Amsterdam: Google+

In Touch Ministries: September 22 2016

The Truth About The Trinity by Charles F. Stanley

Cited

'The word "Trinity" cannot be found in the Bible, but the truth of it can. While there's only one God, the Godhead consists of three distinct persons—the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. All are equally omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal, and unchanging, but each one has unique functions. 

Scripture shows how each member of the Trinity fulfills His specific role, and it also reveals how those three roles interrelate. Let me express this idea in simple terms: The Father creates a plan, Jesus Christ implements the plan, and the Holy Spirit administers the plan.'

I listened to two of Dr. Stanley's sermons on the Holy Spirit today. I have heard and read similar, but he provides biblical and reasonable descriptions of the distinctions within the Trinity.

God the Father: Plan and planner
Jesus Christ: Implementer of that plan
The Holy Spirit: Administers the plan

Again from Dr. Stanley:

'The Father, Son, and Spirit are equal in their divine attributes. Yet each relates to mankind in a different way because He has a specific role. It's very important to understand this distinction: We do not have three gods; we have one God in three persons functioning uniquely and perfectly.'

End citations from Dr. Stanley

Colossians 2:9-10 (Him is Jesus Christ)

'New American Standard Bible (NASB) 9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form, 10 and in Him you have been made [a]complete, and He is the head [b]over all rule and authority; 

Footnotes: Colossians 2:10

Lit full Colossians 2:10 Lit of '

N.T. Wright explains in regard to Colossians 2: 9-10, it is an continuation of 1:19 (109), 'for all the fulness to dwell in him.' (NASB).

'He is uniquely God's presence and his very self'. (109). Wright reasons that Paul is teaching monotheistic doctrine here and not that Jesus Christ is a second deity. (109). Christ is the embodiment of full deity. (109).

Based on this section of Scripture, a proper interpretation is that although the Father can be reasonably defined as the planner, all of God in nature is involved in the planning process in a sense; in infinite knowledge and agreement. The infinite nature of God in the three distinctions is fully aware of plans. The Godhead is involved in the atoning and resurrection work of Christ, even though it was Jesus Christ that died on the cross and was resurrected. Jesus Christ, the Word (John 1) remains infinite, eternal God, and became God incarnate. Acts 2: 24 states that God raised Him (Jesus Christ) from the dead and in the process defeated death.

As I noted in a previous article from Hebrews 1; Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (page 847). Erickson further explains that each member of the Trinity is quantitatively equal. Erickson (1994: 337).

Matthew 28: 19-20 and Acts 5 are two examples from the New Testament demonstrating the Holy Spirit as God.

Matthew 28:19-20

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

19 [a]Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you [b]always, even to the end of the age.”

Footnotes:

Matthew 28:19 Or Having gone; Gr aorist part.

Matthew 28:20 Lit all the days

Acts 5: 2-6

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

It is stated that one can lie to the Holy Spirit (verse 3) and therefore lie to God. 'You have not lied to men, but to God.' (verse 4).

All three distinctions within the trinity are infinite, of one ontological (existence and being) essence and nature, and yet with distinctions.

In speculation, a philosophical critique might be that the infinite nature of God requires no distinctions or differently that God being infinite, should exist as infinite distinctions.

Finite, sinful and imperfect humanity needs God's enlightenment from revelation to reasonably know God and to have significant intellectual understanding. God is Scriptually revealed in three distinctions and three persons, properly biblically defined. This is not completely understandable for the finite mind, but it is reasonable to the finite mind.

To suggest that God as infinite must have infinite distinctions is not necessarily true, theologically, is not necessary philosophically, and is highly speculative philosophy of religion.

The incarnation of Jesus Christ has the infinite, eternal Word of God (John 1) take upon a finite human nature without the infinite divine nature and finite human nature, mixing. Therefore, Jesus Christ remains infinite, eternal God, but with two natures as both deity and incarnated man.

God as trinity is relational in nature and therefore humanity is made in God's image and likeness (Genesis 1:26-27). Humanity is therefore specifically relational in the context of being made in the image and likeness of God. God could create finite creatures capable of relationship and communication, because that is also an aspect of God's nature.

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

WRIGHT, N.T., Colossians and Philemon, (1986)(1989), IVP, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids.

Fellowship of the...

Edinburgh, 2016:trekearth.com

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York.

My apologies as this article has nothing to do with The Lord of the Rings. Yes I saw the very well-done films in the theatre, but I am not a fanatic. This may be a form of 'sacrilege' but it seemed like I viewed virtually the same very good film, done six times. To make matters worse, the wizards reminded me of the Harry Potter films, which I also viewed in the theatre. No, I do not read any related large fictional texts to learn the 'whole story' as certain friends suggest.
---

In the previous section within the Langer text, the propositions presented a system of elements within a universe of discourse. This presents a formal context. (82).

In other words, the logical and proper use of symbolic logic allows for reasonably understood communication between two parties, within that system and universe of discourse, (82).

The symbol fm2  is introduced. (82). The symbol int is = (equals) by interpretation.or identified with. (82).

K=int 'persons' (82).

fm2='fellowship of' (82).

K=int with persons A, B, and C

The Arabic number two is dropped for Langer's examples. but it has been established that fellowship and fellowman would present two persons in context from my understanding.

A fm B (Person A has fellowship with person B)
B fm C (Person B has fellowship with person C)

Or is A the fellowman of B (82).

A person cannot be a fellowman of self. Therefore A is not the fellowman of A (82-83).

~(A fm A)

R=Russell Norman Murray

J=Jesus Christ

R fm J (Russell Norman Murray has fellowship with Jesus Christ, incarnate God, in a spiritual, biblical context. In a biblical sense we are fellowman/fellowmen (1 John as example)).

~=false

S=Satanic beings

~(R fm S) (Russell Norman Murray does not have fellowship with Satanic beings, in a spiritual, biblical context. Russell Norman Murray is not a fellowman with Satanic beings).

When a proposition is not true 'it is customary to enclose the proposition in parentheses and prefix to this whole prepossession the sign  ~.' (72). The tilde sign or symbol.

I admit this has been a little confusing reviewing this philosophy text as some non-false propositions are at least partly in parenthesis, but I work on. Learning these symbols will assist within the academic disciplines of philosophy and mathematics.

Contradictory premises: Pull the carpet...

Contradictory premises: Pull the carpet...

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Contradictory premises

'The problem with contradictory premises is that they cannot both be true. If one is true, the other must be false, and vice versa. In other words, we can be certain that at least one of them must be false, and cannot generate a sound argument.' (69).

Dr. Russ is an atheist
Dr. Russ is a biblical Christian

We do not need to see the conclusion here, we already reasonably know, that at least the premises are contradictory. One premise might be true, but not both. A valid argument can have a false premise. (69). As long as the premise (s) are not true and the conclusion false, it is logically possible to have a valid argument.

Premise-Conclusion

TT, FF, FT, TF

A true premise (s) and false conclusion (TF) from these combinations, cannot possibly be logically valid.

However, as Pire recognizes, a sound (true) argument has all true premises. (69). It has a true conclusion.

The classic 'the moon is made of green cheese' (69), is documented as a valid premise, but not a premise in a sound (true) argument. It is not reasonable from empirical, scientific evidence that the moon is made of green cheese, but it is not an illogical premise as such.

I have coached my friends that in arguments, when one disagrees with the conclusion, deny a premise first, if that can be reasonably, truthfully done. This pulls the carpet. It prohibits one from being dragged into accepting a questionable conclusion after hastily accepting premises and then having to philosophically backtrack...

Premise

You want to get married right?

Here many would state, yes.

My answer, if I am clued in to a likely philosophically lazy conclusion:

No. I am not interested in (just) getting married. I would like to marry with mutual spiritual, intellectual and physical attraction in Christ.

Conclusion

Therefore, you have to play the game the way society and the church states and marry within the rules.

Yes, I have had this attempted on me more than once...