[asa] on TE and deism

IMO, Jon, the position you outlined is simply classical theism, not
panentheism. Lots of traditional Christians, for many centuries, would
affirm what you wrote. Boyle and Calvin would be two prominent examples,
Aquinas probably another. Newton, too, though his theology was
non-Trinitarian.

In panentheism, unless I badly misunderstand it (which is certainly a
possibility), it is typical to understand God and the world as co-existing
in something pretty close to a symbiotic relationship. God actually needs
the world, and thus the world was not and is not a free creation: God could
not have chosen not to create. The world is "within God" (hence the name),
not actually God (as in pantheism), but sometimes the lines get blurred
pretty badly.

My own biggest problem with panentheism, which perhaps you share (judging
from your reference below to the miraculous), is that panentheism strongly
mutes or even rejects divine omnipotence (for an evaluation of this, see the
article on "Panentheism" by panentheist David Nikkel in the Thomson/Gale
Encyclopedia of Science and Religion). Your view below, in which God
actively sustains the universe, challenges panentheists, some of whom might
want to say what you do, but will not invoke omnipotence in doing so.
Without omnipotence or something darn close to it, IMO, you get no bodily
resurrection -- which I take as the real historical source of Christianity
-- and IMO no immortality either. A lot of theologians in the past 100
years have denied the bodily resurrection, on the grounds that it's
incredible and could not have happened (ie, God doesn't have the power to do
it: our confidence in the uniformity of nature overcomes our confidence in
God's power), but have affirmed some sort of personal immortality. (Some
panentheists seem to want a more impersonal immortality, in that we are
"remembered" by God, but this is not the kind of immortality that interests
me or most other Christians.) The disconnect in this combination is
amazing, but it was quite common 80 years ago. God somehow, some way, would
give us eternal life -- as long as that didn't involve some kind of miracle,
such as the resurrection. As I say, an amazing disconnect, but there it
was. And still is, for some thinkers. Either too much thinking, or not
enough, seems to cause this.

On the other hand, Polkinghorne has lately been talking about how heaven is
panentheism realized -- everything exists entirely within God. Maybe so;
there's something to think about. But to get there, as P realizes, we need
an act of omnipotence. This world is not like that, and this world must be
replaced by a new world with new properties before we have heaven. Just as
Christ has a new body, like but not like ours. Can't get rid of omnipotence
here, and P knows it. But then, he also believes in the bodily
resurrection, and you can't get rid of omnipotence there, either.

Ted

>>> "Jon Tandy" <tandyland@earthlink.net> 1/23/2008 10:32 AM >>>
Upon further reflection and a little more reading, I believe the view I
expressed below is actually better described by (at least one variation
of)
the theological term "panentheism". Deism would hold instead that God is
separate from the creation, and in fact remains separate from it after
"spinning it up" in the first place, letting it operate without divine
intervention. Pantheism (at least a form of it) would be the better
description of the view that "the universe is God".
 
And finally theism -- someone help me out here. Does strict theism, or
theism in some of the major Christian traditions, require God to be
separate
from and transcendent of creation, as opposed to panentheism? It seems
from
reference.com (http://www.reference.com/search?q=theism) that theism is a
very broad category that can include such diverse ideas such as
polytheism,
pantheism, panentheism, dystheism, etc.
 
If theism can be so broadly defined, is this one reason so much difference
and robust discussion exists around the concept of "theistic evolution"
(aside from any scientific arguments)?
 
 
Jon Tandy
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Jon Tandy
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:12 AM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Re: [asa] EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

As to your discussion of deism, I'm not sure where that came from. I
certainly don't argue for deism. If anything, I'm leaning toward the idea
that regardless of the "apparent" natural history of the universe, God is
in
all and through all things, and "by him all things consist" (Col 1:17).
This is not to say that "nature is God" (which, as I understand it, is
deistic). Rather, God not only makes his appearance within nature to
openly
perform what we would call miracles, but He is actively involved in all of
creation, accomplishing His ultimate purposes in it from Day 1. Thus, we
can say that God "sends the rain", even though we can also describe
humidity, warm and cold fronts, and the condensation of water as the
source
of rain in a temporal sense. In the end, it is an incarnational model --
God joined actively with nature, accomplishing His will through it, not
just
sitting on a throne in heaven and coming by once in a while for a visit.
This is perhaps the ultimate in theism, not deism at all, because it
doesn't
deny God's active involvement, but embraces it through and through
(including the miraculous).
 

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Jan 23 12:25:06 2008