Process Theology

[Leviathan-at-play]

Thanks brother for the thoughtful response, and fundamentally at least I agree with most of your points. For reference I too am Reformed, although unbearded. None of my reasoning here is intended to move towards Open Theism or Process Theism. My only motivation is to probe and wrestle with The Word, and I happily presume the same for yourself.

He is teaching that all things are from God, through God, and unto God.

Your wording here, to my ears at least, seems to suggest that creatures are separate things. There's God, and then over here there's his creature. I don't even really disagree with that, but I would only suggest that there's an added nuance here: every atom of that creature is continually, necessarily being sustained by God. If God blinks then the all reality vanishes. There is no outside of God. If every little bit of the creature is pervaded by God then at minimum it presents a very interesting and category-breaking model of reality that Panentheism, perhaps inelegantly, tries to express.

Certainly the context of Epimenides' Cretica quoted by Paul in Acts 17:28 was pointing at this deep pervasiveness, in this case for Zeus, so it's a remarkable thing that Paul chooses to express such an ontologically significant statement about God's relation to us by quoting from a tattooed Greek mystic dead 500 years before Paul. I thought too of the "in Christ" of Paul, and even in that case I'm not convinced that Paul doesn't hold to our actual inclusion in Christ as opposed to just something like associative-membership. Certainly the Christ that was the Word before Creation and through whom all things came into being is a sufficient "container" for that same Creation.

If panentheism means “God is transcendent and immanent, and all creatures exist in total dependence upon God,” then the term is being used so broadly that classical Christian theism would count as panentheism—which makes the term practically useless.

I've highlighted your summary here in red, and I don't believe that any biblical Christians can disagree. Among panentheists, it seems that those of the "strict", "dipolar" and "process" varieties might disagree on various grounds: God cannot exist without Creation, God and Creation are mutually dependent, etc. They can perhaps dream up new versions if we give them a bit more time.

Maybe I should just call myself a Biblical Panentheist, in distinction from the model of reality that I believe many Christians hold, which is that we live in a separate world of atoms and things, with a transcendent and invisible God kind of drifting around and between as needed. Do any of us not look upward when we pray, or give thanks toward the sky?

 

[John Bauer]

Thanks, brother, for the thoughtful response. And at least fundamentally, I agree with most of your points.

Cheers, mate.

But most of my points? Now I am curious: What did you disagree with?

I, too, am Reformed—although unbearded.

I wonder what “unbearded” was intended to suggest. I know beards are quite the thing in so-called “Reformed Baptist” circles and Moscow-adjacent Calvinist spaces. But there aren’t a lot of beards in my URCNA or former OPC communities.

So you are Reformed, but not 1689 LBCF?

(They aren’t Reformed, either.)

None of my reasoning here is intended to move towards Open Theism or Process Theism. My only [intention] is to probe and wrestle with the Word, and I happily presume the same for yourself.

Duly noted. And you presume correctly.

Your wording here, to my ears at least, seems to suggest that creatures are separate things. There's God, and then over here there's his creature.

Well, that is Paul’s wording, not mine. My argument assumes that what Paul says in one place (Acts 17:28) would be consistent with what he writes elsewhere (Rom 11:36). But yes, I am drawing attention to the Creator–creature distinction of Pauline theology, that nothing else exists but God and everything he makes (cf. Acts 17:24). I would agree with you, too, that “every atom of [all creation] is continually, necessarily being sustained by God.” There are no maverick molecules, as R. C. Sproul put it.

It looks to me, then, like what you are calling “biblical panentheism” is actually a classical Christian view of divine sovereignty, creation, providence, and omnipresence with an unfortunate label—for you deny the theological distinctives that would make panentheism, well, panentheistic. (Or maybe I have misunderstood you, or failed to pick up on a crucial distinctive.) As I said previously, total creaturely dependence upon God does not entail ontological inclusion within his being.

There is only one term in your post that garners concern: “There is no outside of God.”

That is ambiguous. It could be heard in a couple of different ways. It could be a denial of creaturely autonomy: there is no realm outside God’s sustaining power, presence, and providence. If so, that is just classical theism. Or it could be a denial of divine simplicity and immutability: creation is somehow inside God or a constituent within God’s own being: If so, that is antithetical to classical theism.

The phrase “pervaded by God” has the same ambiguity (although I noticed the huge “if” there). Classical theism can affirm that God is present to every creature and every atom by sustaining power. But it cannot affirm that God is a component within the creature; divine immanence doesn’t mean God is diffused throughout creation. He is wholly present everywhere without being spatially extended, distributed, or compounded with creation.

So, what was the intended meaning?

I likewise thought of the "in Christ" of Paul, and even in that case I'm not convinced that Paul doesn't hold to our actual inclusion in Christ as opposed to just something like associative-membership. Certainly the Christ, the Word before creation and through whom all things came into being, is a sufficient "container" for that same creation.

I do not see any warrant for interpreting “in Christ” language in panentheistic terms, as though the Son is a metaphysical “container” for creation. (That would really introduce chaos in Chalcedonian Christology.)

In Pauline theology, “in Christ” refers to union with Christ; it is spiritual, covenantal, eschatological—not ontological. Believers do not become parts of Christ’s deity or constituents within the triune being.

Certainly the context of Epimenides's Cretica, quoted by Paul in Acts 17:28, was pointing at this deep pervasiveness, in this case for Zeus, …

I would not say “certainly.” That is too strong, since the poem is lost. We cannot speak too confidently of its context. But yeah, we can infer that the line, in its original pagan setting, expressed something about Zeus’s vitality, immortality, and sustaining relation to life. Perhaps it did function as a statement of divine pervasiveness.

But more importantly, Epimenides does not control Paul’s meaning. It is an illustration, not an interpretive framework. Paul is not importing its pagan ontology. He is doing a common Jewish Christian apologetic move: taking a pagan line that contains a partial truth and relocating it within biblical monotheism.

If God blinks then the all reality vanishes.

I am reminded of a quote, though I have long since forgotten who said it: “If God did not exist, the universe would not exist. If the universe did not exist, God would nevertheless exist.” (I think it was William Lane Craig, but I’ve never managed to source it to him concretely.)

Maybe I should just call myself a “biblical panentheist,” in distinction from the model of reality that I believe many Christians hold, which is that we live in a separate world of atoms and things, with a transcendent and invisible God kind of drifting around and between as needed.

When you say that Christians believe “that we live in a separate world of atoms and things,” what do you mean by separate?

 

[Leviathan-at-play]

Afternoon brother and I greatly appreciate the detailed and engaged response. I can't speak for you but I find it very hard to find fellow believers that are interested enough to have this kind of discussion, let alone with their hearts invested, so as always please consider my points below not as argument but merely a shining of light upon "small differences". I'd wager that on key issues you and I would vastly align.

But most of my points? Now I am curious: What did you disagree with?

I think any substantive points of disagreement were raised in the rest of my post, so mostly here I was just framing my post as coming from a place of mostly mutual agreement rather than a buffet plate of general discontentment.

I wonder what “unbearded” was intended to suggest?
So you are Reformed, but not 1689 LBCF?

I have often encountered fellow Reformed-types who have granted conversational merit based on the presence of, and indeed even size of, one's beard. It may well be a partially subconscious tactic on my part to announce my beardlessness up front, so as to strike more surprisingly and effectively from a position of perceived weakness.

For the record I'm a Canadian PCC Presbyterian, with my church leaning strongly on the "traditionalist" mode that I think is an ever-decreasing subset of that denomination's otherwise progressive majority. Personally I'm not tied to any particular creed - my acceptance of any creed or confession is directly proportional to its biblical adherence, so I guess that I'd have no huge issues with WCF, 1689, etc. I'd favor the latter's Believer's Baptism on scriptural grounds, but I don't lose any sleep either way. If I had been only paedobaptised then I'd probably want Believer's Baptism second pass.

My argument assumes that what Paul says in one place (Acts 17:28) would be consistent with what he writes elsewhere (Rom 11:36)

Agreed and likewise I see Rom 11:36 and Acts 17:28 both saying effectively the same thing. There may well be an interesting off-thread discussion to be had in, I believe, the very slight difference between them.

There are no maverick molecules, as R. C. Sproul put it

Funny, I'd pegged you for a Sproulite early on based on your Coram Deo signature. Sproul was and continues to be a huge benefit to me, and instrumental in the formation of my positions. Same, perhaps even more so, with Piper (and by extension, Lewis and Edwards).

It looks to me, then, like what you are calling “biblical panentheism” is actually a classical Christian view of divine sovereignty, creation, providence, and omnipresence with an unfortunate label—for you deny the theological distinctives that would make panentheism, well, panentheistic.

Agreed, and going forward I'll probably just describe myself as a "Classical Theist" or, if I purposely want to create a bit of cognitive dissonance in my interlocutor, a "Biblical Panentheist" as described. As best as I can tell, looking at Stanford's non-trivial page on Panentheism, my particular "flavor" of panentheism is still within the bounds of their broad definition and subtypes.

There is only one term in your post that garners concern: “There is no outside of God.”

That is ambiguous. It could be heard in a couple of different ways. It could be a denial of creaturely autonomy: there is no realm outside God’s sustaining power, presence, and providence. If so, that is just classical theism. Or it could be a denial of divine simplicity and immutability: creation is somehow inside God or a constituent within God’s own being: If so, that is antithetical to classical theism.

The phrase “pervaded by God” has the same ambiguity (although I noticed the huge “if” there). Classical theism can affirm that God is present to every creature and every atom by sustaining power. But it cannot affirm that God is a component within the creature; divine immanence doesn’t mean God is diffused throughout creation. He is wholly present everywhere without being spatially extended, distributed, or compounded with creation. So, what was the intended meaning?

I came to the faith around my 50th year just a few years ago, and until then I was a strongly STEM-leaning materialist, albeit with many years of deep interest in Taosim, Chan/Zen Buddhism, heterodox thinkers like William Blake, Tolle, etc. So I'm grateful that God led me to him through these systems of belief and it's likely that my doctrine will always be flavored by them. Of course I know enough to jettison the parts of those systems that don't align with scripture, even if just in principle.

I'm far less inclined to be sympathetic to philosophically argued Christian positions such as Divine Simplicity or Immutability, particularly the farther they stray away from a biblical basis. Certainly I'm all in favour of the philosophical endeavour and don't ignore positions like these completely, but I do feel that it's possible to allow philosophy to erect unnecessary and even harmful guardrails where the Ancient Near East mind would not have been so constrained. I'm all ears if a brother believes that by not having a firm position on these positions then my doctrine is significantly harmed or weakened - after all I've done nothing for the last few years other than continued refinement and testing of my positions against scripture.

All that said as hopefully helpful background preamble, when I say "There is no outside of God" and "All of Creation is pervaded by God" what I mean is:

[EDIT: I wrote a paragraph or two of beautiful text here, weepingly beautiful even, where I started to explain my position, but now I realize that I was still playing by the musty old ontological paradigm of God vs. Creation that I think most of us feel makes sense, and certainly the materialist types want us to stick to because it fits their model too (they simply drop the God part and then declare victory because God doesn't show up under a microscope). So I've erased those paragraphs and now I'm going to really describe what I believe is the true biblical ontology].

Creation is a story being told by God. When you make up a bedtime story to tell your 4-year-old daughter, of a blue elephant named Tusky that gets into adventures and protects little girls who are afraid of the dark, the ontological status of Tusky is exactly the same as our status: Tusky is certainly alive and real within your story, while simultaneously being a product of your storytelling and marching entirely to your will. To ask "Is Tusky a part of John" or "Is there John within Tusky" are kind of category errors, and both can be said to be simultaneously true and false. For Tusky's friend Moop within the story, Tusky's actions seem authentic and free, and with causal validity. But ultimately it's all just Daddy telling a story to a very enraptured little girl.

How much can be gained by wondering whether the storyteller has parts? I don't know. From within the story it seems perfectly valid to argue that the storyteller is undivided and undifferentiated I guess: from that vantage point he's this great external telos from which all things flow. Is the storyteller unchanging? I don't think so. The storyteller that starts the telling is different by the time the story ends, especially if the little girl steered the story herself here and there herself. Or maybe it's that the storyteller changes inside the story if he's written himself in, but from the outside he doesn't change because feedback or not he's the one telling the tale?

I know Douglas Wilson's talked about this model, and I think Tolkien too. Calvin called Creation "the Theatre of God's Glory". How does one even say whether this is panentheism or not, or that an opponent of panentheism is even wrong?

I am reminded of a quote, though I have long since forgotten who said it: “If God did not exist, the universe would not exist. If the universe did not exist, God would nevertheless exist.” (I think it was William Lane Craig, but I’ve never managed to source it to him concretely.)

That does sound like Craig... I even read it in his voice. This statement is true even in a narrative ontology.

When you say that Christians believe “that we live in a separate world of atoms and things,” what do you mean by separate?

I meant that most Christians believe that the matter within the story is real. Not that it isn't real within the story, and certainly much of the Bible is grounded in inner-story teleology to describe the nature of our roles and what our missions are from moment to moment. We're expected to play our parts, loving God with believing loyalty. I don't believe that holding to a narrative ontology is necessary for salvation nor a crucial aspect of the Gospel, but I think it does have theodicean value and is an available option for sovereigntymaxxers