Theism, Pantheism, Panentheism

Don't worry, nobody should push you.
.

 

The notion that God the Father of all is over, through and in the whole of His creation does have some credence in scripture though.

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of US according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.” Eph.4:1-8.


ALL g3956. πᾶς pas; or πᾶσα pasa; or πᾶν pan; including all the forms of declension; apparently a primary word; all, any, every, the whole: — all (manner of, means), alway(-s), any (one), x daily, + ever, every (one, way), as many as, + no(-thing), x thoroughly, whatsoever, whole, whosoever.
AV (1243) - all 748, all things 170, every 117, all men 41, whosoever 31, everyone 28, whole 12, all manner of 11, every man 11, no + g3756 9, every thing 7, any 7, whatsoever 6, whosoever + g3739 + g0302 3, always + g1223 3, daily + g2250 2, any thing

It certainly seems as if Paul is saying that the God and Father of ALL, is over all, and through all, and in all, but we believers are additionally gifted by Grace through the measure of Christ's GIFT.

I think this verse is difficult to explain the meaning of if it is assumed that God is NOT in all, NOT over all, NOT through ALL, but remote and distant from His creation, in heaven.

The God and Father of ALL, is amazingly immanent, in and through and over everyone, but especially in those of us who have been gifted by Christ.
.

 

That would be a terrific scriptural proof, if only there were no doubt about the accuracy of the translation. The KJV takes into account one more Greek word ὑμῖν (humin). which means "you" or "yourselves." Here's how it reads in the KJV: One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. There are a few manuscripts that say, "in us all," and then there is the Alexandrian which has no extra word in that spot. (An easy-to-make copyist error, perhaps?)

Was the verse meant to convey the idea that God is in (indwelling) the unredeemed, unrepentant atheist? That doesn't seem right. Ephesians was written to followers of Christ, though.

 

Even with 'you' in there it could still have been Paul's intention to underline the fact that God is 'in' ALL human beings, since it was human beings he was addressing. He just didn't say that God was (indwelling) everyone, only those of us who are gifted by Christ with the Holy Spirit. THAT is whom Jesus baptises with.

No!

Are you suggesting that 'the unredeemed, unrepentant atheist' has found a foolproof way to escape God on earth? God knows everything about them. They, like everyone else, live and move and have their being in God. But they very obviously are not feeling after Him or finding him. Living and moving in God is not the same though as having God indwelling as the gift of The Holy Spirit. That is The Gift of Christ. They surely cannot be occupying a space within which God cannot reside. God is spirit, God is eveywhere, even spiritually in the very space their body is occupying.

There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each one of US according to the measure of Christ's gift. Therefore it says, “When he ascended on high he led a host of captives,
and he gave gifts to men.” Eph.4:1-8.
.

 

Yes, the Mounces utilize the Alexandrian family of manuscripts, in which that Greek word is absent (missing?). They were involved with NASB. ESV, and NIV.

Which is an easier scribal error for a dedicated copyist to make: to accidentally overlook and leave out a word, or to (intentionally?) insert a word that wasn't in the version being copied?

Where some manuscripts contain "us" instead of "you", we can see how the mistake could occur: ὑμῖν ('humin', you) and ἡμῖν ('hemin', us) look very similar and it would have been fairly easy to mistake between the two. The vast majority of old manuscripts contain a word in that location, and the word "you" was contained in the version historically used by both Anglicans and Protestants for centuries, so I will include the word in my thinking and Bible references. Others' opinions may vary.

 

I don't think that is at all clear, and in fact the context seems to tell us otherwise.

Col 3:1 If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God.
Col 3:2 Set your affection on things above, not on things on the earth.
Col 3:3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God...
Col 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
Col 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him:
Col 3:11 Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.
Col 3:12 Put on therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kindness, humbleness of mind, meekness, longsuffering;

In the image of our Creator, there are no genealogical, societal, or other worldly differences between various peoples whose lives are "hidden with Christ in God" through faith in His resurrection and who have been spiritually renewed. It does not in any way suggest that all living people are included in verse 11, but only all those who have been renewed (the "elect of God").

Pulling a single verse (or less than a whole verse) out of its setting can lead to inaccurate interpretation.

 

I agree with your contention that this passage is not intending to support the notion that God permeates the entire universe and therefore is, in a spiritual sense, IN everything and everything in HIM. It is however also not trying to refute the notion that the entire human race 'live and move and have their being IN God' and therefore God is never very far from anything in his created universe, there being nowhere anyone can go to escape God's presence. Everything must be IN God because only something greater than God could actually displace Him, and there is nothing greater than God. Q.E.D.

THIS passage clearly is speaking of and to the elect who are IN Christ, in an entirely different manner. It speaks of circumcision, uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond and free being gathered and united in death and renewal of spirit as containers of Christ. It is the Spirit of Christ which is IN them, in a spiritual manner, not a physical, fleshly manner, because they are ELECT
.

 

Tiffy, your posts seem to indicate that your views are panentheistic. Is that accurate?

 

Not entirely, since panentheism implies that God is literally in everything, seemingly not understanding the difference between the reality of the spiritual and the different reality of the material universe. Most panentheists, it seems to me, confuse and conflate the two, making their belief nearer to pantheism than just a philosophical understanding of the nature and immediate immanence of God.
.

 

According to Paul, that's what it was. According to John, it was not spiritual, it was physical. He ate fish, had wounds, etc. "A spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see me have," as the Gospel puts it. The text does not say he walked through walls, as is often repeated. It says he simply "appeared" in their midst. It was depicted as a physical body with supernatural abilities, i.e., one subject only to divine omnipotence.

 

I don't see any 'Worshipping' going on here. Respect for creation because it is God's, is not the same as worshipping it as a Pagan might 'worship'.

Respect for all creation, (even unbelievers), is OK. The antithasis of respect would be abhorance, which would be a form of Gnostisicm, believing the material creation or some of it to be evil and therefore not worthy of respect. An exclusively transcendent, (distant), view of the nature of God and a disrespect for God's creation has led to plundering of the planet and wanton destruction of anything not considered 'of value', lusted after or worth preserving and managing responsibly.
.

 

You may not see it, but it's happening. Earth worship is prevalent enough to garner a Wikipedia entry. Gaia, a/k/a Pachamama, the goddess of all life on earth, is actively worshiped: https://www.gaia.com/article/goddess-gaia (Does anyone recall when Francis openly received a Pachamama statue from one of her worshipers and allowed the idol to be displayed on Vatican grounds?)

I have no doubt that there are people who call themselves Anglican or Episcopalian, some of whom may perhaps sit in a pew near you on Sunday, who believe that all life is sacred (especially the lives of their pet dogs or cats!). I'm not saying that these people are engaging in worship of animals or all of creation (yet); however, this error tends to be a stepping-stone away from the true faith and toward a corrupted version of Christianity in which animals and the planet itself are assigned human-like characteristics which elevate their importance, which in a relative sense suppresses the importance of mankind as the objects for which all the rest was created.

Oh, to be sure, hardly anyone nowadays is bowing down to trees or prostrating themselves before their housecats , yet there isn't much genuine bowing or prostrating to Almighty God these days either; what we're really talking about here, though, is a person's mindset or belief system, which drives their overall attitudes and behaviors as well as leans them in the direction of their final destiny. For if their thoughts are so very occupied with rescuing animals and saving planet earth (in other words, if that is the emphasis of their belief system), how much room exists in their thoughts and heart-felt beliefs for the Son of God who died, not to redeem the soil or the cats, but to redeem lost human beings by grace through true faith in Him?

 

Having an appreciation of the immediate presence of God and His concern for the whole creation, which groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now, should not be dismissed as mere heterodox belief. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit should groan for the state that mankind has put the earth in, by its rebellious disobedience to God.
.

 

Surely you are not one of those earth rapists who think the world would be better off without pangolins, panadas and everything except nice human beings. (Some might even want rid of the not nice human beings). Is Earth such a bad place because it has animals? WE are only just discovering that even animals have feelings and can be depressed and anxious. If we wern't top of the food chain, then something else would have been.

I'd like to see definite scriptural proof that there are no animals in heaven. (Is there any)? And why should there not be animals in heaven? If Earth is composed of what God declared 'Good', why should heaven lack what is good. Would that not be bad, to lack something God declares good?

When is it that the lion shall eat straw like the ox? And the earth be filled with the glory of God?
.