In Athens – Finding Truth in a World Where Anything Goes

First I’d like to thank Spencer for taking the time to try and clarify his views. I think it is admirable that he is attempting to actually state what he believes rather than leaving us all wondering.  (To catch up on the discussion go here.)

Having said that, I would argue that if a person is going to publish views which depart from historic, orthodox Christian teaching, that they should not be surprised when those of us holding those views feel the need to speak out.

I have not read Spencer’s book, so I will not comment on its contents, nor do I feel that I have done so up to this point. My initial blog was intended merely to point people towards a discussion that I found interesting. I do feel however that I can comment on those views which Spencer has expressed here at In Athens. Primarily I would like to comment on his view of God being Panentheistic as well as Trinitarian. Spencer reposted this here from a previous discussion:

Do you equate God as Father, as the default? That is the way I used to think of God, but now I see the potential of both a Trinitarian creed along with a panentheist view. What if when scripture refers to God as “God” we begin to see God not as anyone of the three but wholly and completely all three and other. I don’t believe there are 4 persons to the trinity but I do see 4 ways of looking at the person and work of God – Father, Son, Holy Spirit AND God.

This raises at least two important questions. First, is there a need for a fourth way of seeing God and his work in the world? Secondly, is Panentheism adequate for this task? Let’s look at the first question.

While we will never know the extent of God’s work in the world, there at least two great works that God has communicated to us through the scriptures. They are creation and salvation. The scriptures are replete with evidences to these points. I believe that if we can show that a triune view of God is adequate to describe these works of God, than it is an adequate view for all other works.

First let’s look at creation. Genesis 1 says this, “In the beginning, God created…” In verse 2 it says, “And the Spirit of God was hovering over the deep.” John 1:1-2 says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.” In three verses we have seen the Trinity present in the work of Creation. While Genesis 1 does not explicitly use the term Father, we see that in John 1, that not only was the Word God, but he was with God. This is the language of relationship. It is Jesus who makes clear to us the nature of this relationship. He does this by always, and explicitly addressing God as Father. Not only does he call God, “Father,” but teaches us to do the same in his model prayer. From the moment Jesus utters these words, the relationship between us and God, becomes one of Father to Child. This is the language of the New Testament. We are adopted, and we are joint heirs with Christ.

Now let us turn to the work of Salvation. While studying this week I came across a powerful affirmation of the role of the trinity in the work of salvation. It comes from 1 Peter 1:2. Peter greets those who are elect, “according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood. This is the trinity. There is no fourth option presented here.

Let me state again, if a triune vision of God is adequate for both the works of God in creation and salvation than there is no work for which it is not adequate.

Now what about Panentheism? Is this an adequate way to look at God? First let’s define the term. It is defined in Terrance Tiessen’s, “Providence and Prayer” as

“the belief that God is intimately in everything in a much stronger sense than is generally affirmed by classical Christian doctrine of divine immanence. It is not however to be confused with, “pantheism,” which is the belief that God is everything.”

Panentheism finds in roots in Process and Openness Theolgy. Rising from the writings and thoughts of men like John Cobb, David Griffin and Albert North Whitehead, process theology seeks a God who is growing and “becoming” over and against the classical Christian view of God as unchanging. Process holds that there are two poles in God. One pole is his unchanging nature, primarily his goodness. The other pole is his dynamic or ever changing reality. The Panetheistic view of God as being in everything means that as everything changes, God is affected. He continues to grow and “become” as the creation which he indwells grows and comes into being. This all emanates from a belief that if God is “becoming” than he is justified in not having abolished evil. He has not done it, not because he his not good, but because he is not quite yet able to. Many open theist (and I’m not saying Spencer is one) hold to this view because they share similar concerns with the process people. Openness guys however, seem to be the children of both process and traditional Armenian thinking.

The problem with a God in process is that this idea is completely foreign to the scripture. The Asiety or Self-Existence of God is repeatedly affirmed most notably in places like Romans 11:33-36. Panentheism is different from immanence in that divine immanence is the idea that God is present. He is here. There is nowhere that he is not. This is affirmed in Psalm 139. God is not however, in all things in such a way as that he is affected or changed by them. He is holy. This means he is separate. He is “other.” The mystery of God is that he is both transcendent and immanent. This is a profound mystery, but let us not go beyond what is written. Furthermore, God does not indwell a rock or a tree. He created them and he upholds and sustains them. They do however reflect something of his character and glory. Finally, God would not “become” if he was in all things, because all things are not “becoming”, they are decaying.

In summation, a Panentheistic view of God is neither adequate nor necessary. The God of the Scriptures has chosen to reveal himself to us in a triune way. This is a profound mystery, but it is truth. You can not hold to this view and a fourth. To do so is profoundly absurd. To add a view of God and his works to the trinity is to hold to a quar-tarian view of God, not a Trinitarian view, and to do this is to step outside the bound of the creeds, 2000 years of orthodox Christianity and most importantly the revelation of God in scripture.