Immensity and Omnipresence vs. Pantheism and Panantheism

Since the Bible teaches that God is omnipresent, are we to then take a pantheistic view of God, or a panantheistic view of God?

To frame this post, let’s start with some definitions. In his book Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof defines immensity as follows: "That perfection of the Divine Being by which He transcends all spatial limitations and yet is present in every point of space with His whole Being. It has a negative and a positive side, denying all limitations of space to the Divine Being, and asserting that God is above space and fills every part of it with His whole Being. The last words are added in order to ward off the idea that God is diffused through space, so that one part of His Being is present in one place, and another part some other place." [p.60-61].

He goes on to say that omnipresence and immensity can be regarded as synonyms, but that whereas immensity emphasizes God's transcendence, omnipresence emphasizes His immanence ("denotes that He nevertheless fills every part of space with His entire Being" [p.61]).

Pantheism denies the transcendence of God, saying that the essence of the universe is the very being of God [p.61]. Panantheism is defined at wiki.answers.com as follows:

It is the belief that God's physical body is the universe and everything in it,
and that God also transcends this universe. Existence is a part of God, but God
is larger than existence. It is similar but different to pantheism, which says
that the universe IS God in totality. It is also a belief in a genderless God,
and God as the creator.

Now for the analysis. Though there are some common elements, God’s immanence/omnipresence should not be confused with pantheism or panantheism. Immensity and omnipresence hold that God is both transcendent and present in creation at every point with His whole Being. Pantheism holds that all of creation is all of God, and thus God is “spread out” throughout the universe as matter is spread out. Pantheism says that there is no more to God than the universe, so He does not transcend the universe. Omnipresence does not conflict with the transcendence of God; that is, omnipresence holds that God is not bound by space and time. Solomon, after building the temple of the LORD, said the following in 1 King 8:27:

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven
cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!”

Pantheism is thus forced to say that God is always becoming, always changing as the creation takes on chang. However, in the Bible, God reveals Himself as never changing (Exodus 3:14; Hebrews 1:11,12; James 1:17).

So, what about panantheism? Those who believe in panantheism will at least have the transcendent attribute of God. However, they throw in the belief that the universe is God’s body. This cannot be reconciled with the Bible, for it clearly states in the second commandment that the Israelites were not to make any carved images of Him. If the image they made was (part of) Him, there would be no reason for God to make such a demand. Similarly, God would not have opposed those who “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:23).

This is not to mention the fact that the Bible never speaks of God having the universe as His body. The Bible is the supreme revelation God has given us about Himself. Yes, the creation does tell us something of God, of His invisible attributes (eternal power and divine nature) can be seen in what has been created, but the problem is that we cannot rightly understand what it is telling us because of the sin nature in us. So, this means that we are utterly reliant upon the revelation God gives us of Himself in the Scripture. So, since the Scripture never says anything about God having the universe as His body, such a view has no authoritative basis.

"Brands" of the Gospel?

Oohh... for those with weak stomachs - BEWARE!

I read an article on Joel Osteen and how his prosperity message is fairing in an economic downturn. Surprising really.

So, here is a brief excerpt, the part you may not want to read...

"... there is no denying that his message, and his marketing of that message, is getting out to the world while so many other pastors are preaching to empty pews. Osteen dismisses the notion that he has watered down the Scriptures to win over worshippers. “It’s who we are,” he says. “The accessibility of my message doesn’t bother me a bit. Look, we deal with people who are fighting cancer, fighting to save their marriages, dealing with the death of loved ones. I don’t think they need to be beaten down. And I think the success of the message in the marketplace is because we are optimistic, encouraging.” Phil Cooke, a longtime colleague and the author of Branding Faith, says, “Oprah has a brand, Nike has a brand, and Joel Osteen has a brand. Joel has made his brand the inspiration brand.”

Pardon me, but since when did we get to own the gospel of Jesus Christ and profit from our "brand?" "But didn't Paul call it his own gospel" you say. Let's see it in context:

Romans 16:25 Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery that was kept secret for long ages 26 but has now been disclosed and through the prophetic writings has been made known to all nations, according to the command of the eternal God, to bring about the obedience of faith— 27 to the only wise God be glory forevermore through Jesus Christ! Amen.

2 Timothy 2:8 Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, the offspring of David, as preached in my gospel, 9 for which I am suffering, bound with chains as a criminal. But the word of God is not bound! 10 Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

So, in both occurances of "my gospel" (the closest thing I can find to a "brand" of the gospel), Paul mentions preaching. This is significant because what it shows us is that Paul is describing what he personally preached - the good news (gospel). Never is it used in such a way as to be distinct from other (true) gospels (as if there were any other gospel, Gal 1).

Further, Paul was in fact one of the first to carry the gospel message to the non-Jews. Ephesians 3 talks about how the good news was entrusted by God to Paul to take to the Gentiles - a fairly novel idea at the time. So in a sense, he did have something unique, but unique in who he delivered it to, not in content.

Galatians 1:6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
10 For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant [2] of Christ.

Why do some "Christians" feel the need to follow another gospel? Maybe they've never heard the true gospel - that Jesus emptied himself of all of His glory as God to take on humble human flesh, that He died a horrible death on the Cross to be a substitute in our place because of the idolatry we do, and that He is going to fully restore all things in this creation to a glorious state.

Or, maybe they just don't like that Gospel.

Your thoughts? Any Rev. Feel Good fans want to chime in?