There are many material things you can get short term, by dishonest means, like theft; but over the longer term, those actions hurt the community and so forth.

So that the church stresses not so much this “world,” but the “world to come”; and working for gains that are not readily apparent in the short run. T

his equates to “spriituality” often: you might devote yourself say to education – developing one side of your spirit – in order to reap later, bigger gains, long-term.

(Cf. of course, Weber, one the Spirit of Capitalism).

So that a certain respect for matter, is necessary to be a good Christian. As well as to be sure, a willingness to defer temporary material gains; to develop your spirit.

But to be sure note that in the end, the results are material: heaven comes down, to be a place here on this material earth (Rev. 20-22?).

When Paul talks about God’s invisible attributes being perceived clearly in nature (Rom 1:20), I think it’s helpful to think in terms of God the Craftsman marking creation with his personal hallmark, as silversmiths once did. But the silver goblet is not God; it merely communicates something of God’s nature and being, if we consider such things as who created the goblet and why, and marvel at his genius and the fine level of his art.

Anyway, I think you’re right that there is a cultural temptation towards pantheism that the church needs to beware of. Thanks for the good thoughts.

It seems to me that Calvinism ought to be a little more friendly to pantheism – that there is a natural affinity (though not identity) there. If everything is a direct extension of God’s active agency, then it doesn’t seem like too much of a stretch to say that everything is in some sense an expression of God. Evil exists to give expression to God’s rejection of evil, and the combined package is an expression of God. CMP, could you, from a Calvinist perspective, communicate what you think the danger of pantheism is? From where I stand, Calvinism looks awfully pantheistic – no determining creaturly agency, all things a single expression of will, every bit a piece of the whole, and all that.

Another thought is that I wonder of pantheism can be a path for an atheist to at least understand a bit of what God is. When I talk to atheists, they hear “God” as something like Zeus – a big sky father who is, for all intents and purposes, like another human being. For him, I think it may be far nearer to the truth to consider us, when speaking of “God” as talking of “the universe”. It’s the closest thing he has to transcendence in his worldview.

Strictly speaking, as long as we say we want to find our “God” – capital “G” to signify the Biblical God of the Old Testament etc. – in all of nature, then we are not falling into the trap of pantheism.

It is weird to consider the omnipresence of God in that He spacially takes up existence across every molecule, or something like that.

I’ve always felt God’s omnipresence is directly related to His omniscience. God knows all things, of course, and even before they ever happen. So, God is present in all things of His creation because He is aware and intricately knows all things that go on. At least that is something to consider.

Still, I remember by professor on the doctrine of God encouraging us to keep our descriptions about God within Biblical language rather than Greek concepts. Omnipresence is not found in the Bible, in the Greek philosophical concept. But we find such beautiful passages as Psalm 139:7-10 that tell us about the nature of God:

7 Where shall I go from your Spirit?
Or where shall I flee from your presence?
8 If I ascend to heaven, you are there!
If I make my bed in Sheol, you are there!
9 If I take the wings of the morning
and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,
10 even there your hand shall lead me,
and your right hand shall hold me.