DOCSLIB.ORG

POSITION OFSDA PIONEERS on "THE TRINITY" and "GODHEAD"

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
POSITION OFSDA PIONEERS on Insert A-I (Lest We Forget Vol. 4, No.2.). POSITION OFSDA PIONEERS ON "THE TRINITY" and "GODHEAD" [This article written by R. F. Cottrell published in the Review ofJune 1, 1869, sets forth well the attitude ofthe pioneers and believers on the question ofthe trinity. -A. L. White.] THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY This has been a popular doctrine and regarded as the Son ofGod, and besides this it is perfectly reasonable orthodoxeversince the bishopofRome was elevatedto the and seemingly self-evident. popedom on the strength ofit. It is accounted dangerous IfI be asked how I believe the Father and Son are one, heresy to reject it; but each person is permitted to explain I reply,They are one in a sense not contrary to sense. Ifthe the doctrine in his own way. All seem to think they must "and" in the sentence means anything, the Father and the holdit, but each has perfect liberty to take his own way to Son are two beings. They are one in the same sense in reconcile its contradictory propositions; and hence a mul­ which Jesus prayed that his disciples might be one. He titude ofviews are held concerning it by its friends, all of asked his Father that his disciples might be one. His them orthodox, I suppose,as long as they nominally assent language is, "that they may be one, even as we are one." to the doctrine. It may be objected, Ifthe Father and the Son are two For myself, I have never felt called upon to explain it, distinct beings, do you not, in worshiping the Son and nor to adopt and defend it, neither have I ever preached calling him God, break the first commandment of the against it. But I probably put as high an estimation on the Decalogue? Lord Jesus Christ as those who call themselves Trinitar­ No; it is the Father's will "That all men should honor ians. This is the first time I have ever taken the pen to say the Son, even as they honor the Father." We cannot break anything concerning the doctrine. the commandmentand dishonor God by obeying him. The My reasons for not adopting and defending it, are 1. Father says ofthe Son, "Let all the angels ofGod worship Its name is unscriptural-the Trinity, or thetriune God, is him." Should angels refuse to worship the Son, they would unknown to the Bible; and I have entertained the idea that rebel against the Father. Children inherit the name oftheir doctrines which require words coined in the human mind father. The Son of God "hath by inheritance obtained a to express them, are coined doctrines. 2. I have never felt more excellent name than" the angels. That name is the called upon to adopt and explain that which is contrary to name of his Father. The Father says to the Son, "Thy all the sense and reason that God has given me. All my throne, 0 God, is forever and ever." Heb1:8. The Son is attempts at an explanation ofsuch a subject would make it called "The mighty God." Isa.9:6. Andwhen he comes no clearer to my friends. again to earth his waiting people will exclaim, "This is our But if I am asked what I think of Jesus Christ, my God." Isa.25:9. It is the will ofthe Father that we should reply is, I believe all that the Scriptures say ofhim. Ifthe thus honor the Son. In doing so we render supreme honor testimony represents him as being in glory withthe Father to the Father. If we dishonor the Son we dishonor the before the world was, I believe it. Ifit is said that he was Father; for he requires us to honor his Son. in the beginning with God, that he was God, that all things But thoughthe Son is called God yet there is a "God were made by him and for him, and that without him was and Fatherofour LordJesus Christ." 1Pet. 1:3. Thoughthe not anything made that was made, I believe it. If the Father says to the Son, "Thy throne, 0 God, is forever and Scriptures say he is the Son of God, I believe it. If it is ever," yet, that throne is given him of his Father; and declared that the Father sent his Son into the world, I because he loved righteousness and hated iniquity, he believe he had a Sonto send. Ifthe testimony says he is the further says, "Therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed beginning ofthe creation ofGod, I believe it. Ifhe is said thee." Heb.1:9. "Godhathmade that same Jesus both Lord to be the brightness ofthe Father's glory, and the express and Christ." Acts. 2:36. The Son is "the everlasting image ofhis person, I believe it. And when Jesus says, "I Father," not of himself, nor of his Father, but of his and my Fatherare one," I believe it; and whenhe says,"My children. His language is. "I and the children which God Father is greater than I," I believe that too; it is the word of hath given me." Heb. 2:13. -R. F. Cottrell Other pioneers also expressed their understanding of "There are many objections which we might urge, the Godhead and dangers ofthe Trinitarian belief. buton accountofourlimited spacewe shallreducethem to the three following: J. N. Loughborough: "1. It is not very consonant with common sense to talk In the Review and Herald, Nov.5,I86I, p.I84 of three being one, and one being three. Or as some appears a column under the title "Questionsfor Bro. express it calling God 'the Triune God,' or 'the three­ Loughborough." The question is posed: "Whatserious one-God.' IfFather, Son,andHoly Ghostare eachGod, objection is there to the doctrine ofthe Trinity?" Elder it wouldbe three Gods; forthreetimes one is notone,but Loughborough answered: three. There is a sensein which theyareone, butnotone Insert A-2. (Lest We Forget Vol. 4, No.2.). person', as claimed by Trinitarians.I*] THE GODHEAD-.by E.G.White "2. It is contrary to Scripture. .. TIle seventeenth chapter ofJohn is alone sufficientto referthe doctrine "I am instructed to say, The sentiments ofthose who ofthe Trinity. Overforty times in thatonechapterChrist are searching for advanced scientific ideas are not to be speaks ofHis Father as aperson distinct from Himself. trusted. Such representations as the following are made: . .. And in this very testimony He shows us in -what 'The Father is like the dew, invisible vapor; the Son is like consists the oneness ofthe Father and the Son. It is the the dew gathered in beauteous form; the Spirit is like the same as the oneness ofChrist's church. "That.. '~ they dew fallen to the seat of life.' Another representation: maybe one,evenas we are one." Ofone heartandmind. 'The Father is like the invisible vapor; the Son is like the Ofone purpose in all the plan devisedfor man's salva­ leaden cloud; the 'Spirit is rain fallen and working in tion. ." * [*Italics added.] refreshing power. ' "3. Its origin is Pagan and fabulous.... We are pointed ,"All these spiritualistic representations are simply to the Tridentofthe Persians,withthe assertionthat"by nothingness. They are imperfect, untrue. They weaken this they designed to teach the idea'ofa Trinity, and if and diminish the Majesty to which no earthly likeness can they had the doctrine of the Trinity, they must have be compared. God cannotbe comparedwith the things His received it by tradition from the people ofGod. hands have made. These are mere earthly things, suffering "Moreover, he is 'the beginning ofthe creation of under the curse ofGod because ofthe sins ofman.... The God. ' ...The language does not necessarily implythat Father is all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and is -he was created; for the words... may simply signifythat invisible to mortal sight. the work of creation, strictly speaking, was begun by "The Son is all the fullness of the Godhead mani­ him. 'Without him was not anything made.' Others, fested. The Word ofGod declares Him to be 'The express however,andmoreproperlywe think,taketheword(for image ofHis person.' [Quotes John 3:16.] Here is shown 'beginning' in Greek) to mean the 'agent' or 'efficient the personality ofthe Father. cause,'... understandingthatChrististhe agentthrough "The ComforterthatChristpromisedto send after He whom God has created all things, but that hehimself ascended to heaven, is the Spirit in all the fullness ofthe came into existenceina different manner, as he is called Godhead,making manifestthe powerofdivine grace to all 'the only begotten' ofthe Father." who receive and believe in Christ as a personal Saviour. There are three living persons ofthe holy trio, in the name E.J. Waggoner: (Christ and His Righteousness, fac­ ofthese three greatpowers-the Father, the Son, and the simile production of 1890 original, p.9.) Holy Spirit-those who receive Christ by living faith are "The Word was 'in the beginning.' ...It is not baptized, and these powerswill co-operate with the obedi­ given to men to know when or how- the Son was ent subjects ofheaven in their efforts to live the new life in begotten; butwe knowthatHe wasthe Divine Word,not Christ."-SpeciaITestimonies, Series B ,No.7,pp. 62,63. simply before He came to this earth to die, but even (1905), quoted in Evangelism, pp. 614. 615.) before the world was created. ... And more than seven "The Holy Spirit is a person, for He beareth witness hundred years before His first advent, His coming was with our spirits that we are the children ofGod.... The thus foretold by the word of inspiration': 'But thou, Holy Spirit '.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Schelling and the Future of God
    SSN 1918-7351 Volume 5 (2013) Schelling and the Future of God Jason M. Wirth For Sean McGrath and Andrzej Wiercinski It seems, at least largely among the world’s educated, that Nietzsche’s prognosis of the death of God is coming to pass. Not only is belief in a transcendent being or a grand, supremely real being (ens realissimum) waning, but also the philosophical grounds that made such objects in any way intelligible are collapsing. In such a situation, despite the recent and quite scintillating renaissance of serious interest in Schelling’s philosophy, his various discourses on the Godhead (die Gottheit) are generally ignored, perhaps with mild embarrassment. For better or worse, however, what Schelling understood by the Godhead and even by religion has little in common with prevailing theistic traditions. Schelling did not take advantage of the great ontological lacuna that opened up with the demise of dogmatism in critical philosophy after Kant to insist on an irrational belief in a God that was no longer subject to rational demonstration. Schelling eschews all dogmatic thought, but does not therefore partake in its alternative: the reduction of all thought regarding the absolute to irrational beliefs in (or rational gambles on) the existence of God and other such absolutes. As Quentin Meillassoux has shown, “by forbidding reason any claim to the absolute, the end of metaphysics has taken the form of an exacerbated return of the religious.”1 This gives rise to the reduction of religion and anti- religion to fideism. Since both theism and atheism purport to believe in a rationally unsupportable absolute position, they are both symptoms of the return of the religious.
    [Show full text]
  • Archons (Commanders) [NOTICE: They Are NOT Anlien Parasites], and Then, in a Mirror Image of the Great Emanations of the Pleroma, Hundreds of Lesser Angels
    A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES A R C H O N S HIDDEN RULERS THROUGH THE AGES WATCH THIS IMPORTANT VIDEO UFOs, Aliens, and the Question of Contact MUST-SEE THE OCCULT REASON FOR PSYCHOPATHY Organic Portals: Aliens and Psychopaths KNOWLEDGE THROUGH GNOSIS Boris Mouravieff - GNOSIS IN THE BEGINNING ...1 The Gnostic core belief was a strong dualism: that the world of matter was deadening and inferior to a remote nonphysical home, to which an interior divine spark in most humans aspired to return after death. This led them to an absorption with the Jewish creation myths in Genesis, which they obsessively reinterpreted to formulate allegorical explanations of how humans ended up trapped in the world of matter. The basic Gnostic story, which varied in details from teacher to teacher, was this: In the beginning there was an unknowable, immaterial, and invisible God, sometimes called the Father of All and sometimes by other names. “He” was neither male nor female, and was composed of an implicitly finite amount of a living nonphysical substance. Surrounding this God was a great empty region called the Pleroma (the fullness). Beyond the Pleroma lay empty space. The God acted to fill the Pleroma through a series of emanations, a squeezing off of small portions of his/its nonphysical energetic divine material. In most accounts there are thirty emanations in fifteen complementary pairs, each getting slightly less of the divine material and therefore being slightly weaker. The emanations are called Aeons (eternities) and are mostly named personifications in Greek of abstract ideas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Peircean Panentheist Scientific Mysticism1
    International Journal of Transpersonal Studies Volume 27 | Issue 1 Article 5 1-1-2008 A Peircean Panentheist Scientific ysM ticism Søren Brier Copenhagen Business School Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/ijts-transpersonalstudies Part of the Philosophy Commons, Psychology Commons, and the Religion Commons Recommended Citation Brier, S. (2008). Brier, S. (2008). A Peircean panentheist scientific ysm ticism. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 27(1), 20–45.. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 27 (1). http://dx.doi.org/10.24972/ijts.2008.27.1.20 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals and Newsletters at Digital Commons @ CIIS. It has been accepted for inclusion in International Journal of Transpersonal Studies by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ CIIS. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A Peircean Panentheist Scientific Mysticism1 Søren Brier2 Copenhagen Business School Copenhagen, Denmark Peirce’s philosophy can be interpreted as an integration of mysticism and science. In Peirce’s philosophy mind is feeling on the inside and on the outside, spontaneity, chance and chaos with a tendency to take habits. Peirce’s philosophy has an emptiness beyond the three worlds of reality (his Categories), which is the source from where the categories spring. He empha- sizes that God cannot be conscious in the way humans are, because there is no content in his “mind.” Since there is a transcendental3 nothingness behind and before the categories, it seems that Peirce had a mystical view on reality with a transcendental Godhead.
    [Show full text]
  • Lesson 2 – the Eternal Godhead
    Mount Zion Ministries Bringing the Power of Resurrection Life to the Nation by Grace alone – through Faith alone – in Christ alone Mount Zion Ministries Discipleship Training Program Lesson 2 – The Eternal Godhead Extracts from the Authorised Version of the Bible (The King James Bible) The rights in which are vested in the Crown Are reproduced with the permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. Website: mountzionministries.uk Contact: [email protected] Page 1 of 6 Mount Zion Ministries Bringing the Power of Resurrection Life to the Nation by Grace alone – through Faith alone – in Christ alone Lesson 2 – The Eternal Godhead We believe in the Eternal Godhead who has revealed Himself as one God existing in Three Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, distinguishable but indivisible. Proof texts Matthew 3:16-17 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven , saying, This is my beloved Son , in whom I am well pleased. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father , and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost . Mark 1:10-11 And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him: And there came a voice from heaven , [saying], Thou art my beloved Son , in whom I am well pleased.
    [Show full text]
  • The Holy Spirit: a Personal Member of the Godhead
    Andrews University Digital Commons @ Andrews University Memory, Meaning & Life Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary 6-11-2010 The Holy Spirit: A Personal Member Of The Godhead John Reeve Andrews University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/mml Recommended Citation Reeve, John, "The Holy Spirit: A Personal Member Of The Godhead" (2010). Memory, Meaning & Life. 31. https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/mml/31 This Blog Post is brought to you for free and open access by the Seventh-day Adventist Theological Seminary at Digital Commons @ Andrews University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Memory, Meaning & Life by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ Andrews University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Wayback Machine - http://web.archive.org/web/20180625221757/http://www.memorymeaningfaith.org:80/blog/201… Memory, Meaning & Faith Main About Archives June 11, 2010 The Holy Spirit: A Personal Member Of The Godhead Holy Trinity by Andrei Rublev There is an assertion that floats around the edges of Christianity that the Holy Spirit is not a personal member of the Godhead, but an impersonal power from God. This assertion, which has a small following in Adventism, takes many forms and angles, but at its core it asserts that the Bible does not support a view of the Holy Spirit as having any “personhood.” I will address the issue of the conceptualization of the Holy Spirit directly from the Bible, which, if it gives strong evidence for ascribing personhood and full deity to the Holy Spirit, settles the question for me.
    [Show full text]
  • • Baha'i Proofs for the Existence Of
    Page 1 • Baha’i Proofs for the Existence of God Ian Kluge to show that belief in God can be rational and logically coherent and is not necessarily a product of uncritical religious dogmatism or ignorance. To prove proofs of God in the Baha’i Writings are logically valid and defensible. to up-date explanations for some traditional proofs which are still valid but easy to discount in their original form. to persuade people to engage in philosophic studies of the Baha’i Writings including correlations with other systems of thought as promoted by the Guardian. Page 2 The Existence of the Divine Being hath been clearly established on the basis of logical proofs, but the reality of the Godhead is beyond the grasp of the mind" (Selections from the Writings of `Abdu'l-Baha, p. 46) “The utmost one can say is that [God’s] existence can be proved, but that the conditions of Its existence are unknown.” (Abdu’l-Baha, Selections from the Writings of Abdu’l-Baha, p. 54) Contrary to some philosophers and modern thinkers, the Writings assert that God’s existence can be logically proven. This does not mean every disbeliever can be persuaded that God exists (people can be persuaded by many different things, e.g. life experiences.) but it does mean that from a logical perspective, a statement that denies the existence of a supra-natural ‘entity’ is “untenable.” Persuasion and proof are not the same things. “Untenable” in logic means a position cannot be defended without getting entangled in various kinds of logical errors.
    [Show full text]
  • The Synergicity of Essentially the Identity of God in the Vedic Teaching and the Siwatattwa As Guidelines for Hindureligious Practices in Bali
    Jayapangus Press Volume 4 Nomor 4 (2020) Jurnal Penelitian Agama Hindu ISSN : 2579-9843 (Media Online) Focuses on Hinduism Studies http://jayapanguspress.penerbit.org/index.php/JPAH THE SYNERGICITY OF ESSENTIALLY THE IDENTITY OF GOD IN THE VEDIC TEACHING AND THE SIWATATTWA AS GUIDELINES FOR HINDURELIGIOUS PRACTICES IN BALI I Wayan Ardhi Wirawan1, I Gede Sura2, Ketut Wardana3 1Institut Agama Hindu Negeri Gde Pudja Mataram 23Universitas Hindu Negeri I Gusti Bagus Sugriwa Denpasar Email: [email protected] Abstrak Penelitian ini bertujuan melakukan kajian terhadap sinergisitas secara esensial identitas ketuhanan dalam kitab suci Veda dan ajaran Siwatattwa. Identitas ketuhanan yang dijadikan fokus penelitian ini dilatari oleh alasan berkembangnya wacana “Kembali ke Veda” sebagai sumber pedoman praktik beragama Hindu di Bali. Berkenaan dengan itu, kajian ini difokuskan pada identitas tentang ketuhanan sebagai simbol konstruktif yang mengangkut inti ajaran agama Hindu. Penelitian ini dirancang dalam metode kualitatif interpretatif menggunakan model komparasi teks dua sumber ajaran ketuhanan secara umum, yaitu kitab Suci Veda dan ajaran Siwatattwa. Temuan baru berkaitan dengan hasil penelitian ini adalah identitas ketuhanan secara esensial yang terkandung dalam kitab suci Veda dan kitab Siwatattwa memiliki sinergisitas. Identitas ketuhanan yang transenden dalam kedua sumber ajaran Hindu tersebut bersifat abstrak yang tidak terjangkau oleh indra dan pikiran. Identitas ketuhanan dalam dimensi imanen disimbolkan dengan nama dan wujud sebagai pusat konsentrasi umat Hindu dalam menghayati keberadaan kekuatan Brahman/Ida Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa sesuai dengan ista dewata (perwujudan dewa yang dipuja). Penghayatan ketuhanan pada masyarakat Bali-Hindu menggunakan sumber pedoman ajaran Siwatattwa dalam pelaksanaan agama Hindu yang bersumber pada kitab suci Veda, baik sruti maupun smrti.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is the Godhead?
    ◆ GOD ◆ WHAT IS THE GODHEAD? Richard C. Trench, in his classic Synonyms of word is grammatically plural and literally is the New Testament, held that the only New Testa- translated “gods,” as in Exodus 20:3: “You shall ment word expressing Deity in the absolute is have no other gods [elohim] before Me.” Exactly theotes (Colossians 2:9),1 translated “Godhead” the same form appears in Genesis 1:1: “In the (AV, ASV), “Deity” (NASB, NIV), and “Deity” beginning God [elohim] created the heavens and (RSV), derived from theos, “God,” “the implored the earth.” Because of this plural form, some one.” How much is embodied in the term have sought to fault the Bible by asserting that it “Godhead,” no human now knows. Zophar chal- teaches polytheism. Accordingly, they would lenged Job, “Can you discover the depths of translate Genesis 1:1 this way: “In the beginning God? Can you discover the limits of the Al- the gods created the heavens and the earth.” mighty?” (Job 11:7). Paul wrote that no one can Since other Bible passages show emphatically dispute the fact that “great is the mystery of that there is only one true God (Deuteronomy godliness” (1 Timothy 3:16). He gave up on ever 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:6), no scholar ever translated understanding the fullness of Genesis 1:1 with the word “gods.” God in this life: “Oh, the depth of If Genesis 1:1 does not teach the the riches both of the wisdom “For in [Christ] all the doctrine of many gods, then why and knowledge of God! How un- fullness of Deity dwells is the word elohim plural? Ar- searchable are His judgments in bodily form” (Colos- chaeology has shown that the an- and unfathomable His ways!” sians 2:9).
    [Show full text]
  • Godhead Or Deity - Is James White Right?
    Godhead or Deity - Is James White Right? Colossians 2:8-9 "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, aftr the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of THE GODHEAD bodily." James White, a well known King James Bible critic, ignorantly harangues against the use of the word Godhead in the KJB. In his book, The King James Only Controversy, when discussing Colossians 2:9 Mr. White says on page 204: "Yet, the KJV rendering of this verse is probably the least clear of almost all currently available translations. How does one explain what "Godhead" means? Who really uses this term any longer? And what about the fact that the KJV uses "godhead" in other places when it is translating a completely different Greek term?" Then Mr. White has a chart which shows the NASB rendering of the three passages where the KJB has Godhead in all three. Here are the NASB renderings: Acts 17:29 the Divine Nature (Theios); Romans 1:20 divine nature (theiotes), and Colossians 2:9 Deity (theotes). As for Mr. White's puzzlement about how one explains what Godhead means, he might try looking at any number of current English dictionaries. As for his question - "Who really uses this term any longer?" maybe Mr. Scholar White might try reading the NIV introduction in the 1984 edition where it says on page xviii "Neither Hebrew, Aramaic nor Greek uses special pronouns for the persons of the Godhead." Actually the word Godhead is much stronger and more accurate than the "deity" of the NASB, NIV and ESV.
    [Show full text]
  • II. the Godhead A. the Trinity 016. Lecture, the Catholic Columbian, December 25, 1875
    II. The Godhead A. The Trinity 016. Lecture, The Catholic Columbian, December 25, 1875 This series titled "Lecture in St. Joseph's Cathedral" was unsigned, incomplete, and poorly edited. But we are sure Bishop Rosecrans was the speaker, for on the first page of the December 11 issue is the notice, "The Bishop's lectures at the Cathedral Sunday evenings, draw appreciative audiences." The Sunday prior to publication, December 19, was probably its date of delivery. LECTURE IN ST. JOSEPH'S CATHEDRAL. No. IV The Unity and Trinity of God. God exists necessarily from all eternity. He is Immutable, Almighty, Omniscient, essentially Just and Holy, the Maker and Center of all things outside of Himself. There can be but one such Being. He is the Center of all Space, the Immovable Pivot round which the Ages revolve, at His bidding, from their beginning, when the Angels were made, thenceforth forever. To Him the vast fields of space, through which the stars are ever moving since He started them, are but as a point, and the ages they measure by their wheelings is as a single instant. Whatever he made them for, it was not for any need He had of them. The shining Choirs of Angels, the generations of men, the vast bulk of material creation brought Him no new knowledge, or gain, or pleasure. He is sufficient to Himself. This much we know, analyzing our own conceptions of WHO He is. But He has revealed Himself as one in Essence, and at the same time, three in person. The Mystery of the Trinity is the groundwork of Catholic Faith.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparative Study of the Concept of God in Hinduism and Islam
    International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2013 1 ISSN 2250-3153 A comparative study of the concept of God in Hinduism and Islam Abid Mushtaq Wani Abstract: In this research paper we will discuss the concept of God in Hinduism and Islam, the two major world religions. The theme of this paper is to show that monotheism is at the core of both these great religions. Islam is strictly monotheistic but Hinduism has pantheistic and henotheistic tendencies as well. While monotheism means the oneness and transcendence of God pantheism means that the Supreme Being is immanent in His creation and is present everywhere and in everything. Henotheism is the belief in one Supreme Divinity with the belief in other lesser deities. I. INTRODUCTION he concept of God is the basic tenet of almost all religions. I said almost because renowned religions like Buddhism and Jainism T do not hold the belief in an Absolute Creator of the world. Theologians usually define God as all-powerful, all-knowing, transcendent, eternal and infinite. My research paper is about the concept of God in one of the two major world religions of the world; Hinduism and Islam. We shall hypothesize that the unity of God is the central part of both these great religions. While Hinduism is pantheistic when Vedanta is taken into consideration, Islam is purely monotheistic. Most of the Hindus worship many gods and goddesses but they believe that they are the manifestations of One Absolute Being. I have consulted the basic sources of both these religions.
    [Show full text]
  • Ghasem Kakaie IBN 'ARABI's GOD, ECKHART's GOD
    444 Philosophy of Religion and Kalam * Ghasem Kakaie Ghasem Kakaie (Shiraz University, Iran) IBN ‘ARABI’S GOD, ECKHART’S GOD: GOD OF PHILOSOPHERS OR GOD OF RELIGION? 1. Prelude It is difficult to provide such a definition of God in which all various views are included and all schools agree upon. The dominant view is that Religion’s God is the Origin of the universe and enjoys some kind of transcendence and sacredness. In philosophy, however, there are various images for God: the Gods of ancient Greece, the unmoved mover of Aristotle, the necessary Being of Avicenna, the God of Aquinas’s theism, the God of Spinoza’s the pantheistic, panentheism God in some mystical philosophies, the One in Neoplatonism, the God of process philosophy, the God of existential philosophies, ultimate concern of Tillich, God as the impersonal ground of Being, and aspects of Heidegger’s Dasein are different concepts of deity.1 The God of philosophy is often an object, not a person; something, not some- one, unchangeable, absolute and unlimited. But the God which is worshiped in ordinary religion “is a person and to be a person, an entity must think, feel, and will. In spite of being called unchangeable, he is angry with us today, pleased with us tomorrow.”2 The meaning of God, of course, is to some extent different in the ordinary versions of various religions and even between Abrahamic religions. The God who has no son according to Islam, for example, may differ from the God who has a son as is believed in Christianity.
    [Show full text]