God is Immanentia Omnis: Addressing Some of the Hardest Problems in Christian Theology and Providing an Updated Glossary of Terms

My interval model of the Trinity, T=[Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis], was initially designed to solve the apparent contradiction between Divine Simplicity and the Trinity. Yet it became apparent that a multitude of terms were required to fully address this issue, naturally extending this exercise into addressing some of the arguably hardest problems in Christian theology. These are listed below, preceding the updated terms central to the theory.

One of the keys to this process was the need to develop a theory of identity, suitable for the unique status the Christian God holds. God is absolutely unique, and arguably, no typical theory of identity is fit for the task, since identity theory often explores questions about what constitutes the sameness of a thing over time, how personal identity is constructed, and how identity can persist or change in different contexts. These types of focus are typically considered creaturely in theology, which God is not. In some senses, God’s distinct identity constitutes an ontological distinction between God and all else that exists. In theological terms, a creature refers to anything created or brought into existence by God, including all finite beings such as humans, animals, plants, and inanimate objects.

Therefore, to develop a model of the Trinity that could be harmonized with Divine Simplicity, I also devised an identity theory called Divine Confluence Identity Theory (DCIT). With this theory, and my interval model, a unique set of terms emerged, which are also listed below. However, it became evident that there are four hard problems for Christian theology at the ultimate theological level. These four problems, and how my broader model of God generally addresses them (my model coupled with an identity theory, and ontological contextualization) are as follows:

1. Unity and Diversity: My model of the Triune God emphasizes the unity and diversity inherent in the divine nature. Each Person of the Trinity fully embodies the divine essence, reflecting the perfect being of God. This unity of essence establishes a foundation for consistently emphasizing the novel part of the model, which posits that God is Immanentia Omnis. The view of immanence also allows one to affirm that all created beings participate in God’s being, albeit to a limited extent.

2. Relational Expression: The relational ontology theory behind my model of God underscores the dynamic relational expression within the Trinity. The interplay between Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP) and Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO) enables each Divine Person to manifest the divine essence uniquely. This relational expression provides a basis for understanding the Trinity and Simplicity. Again, the novel view of immanence allows one to acknowledge that created beings participate in God’s being through their own distinct relational identities, in some sense.

3. Transcendence and Immanence: This interval view of the Triune God encompasses both divine transcendence and immanence as harmonious aspects of one interval. The divine nature remains transcendent and distinct from creation, while also being fully present and involved within it. This understanding complements the glossary of terms needed to express this truth, enabling the model to acknowledge that while God’s being is infinite and perfect, created beings participate in God’s being in a limited and finite manner.

4. Ontological Framework: The relational principles arising from this model and the framework around the interval model of God express an ontology that contextualizes this theory of God, a key problem for theology in general. The terms below enable the model and framework to recognize the interconnectedness and relationality between God and creation, providing a foundation for understanding the interval between what God is and what humans are not. This framework allows for a nuanced and comprehensive exploration of the similarities and differences between God’s being and the being of created things.

Now let’s proceed to the updated Glossary of Terms to illustrate this reflection and how to apply it yourself at the end. Here is the revised list of terms with the additions in alphabetic order:

1. Aseity: From the Latin “a se,” meaning “from oneself,” aseity traditionally refers to the self-existence or self-sufficiency of God. Within the framework of T = [DivAP, DivIO] and the identity theory, aseity is redefined as God’s dynamic self-actualization and infinite openness, signifying God’s perfection and independence. This nuanced interpretation of aseity reaffirms God’s autonomous nature while preserving His intimate connection with creation.

2. Divine Actuality Proposition (DAP): A principle acknowledging the doctrine of Actus Purus, emphasizing the immutable and perfect nature of the divine, and the full actualization of God’s divine essence in each hypostasis’ distinct relational identity.

3. Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP): This term indicates the state where all qualities and capacities inherent to the divine essence are actualized in each Person of the Trinity, demonstrating the perfection of the divine essence in each Person. It emphasizes the actuality of all that is divinely possible without implying change or potentiality.

4. Divine Confluent Identity Theory (DCIT): An innovative approach to Trinitarian theology that provides a robust understanding of the triune God, emphasizing the divine essence’s full expression in each hypostasis and maintaining the principles of divine simplicity and immutability.

5. Divine Confluence Proposition (DCP): A principle highlighting the confluence of the divine identities in DCRO. It underscores the dynamic interplay and mutual indwelling among the divine Persons.

6. Divine Confluent Relational Ontology (DCRO): An ontological framework that provides a comprehensive understanding of the divine reality as a dynamic, relational, and unified plurality, grounded in the DCIT.

7. Divine Essence (DivE): The intrinsic, inherent nature of God, fully expressed in each hypostasis.

8. Divine Hypostatic Identity Proposition (DHIP): A proposition asserting that each hypostasis fully embodies the divine essence and participates in the dynamic divine relational expression, emphasizing their unique relational identities within the divine unity.

9. Divine Immanence Proposition (DIP): A proposition asserting God’s full presence in creation, encapsulated by Immanentia Omnis, and highlighting the intimate and relational nature of the divine.

10. Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO): This term captures the boundless, limitless nature of the divine essence as embodied in each Person of the Trinity. It represents the infinite possibilities inherent in the divine essence, open to and actualized by each Person, emphasizing the expansive and dynamic nature of God’s being.

11. Divine Relational Expression (DivRE): The unique relational identity and context of each hypostasis in the divine essence.

12. Divine Relational Expression Proposition (DREP): A proposition acknowledging the unique relational context in which each hypostasis expresses the divine essence. It reveals the relational dynamic of the divine identity through the distinct manifestation of the divine act and divine presence by each hypostasis.

13. Divine Relational Proposition (DRP): A proposition asserting the intrinsic relationality of the divine reality. Each divine Person embodies the divine essence and dynamically participates in the divine relational expression.

14. Divine Transcendent-Immanent Proposition (DTIP): A proposition maintaining that the divine reality encompasses both the transcendence and immanence of God.

15. Eternal Generation: A term utilized in Trinitarian theology that signifies the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son. In this relationship, the Son is begotten from the Father, but not in a temporal or created sense as earthly procreation would suggest. Rather, the begetting is conceived as an eternal process that is beyond time. It implies that the Son has always existed, begotten eternally by the Father. Within the context of the Relational-Personal Complex (RPC), eternal generation underscores the distinct relational dynamic between the Father and the Son. It attests that each Person – particularly the Father and the Son in this context – wholly actualizes all divine potentials (DivAP) in an infinitely open manner (DivIO). This recognizes the unique relational identity of the Son as eternally begotten from the Father, not as a causal process but as an eternal relation describing the dynamic relationship within the Trinity.

16. Father: In Trinitarian theology, the Father refers to one of the three distinct Persons within the Trinity, namely, the first person. According to the DCIT framework, the Father can be understood as the immanently transcendent source of divine relation. He is not only a relational person but also the principle from which the other Persons—Son and Holy Spirit—proceed. However, the terms for the father are equal, so can be expressed as pure agency (DivAP * DivIO)+F.

16. Holy Spirit: In Trinitarian theology, the Holy Spirit refers to one of the three distinct Persons within the Trinity. The Holy Spirit is the third person, proceeding from the Father and, according to the Western tradition, from the Son. In the context of DCIT and T = [DivAP, DivIO], the Holy Spirit is understood as the pure agency (DivAP * DivIO)+HS fully embodying and actualizing all divine potentials within His unique relational identity.

17. Hypostasis: A term used in Trinitarian theology to denote the individual reality or personal subsistence of each of the three Persons of the Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

18. Immanence: In Christian theology, immanence refers to God’s pervasive presence throughout creation, balanced with His transcendence or independence from it. The term “Immanentia Omnis” or Divine Infinite Openness (DivIO) has been proposed to encapsulate this concept, signifying God’s intimate and all-encompassing presence within the created universe.

19. Immanentia Omnis (IO): A proposed Latin term (“All Immanence”) representing the scope of divine immanence, referring to the three Persons of the Trinity, is to counterpart what Actus Purus does for expressing transcendence but in immanent terms. As an interval, it is the conceptual device that can be characterized as the full scope of Immanence. The state in which, In God, all presence is proximate and all proximity pervades. This represents the constant interaction with creation, with God operating within the bounds of the universe while simultaneously transcending them.

20. Interval T = [Actus Purus, Immanentia Omnis]: Represents the dynamic, relational understanding of the divine nature within the framework of the Trinity. It comprises the domains of Actus Purus and Immanentia Omnis, marking the full spectrum of the divine reality.

21. Perichoresis: A theological term referring to the mutual indwelling and interpenetration of the hypostases in the Trinity. It conveys a dynamic, reciprocal, and intimate relationship within the divine unity.

22. Perichoretic Unity Proposition (PUP): A principle emphasizing the perichoretic unity—the mutual indwelling and interpenetration—of the hypostases. Each hypostasis fully expresses the divine essence and its unique relational identity.

23. Persons (in Trinitarian theology): The three distinct realities—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—within the one God of Christian belief. In the context of the convention T = [AP, IO], the Persons are seen as pure agencies (PA=DivAP*DivIO), each fully actualizing all divine potentials (DivAP) in an infinitely open manner (DivIO). This framework allows each Person to fully present, represent, and manifest the immanent reality of the transcendent qualities they embody. They each fully express the divine nature’s transcendent aspects within their unique relational identities.

In light of the foundational concepts, each divine Person also participates in an ongoing relational conversation, reflecting a relational ontology. They intimately interpenetrate one another in a perichoretic dance of mutual indwelling, reflecting a unique divine communion. The relationship between the Father and the Son is additionally characterized by eternal generation, emphasizing the dynamic actualization of divine potentiality in relational context. Despite their relational distinctness, they all share in the unity of the divine essence, upholding the foundational unity-in-diversity that characterizes the Trinity. These relations and interactions are not bound by temporal, spatial, or sensory constraints, reflecting the infinite openness of their being.

24. Pure Agency (PA): The unadulterated action and relational capability of each Person of the Trinity, fully expressing, embodying, and representing the divine essence in its transcendent and immanent dimensions, free from temporal, spatial, or sensory constraints.

25. Relational Ontology: A philosophical perspective viewing reality as fundamentally composed of relationships. In the context of DCRO, it emphasizes the dynamic and relational interplay among the divine Persons within the Trinity.

26. Relational-Personal Complex (RPC): The RPC refers to the comprehensive characterization of divine Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) within the Christian Trinitarian framework. This term integrates the 4 vital elements and framework for the traditional view of divine persons which includes relational language (like divine names), perichoresis (mutual indwelling), eternal generation, and unity of essence. It offers an advanced understanding of divine Persons as distinct yet interconnected realities in a complex relational network.

27. Son: In Trinitarian theology, the Son refers to one of the three distinct Persons within the Trinity, commonly identified as Jesus Christ. In the framework of DCIT and T = [DivAP, DivIO], the Son is understood as the pure agency (DivAP * DivIO)+S that fully embodies and actualizes all divine potentials within His relational identity.

28. Transcendence (Full Scope): In theological terms, transcendence refers to the aspect of God’s nature that is wholly independent of, and beyond, the material universe and all known physical laws. This concept is embodied in the doctrine of Actus Purus, or Divine Actualized Potential (DivAP), emphasizing God’s complete actualization, denoting His perfection, autonomy, and self-sufficiency. In God, all that transcends is actual and all actuality transcends. Each Person of the Trinity represents this unity of transcendence and immanence, actualizing all divine potentials in an infinitely open manner within the immanent reality of creation, while maintaining divine self-sufficiency and perfection.

This concludes the basic set of terms needed to situate the Christian God within a relational ontology, while preserving a very classical view of God. Should one wish to back-test these terms and grasp the theology underpinning this model of God, they could train ChatGPT-4 to learn these terms and articulate the model of God accordingly. This would provide a better understanding of how exactly the Trinity harmonizes with Divine Simplicity.

I did have to develop a unique ontology and view of God in philosophical terms as well, with the help of AI, but that extends beyond a proper Christian theological view. Already, this view flirts with abstraction closely enough to be inscrutable to many. However, at the end of the day, the theory here permits one to assert, stronger than ever, that in theory, God is transcendent in act and immanent in all. In practice, this signifies that Jesus is fundamentally what it’s all about, the Spirit permeates, and the Father transcends. “God” nudges us to our rational boundaries, prompting us to wonder profoundly. Nonetheless, it is through the Son that, with acceptance and participation, we find our God—who, after all, has already found us.

Ephesians 1:22-23 – “And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all.”