Bibliographic record
Abstract
The notion that God is present in creation has long featured in Eastern Christian thought, appearing as early as Origen (3rd century) and Evagrius of Pontus (4th century). Two major philosophical principles underlay the theology of divine immanence in creation: creation ex nihilo (the physical world is not eternal, but has a beginning, and it was created by God “out of nothing”) and nothing can exist totally separate from God, from a divine act of creation. The difficulty in ancient and modern times is to articulate this theology without falling into pantheism, a fusion or identification of God and creation. This is typically achieved by the simultaneous affirmation of divine immanence and divine transcendence: God is more, infinitely more, than creation; indeed, the divine essence is beyond human comprehension, the basis of apophatic theology. This essay explores these notions in Orthodox thought, especially in modern times. Modern Orthodox theologians (notably Sergius Bulgakov, Georges Florovsky, Alexander Schmemann, Kallistos Ware, and John Zizioulas) draw on the patristic theologies of the logoi (“reasons”) of things in Maximus the Confessor (7th century) and the divine energies of Gregory Palamas (14th century) to develop a robust theology of creation which affirms human relationship with the rest of creation and human responsibility for the care of creation. These notions coalesce in the philosophical–theological position of panentheism, to which several modern Orthodox theologians adhere, providing a solid grounding for positive affirmations of the world as God’s creation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".