Why Panentheism is False.

[Clete]

Panentheism is the view that the universe is part of God while He also transcends it. This doctrine blurs the Creator-creature distinction that is foundational to biblical revelation. In this thread, I want to present and examine some biblical and philosophical arguments arguments against panentheism that affirm God’s distinctiveness from, relational engagement and purposeful interaction with His creation without diminishing His transcendence over it.

First, the Bible opens with a clear assertion of God's transcendence over creation:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).​

This verse establishes God as the sovereign Creator, entirely distinct from His creation. Creation exists as an act of God's will, not as an extension of His essence. Isaiah 66:1 reinforces this: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool... All these things my hand has made." By portraying God as sovereign over all creation, Scripture denies any notion that creation exists as part of God's being.

Incidentally, by "sovereign," I mean God as the highest authority over all creation, not as a being who exercises total control over every event.

Further, the act of creation described in passages such as John 1:3...

"All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3)​

...underscores that all created things are ontologically separate from God. Panentheism's conflation of God and creation undermines this fundamental distinction.


Secondly, there are a couple passages that panentheists typically cite as evidence for their doctrine that I'd like to address....

While God’s presence is described as pervasive, the Bible portrays this presence as relational rather than intrinsic to the nature of the creation itself. Psalm 139:7 asks....

"Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?" (Psalms 139:7)​

This reflects God's intimate involvement with creation without implying that creation itself is divine or in some way part of God.

Another passage often cited by panentheists is...

"In him we live and move and have our being," (Acts 17:27–28)​

This passage emphasizes God's sustaining power rather than identifying creation as part of His essence. Creation depends on God for existence, but this dependence does not collapse the distinction between Creator and creation! God’s immanence is the result of His choice to engage relationally with His creation, not an indication that creation is somehow embedded within His being.

Further, a God who interacts purposefully with creation must stand outside it. Jeremiah 18:7–10 illustrates this...

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)​

God declares that His plans for nations depend on their responses to Him, indicating a dynamic, two way relationship. For God to respond to creation, He must be distinct from it. Panentheism, by merging God with the universe, makes it difficult to account for divine sovereignty over creation, as it suggests that God's actions are inherently tied to the processes of the universe.

Additionally, biblical descriptions of judgment and renewal contradict the panentheistic view.

"The creation was subjected to futility... in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption." (Romans 8:20–21)​

If creation were part of God, its bondage to corruption would imply imperfection in God’s being, which is incompatible with His nature as depicted in Scripture. Similarly, II Peter 3:10–13 describes a future where creation will be burned up and made new, demonstrating that creation is a distinct reality God can act upon and transform.

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies[a] will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.​

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." (II Peter 3:10–13)​

Panentheism also introduces philosophical inconsistencies by implying that God is dependent on creation for His fullness. If the universe is part of God, then God's very nature is affected by the changes, imperfections, suffering and other machinations within creation. This undermines the biblical portrayal of God as perfect and complete in Himself. Psalm 50:12 affirms, "If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine," which highlights God’s independence from creation. A God who is fully self-sufficient cannot require creation to complete His being.

The biblical God is profoundly relational, engaging dynamically with creation. Yet this relationality presupposes distinct entities capable of interaction. Panentheism reduces this relationship to an internal process within God, eroding the meaningfulness of divine-human interaction and relationship. For example, when God repents from judgment in Jonah 3:10, it is because of the distinct actions of the Ninevites. Such passages illustrate that God’s relationship with creation involves genuine give-and-take, which only makes sense if creation is separate from God.

Panentheism fails to align with the biblical and philosophical portrayal of God as sovereign, relational, and distinct from creation. Scripture consistently affirms a Creator who is both transcendent and intimately involved with His creation, without conflating His essence with the universe. If this distinction is not maintained, the integrity of God’s nature and the meaningfulness of His relationship with the world is rendered meaningless.

It still surprises me, even though at this point it shouldn't, how often doctrinal disputes come down to the emphasis, or lack thereof, that is placed on the fact that God is a person Who is really big on relationships. Relationships are the purpose of our existence. It is the reason God chose to create us! The Earth was made for our benefit but we were made for God's benefit! That is THE central thing! If you miss that single point, you might find yourself rubbing shoulders with the panentheists, just one small step away from pantheism.

Resting in Him,
Clete
(11/20/24)

 

[Lon]

Panentheism is the view that the universe is part of God while He also transcends it. This doctrine blurs the Creator-creature distinction that is foundational to biblical revelation. In this thread, I want to present and examine some biblical and philosophical arguments arguments against panentheism that affirm God’s distinctiveness from, relational engagement and purposeful interaction with His creation without diminishing His transcendence over it.

First, the Bible opens with a clear assertion of God's transcendence over creation:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1).​

This verse establishes God as the sovereign Creator, entirely distinct from His creation. Creation exists as an act of God's will, not as an extension of His essence. Isaiah 66:1 reinforces this: "Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool... All these things my hand has made." By portraying God as sovereign over all creation, Scripture denies any notion that creation exists as part of God's being.

Incidentally, by "sovereign," I mean God as the highest authority over all creation, not as a being who exercises total control over every event.

Further, the act of creation described in passages such as John 1:3...

"All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made" (John 1:3)​

...underscores that all created things are ontologically separate from God. Panentheism's conflation of God and creation undermines this fundamental distinction.


Secondly, there are a couple passages that panentheists typically cite as evidence for their doctrine that I'd like to address....

While God’s presence is described as pervasive, the Bible portrays this presence as relational rather than intrinsic to the nature of the creation itself. Psalm 139:7 asks....

"Where shall I go from your Spirit? Or where shall I flee from your presence?" (Psalms 139:7)​

This reflects God's intimate involvement with creation without implying that creation itself is divine or in some way part of God.

Another passage often cited by panentheists is...

"In him we live and move and have our being," (Acts 17:27–28)​

This passage emphasizes God's sustaining power rather than identifying creation as part of His essence. Creation depends on God for existence, but this dependence does not collapse the distinction between Creator and creation! God’s immanence is the result of His choice to engage relationally with His creation, not an indication that creation is somehow embedded within His being.

Pantheism, not pan-en-theism.

Further, a God who interacts purposefully with creation must stand outside it. Jeremiah 18:7–10 illustrates this...

If at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom, that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation, concerning which I have spoken, turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I intended to do to it. And if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will build and plant it, and if it does evil in my sight, not listening to my voice, then I will relent of the good that I had intended to do to it. (Jeremiah 18:7-10)​

God declares that His plans for nations depend on their responses to Him, indicating a dynamic, two way relationship. For God to respond to creation, He must be distinct from it. Panentheism, by merging God with the universe, makes it difficult to account for divine sovereignty over creation, as it suggests that God's actions are inherently tied to the processes of the universe.

Additionally, biblical descriptions of judgment and renewal contradict the panentheistic view.

"The creation was subjected to futility... in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption." (Romans 8:20–21)​

If creation were part of God, its bondage to corruption would imply imperfection in God’s being, which is incompatible with His nature as depicted in Scripture. Similarly, II Peter 3:10–13 describes a future where creation will be burned up and made new, demonstrating that creation is a distinct reality God can act upon and transform.

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies[a] will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.​

Since all these things are thus to be dissolved, what sort of people ought you to be in lives of holiness and godliness, waiting for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be set on fire and dissolved, and the heavenly bodies will melt as they burn! But according to his promise we are waiting for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells." (II Peter 3:10–13)​

Panentheism also introduces philosophical inconsistencies by implying that God is dependent on creation for His fullness.

Not panentheism, pantheism. See here on the difference

If the universe is part of God, then God's very nature is affected by the changes, imperfections, suffering and other machinations within creation. This undermines the biblical portrayal of God as perfect and complete in Himself. Psalm 50:12 affirms, "If I were hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and its fullness are mine," which highlights God’s independence from creation. A God who is fully self-sufficient cannot require creation to complete His being.

The biblical God is profoundly relational, engaging dynamically with creation. Yet this relationality presupposes distinct entities capable of interaction. Panentheism reduces this relationship to an internal process within God, eroding the meaningfulness of divine-human interaction and relationship. For example, when God repents from judgment in Jonah 3:10, it is because of the distinct actions of the Ninevites. Such passages illustrate that God’s relationship with creation involves genuine give-and-take, which only makes sense if creation is separate from God.

Panentheism fails to align with the biblical and philosophical portrayal of God as sovereign, relational, and distinct from creation. Scripture consistently affirms a Creator who is both transcendent and intimately involved with His creation, without conflating His essence with the universe. If this distinction is not maintained, the integrity of God’s nature and the meaningfulness of His relationship with the world is rendered meaningless.

It still surprises me, even though at this point it shouldn't, how often doctrinal disputes come down to the emphasis, or lack thereof, that is placed on the fact that God is a person Who is really big on relationships. Relationships are the purpose of our existence. It is the reason God chose to create us! The Earth was made for our benefit but we were made for God's benefit! That is THE central thing! If you miss that single point, you might find yourself rubbing shoulders with the panentheists, just one small step away from pantheism.

Resting in Him,
Clete
(11/20/24)

Needs more study, there is a confusion addressed that is mostly against pantheism, not panentheism here. 1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Rather Pan-en-theism looks at the Source of all things and relates them back to God who is Spirit, distinguishing, yet grasping that the finite is an expression, always, of the infinite and maintains that God is actively sustaining the universe Colossians 1:16-20.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Fundamentally you can not prove the falsity of a given ideology by using your own ideology as the foundational truth.

It amounts to simply saying I choose to believe X and therefore Y must be false.

Believing in X doesn't make X the truth. Therein lies the absurdity of the position.

Pantheism doesn't need to be concerned with your scriptures in any way. Pantheism is what it is. An ideology, a belief system. It's a valid as the next belief system. Clearly different belief systems will have clear differences and incomatibilities, but that doesn't make either one the truth.

Those who claim that scripture is the all-encompassing truth have made that concious choice to believe it is so and once that choice is made, everything else must be made to fit that ideology. Everything else must then be declared false as you attempt here. That's the modus operandi of indoctrination. It's not scientific rigour. It's not critical thinking.

If you're going to appraise Pantheism it must be done freely with an objective heart and mind able to consider its merits.

What you've done here is akin to having a personal pocket dictionary and saying that the word DingoDongo does not exist because it doesn't appear in your book. It's a blinkered approach. There could be many dictionaries in the universe and the term could appear in any of them. That it doesn't appear in yours is not proof that the word does not exist. It's merely proof of unwillingness to step out of one's personal ideology.

 

[Clete]

Pantheism, not pan-en-theism.

Not panentheism, pantheism. See here on the difference

Needs more study, there is a confusion addressed that is mostly against pantheism, not panentheism here. 1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Rather Pan-en-theism looks at the Source of all things and relates them back to God who is Spirit, distinguishing, yet grasping that the finite is an expression, always, of the infinite and maintains that God is actively sustaining the universe Colossians 1:16-20.

I didn't say a word about pantheism until the extreme end of the essay, Lon. Reread it and try again. Panentheism is YOUR term, not mine and it has a very specific definition that I used while researching for this essay. You are NOT the guy who gets to define the term. If it doesn't fit then stop calling yourself a panentheist.

I'm about up to my eyeballs with having the goal posts moved on me around here!

 

[Clete]

Fundamentally you can not prove the falsity of a given ideology by using your own ideology as the foundational truth.

Contradict yourself much?

It amounts to simply saying I choose to believe X and therefore Y must be false.

Stupidity.

Believing in X doesn't make X the truth. Therein lies the absurdity of the position.

No one has made any such idiotic claim so, tell me again who's being absurd?

Pantheism doesn't need to be concerned with your scriptures in any way. Pantheism is what it is. An ideology, a belief system. It's a valid as the next belief system.

Utterly supid nonsense. There are those who consider themselves both you slobbering moron! And even if that weren't true, my audience is primarily Christians. You are on an overtly Christian website, after all.

My belief system tells me that you might well be the biggest fool I've ever encountered. Is that "just as valid as the next belief system?"

PLEASE SAY YES!!!!

Clearly different belief systems will have clear differences and incomatibilities, but that doesn't make either one the truth.

Two truth claims that contradict each other cannot both be true. The essay presupposes the truth of scripture and of the Christian worldview generally and is not intended to be a apologetic argument for Christianity but rather a discussion of how the two are not compatible.

Those who claim that scripture is the all-encompassing truth have made that concious choice to believe it is so and once that choice is made, everything else must be made to fit that ideology.

Stupidity. This is not how the Christian worldview works nor is it how truth works. You're an idiot.

Everything else must then be declared false as you attempt here.

Not declared, argued.

That's the modus operandi of indoctrination. It's not scientific rigour. It's not critical thinking.

You are the only one here making unsubstantiated declarations and not thinking.

If you're going to appraise Pantheism it must be done freely with an objective heart and mind able to consider its merits.

Says who?

What you've done here is akin to having a personal pocket dictionary and saying that the word DingoDongo does not exist because it doesn't appear in your book. It's a blinkered approach. There could be many dictionaries in the universe and the term could appear in any of them. That it doesn't appear in yours is not proof that the word does not exist. It's merely proof of unwillingness to step out of one's personal ideology.

Saying it doesn't make it so, moron!

Just do me a favor and stay off my threads. You're the stupidest waste of time that I can imagine.

 

[Lon]

Fundamentally you can not prove the falsity of a given ideology by using your own ideology as the foundational truth.

It amounts to simply saying I choose to believe X and therefore Y must be false.

Believing in X doesn't make X the truth. Therein lies the absurdity of the position.

Pantheism doesn't need to be concerned with your scriptures in any way. Pantheism is what it is. An ideology, a belief system. It's a valid as the next belief system. Clearly different belief systems will have clear differences and incomatibilities, but that doesn't make either one the truth.

Those who claim that scripture is the all-encompassing truth have made that concious choice to believe it is so and once that choice is made, everything else must be made to fit that ideology. Everything else must then be declared false as you attempt here. That's the modus operandi of indoctrination. It's not scientific rigour. It's not critical thinking.

If you're going to appraise Pantheism it must be done freely with an objective heart and mind able to consider its merits.

What you've done here is akin to having a personal pocket dictionary and saying that the word DingoDongo does not exist because it doesn't appear in your book. It's a blinkered approach. There could be many dictionaries in the universe and the term could appear in any of them. That it doesn't appear in yours is not proof that the word does not exist. It's merely proof of unwillingness to step out of one's personal ideology.

Pantheism isn't the topic here, but rather pan-en-theism. Clete, note from the previous link that there is much controversy over the term and usage, especially, especially between Christians and Greeks as per the second link. My embrace is only so far as we are in God and He in us. Panentheism, from a Christian perspective, is that the world isn't quite as separate as the Creator and upholds the idea that 'in Him, we move and have our being.' -Lon

 

[JudgeRightly]

Pantheism, not pan-en-theism.

Not panentheism, pantheism. See here on the difference

Needs more study, there is a confusion addressed that is mostly against pantheism, not panentheism here. 1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Rather Pan-en-theism looks at the Source of all things and relates them back to God who is Spirit, distinguishing, yet grasping that the finite is an expression, always, of the infinite and maintains that God is actively sustaining the universe Colossians 1:16-20.

Pantheism isn't the topic here, but rather pan-en-theism. Clete, note from the previous link that there is much controversy over the term and usage, especially, especially between Christians and Greeks as per the second link. My embrace is only so far as we are in God and He in us. Panentheism, from a Christian perspective, is that the world isn't quite as separate as the Creator and upholds the idea that 'in Him, we move and have our being.' -Lon

Lon, the entire article was about panentheism.

If you think otherwise, you either didn't read it, or you weren't paying enough attention to the words on the page.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Two truth claims that contradict each other cannot both be true. The essay presupposes the truth of scripture and of the Christian worldview generally and is not intended to be a apologetic argument for Christianity but rather a discussion of how the two are not compatible.

Yet the title you gave the thread was "Why Panentheism is False" rather than "How Christianity/Open Theism and Panentheism are incompatible"

The latter title would probably ilicit more views and discussion from interested parties whereas the former simply declares from the outset that your personal position is fixed, rigid, immovable and there can be no other conclusion on the issue. Pretty much your standard MO I guess.
As such this is not so much an essay on anything but is rather an attempt at conditioning forum readers to take up your belief position and to try to get them to reject Panentheism. In many ways it's little more than the kind of "Nudging" we see today in MSM outputs.

At the tail end of your spiel you say:

"If you miss that single point, you might find yourself rubbing shoulders with the panentheists, just one small step away from pantheism."

This contains veiled implications that somehow Panentheists or Pantheists are somehow bad or wrong or people not to be rubbing shoulders with.
Again underpinning your immovable position.

The art of discussion and debate is one that concerns not point winning or intellectual superiority but one in which a person genuinely enters the ring with an open heart and mind which is willing to go on a short journey with other hearts and minds to sincerely explore a given subject. Such requires respect for the other debaters thoughts and positions and the humility to contemplate that your own position could be wrong, or a little off and might benefit from a little alteration.

The bottom line is clearly that you personally don't accept either Panentheism or Pantheism in any shape or form, you believe it to be false and you're ready and waiting to shoot down anyone with a differing opinion. On what basis do you think that's an attractive proposition for anyone?

 

[Clete]

Pantheism isn't the topic here, but rather pan-en-theism. Clete, note from the previous link that there is much controversy over the term and usage, especially, especially between Christians and Greeks as per the second link. My embrace is only so far as we are in God and He in us. Panentheism, from a Christian perspective, is that the world isn't quite as separate as the Creator and upholds the idea that 'in Him, we move and have our being.' -Lon

Which is precisely the doctrine that the OP addresses and, for my money, proves to be false.

 

[Clete]

This contains veiled implications that somehow Panentheists or Pantheists are somehow bad or wrong or people not to be rubbing shoulders with.
Again underpinning your immovable position.

Only idiots and con-artists even try to convince anyone that pantheism isn't wrong.

Which are you?

The art of discussion and debate is one that concerns not point winning or intellectual superiority but one in which a person genuinely enters the ring with an open heart and mind which is willing to go on a short journey with other hearts and minds to sincerely explore a given subject. Such requires respect for the other debaters thoughts and positions and the humility to contemplate that your own position could be wrong, or a little off and might benefit from a little alteration.

I have absolutely no respect for you whatsoever, so there you go.

The bottom line is clearly that you personally don't accept either Panentheism or Pantheism in any shape or form, you believe it to be false and you're ready and waiting to shoot down anyone with a differing opinion. On what basis do you think that's an attractive proposition for anyone?

This is an intentional mischaracterization of my opening post. Intentional, meaning that it is a lie. I am not here sniping at people with personal attacks because they happen to believe in panentheism. On the contrary, I very intentionally made dispassionate and clearly articulated arguments based almost entirely from the scriptures that every Christian accepts as absolute truth.

Here's a news flash for you SoT! You are on a Christian website. I do not, as a general rule, debate doctrine with unbelievers and certainly do not write posts with them in mind, except perhaps as an after thought, but certainly not as my primary audience, nor am I interested in what they think about what I have to say about the bible or doctrinal issues. If some unbeliever wants to engage the discussion and ask me questions, then I'm happy to answer, but whether or not they like my tone doesn't effect me in the slightest and their personal opinions bore me. I quite literally could not care less about what you think of me, nor could I be any less interested in what you think about how I should present my thoughts on this website. What I would really enjoy is if you went completely away. You are literally stupid and have exactly nothing of any value to offer to anyone on this website. I'd much rather you go rot the brains of the God haters on objectivismonline.com. That is just about the only thing you're good for.

Now, go away!

 

[Clete]

Pantheism, not pan-en-theism.

Not panentheism, pantheism. See here on the difference

Needs more study, there is a confusion addressed that is mostly against pantheism, not panentheism here. 1 Corinthians 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

Rather Pan-en-theism looks at the Source of all things and relates them back to God who is Spirit, distinguishing, yet grasping that the finite is an expression, always, of the infinite and maintains that God is actively sustaining the universe Colossians 1:16-20.

Here is a brief description with citations included of what Panentheism is and what the opening post argues against.....

Panentheism is a theological and philosophical perspective asserting that God is both immanent within the universe and transcendent beyond it. The term derives from Greek roots: pan (all), en (in), and theos (God). It differs from pantheism, which identifies God entirely with the universe, and from classical theism, which views God as separate from the world.

Key beliefs of panentheism include the idea that the universe exists within God but does not exhaust God's being. God is understood to permeate all aspects of creation while maintaining a distinct identity beyond it. This view emphasizes a dynamic, interactive relationship between God and the universe, often involving notions of change or mutual influence. Process theology, developed by thinkers like Alfred North Whitehead, further articulates this by describing God as evolving alongside creation.
CARM
Encyclopedia.com
AcademicHelp.net


Historically, panentheistic ideas have appeared in various religious traditions and philosophical systems, with proponents like Karl Barth and process theologians offering distinct Christian interpretations. Non-Christian traditions, such as certain strands of Hinduism and Buddhism, also echo panentheistic themes.

Encyclopedia.com
AcademicHelp.net.

 

[Lon]

Lon, the entire article was about panentheism.

If you think otherwise, you either didn't read it, or you weren't paying enough attention to the words on the page.

Reread. Panentheism is the title of both articles I included, or was there another link someone gave?

 

[Lon]

Here is a brief description with citations included of what Panentheism is and what the opening post argues against.....

Panentheism is a theological and philosophical perspective asserting that God is both immanent within the universe and transcendent beyond it. The term derives from Greek roots: pan (all), en (in), and theos (God). It differs from pantheism, which identifies God entirely with the universe, and from classical theism, which views God as separate from the world.

Key beliefs of panentheism include the idea that the universe exists within God but does not exhaust God's being. God is understood to permeate all aspects of creation while maintaining a distinct identity beyond it. This view emphasizes a dynamic, interactive relationship between God and the universe, often involving notions of change or mutual influence. Process theology, developed by thinkers like Alfred North Whitehead, further articulates this by describing God as evolving alongside creation.
CARM
Encyclopedia.com
AcademicHelp.net


Historically, panentheistic ideas have appeared in various religious traditions and philosophical systems, with proponents like Karl Barth and process theologians offering distinct Christian interpretations. Non-Christian traditions, such as certain strands of Hinduism and Buddhism, also echo panentheistic themes.

Encyclopedia.com
AcademicHelp.net.

"Exists within God" is nebulous. God isn't physical. Scripture does say, in an ontological sense, this: Colossians 1:16-20
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [a]principalities or [b]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Pan - All, en-in, theos - God (all in God). The ideas surrounding the issue are 1) That all is an expression of God Genesis 1:1-31 2) That Christ sustains every molecule of the universe Colossians 1:16,17 3) In Him, we live, move, and have our being Acts 17:28 Philippians 2:13

Whatever hang-ups with the term Panentheism, I have similar reservations (I'm definitely not Process Theology), but must disagree with Matt Slick over all of it being heresy, perhaps it is eschewed because of those particulars. If such, I'll have to come to a different term for what I see from scriptures. If it is in any way biblical in concept, then it cannot be thrown entirely out of our thinking as we view scriptures.

It is a shame Matt is often dismissive rather than walking further into a disagreement. He tends to simply declare at a point that seems immature in completion of thought or I'd likely raise the issue on CARM. It'd be better to explain carefully and biblically, all the why's as well as offer a biblical counterpoint. Terms don't have to become permanent monikers else I'd stop learning. On point, thank you for this thread.

From one of your articles:

• Divine Immanence and Transcendence. A core belief in panentheism is the simultaneous immanence and transcendence of God. God is not distant or disconnected from the world but is intimately present within it while remaining transcendent beyond it.
• The Relationship Between God and the World. Panentheism asserts a dynamic relationship between God and the world, emphasizing that the world is not an independent creation but exists within God’s divine being. This relationship allows for ongoing interaction between the divine and the material.

The second is problematic 1) because it'd confuse God and our separation. We are physical. God created us Who is Spirit (made flesh). To be 'in' something we generally think in physical terms and 'in' causes problems with we-physical and He-Spirit. Primarily, the concern is this: Does God actively sustain the universe as Colossians and other scriptures supply, or 2) does He have hands off of His separate creation at a distance (also problematic between Spirit and physical). In essence, the dialogue is about the interaction and nature of interaction between God and man. If pan-en-theism is problematic, the ideas that come from scripture intimate a need to discuss how exactly we are related to the God of the universe and the depth thereof. To date, while not embracing the problematic in my usuage, but qualifying it, Panentheism seems an appropriate description of the nature of relationship between God and man (and the rest of creation).

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Only idiots and con-artists even try to convince anyone that pantheism isn't wrong.

Hate speech right there. In the UK posting such would get you a visit from the police and possibly a spell in jail if you were to actually call a pantheist an idiot or con-artist in public. You have no respect for anyone with differing opinions to your own.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hate speech right there.

It's not.

In the UK posting such would get you a visit from the police and possibly a spell in jail if you were to actually call a pantheist an idiot or con-artist in public.

The UK police enforce unjust laws, such as the so-called "hate speech" laws.

You, sir, are an idiot. Con-artist? Dunno yet, but wouldn't be surprised.

This isn't the UK.

This is an internet forum. Stop twisting your knickers into a bunch.

If you can't handle the truth, you're more than welcome to leave.

You have no respect for anyone with differing opinions to your own.

Says the one calling free speech "hate speech."

Oh no, have I offended the Brit? Better go cry to your coppers!

:mock:

 

[Right Divider]

Original saying:

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me.

New woke version:

Sticks and stones may break my bones but words hurt me even more.

 

[Clete]

"Exists within God" is nebulous. God isn't physical. Scripture does say, in an ontological sense, this: Colossians 1:16-20
16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [a]principalities or [b]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20 and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.

Pan - All, en-in, theos - God (all in God). The ideas surrounding the issue are 1) That all is an expression of God Genesis 1:1-31 2) That Christ sustains every molecule of the universe Colossians 1:16,17 3) In Him, we live, move, and have our being Acts 17:28 Philippians 2:13

Whatever hang-ups with the term Panentheism, I have similar reservations (I'm definitely not Process Theology), but must disagree with Matt Slick over all of it being heresy, perhaps it is eschewed because of those particulars. If such, I'll have to come to a different term for what I see from scriptures. If it is in any way biblical in concept, then it cannot be thrown entirely out of our thinking as we view scriptures.

It is a shame Matt is often dismissive rather than walking further into a disagreement. He tends to simply declare at a point that seems immature in completion of thought or I'd likely raise the issue on CARM. It'd be better to explain carefully and biblically, all the why's as well as offer a biblical counterpoint. Terms don't have to become permanent monikers else I'd stop learning. On point, thank you for this thread.

From one of your articles:

• Divine Immanence and Transcendence. A core belief in panentheism is the simultaneous immanence and transcendence of God. God is not distant or disconnected from the world but is intimately present within it while remaining transcendent beyond it.
• The Relationship Between God and the World. Panentheism asserts a dynamic relationship between God and the world, emphasizing that the world is not an independent creation but exists within God’s divine being. This relationship allows for ongoing interaction between the divine and the material.

The second is problematic 1) because it'd confuse God and our separation. We are physical. God created us Who is Spirit (made flesh). To be 'in' something we generally think in physical terms and 'in' causes problems with we-physical and He-Spirit. Primarily, the concern is this: Does God actively sustain the universe as Colossians and other scriptures supply, or 2) does He have hands off of His separate creation at a distance (also problematic between Spirit and physical). In essence, the dialogue is about the interaction and nature of interaction between God and man. If pan-en-theism is problematic, the ideas that come from scripture intimate a need to discuss how exactly we are related to the God of the universe and the depth thereof. To date, while not embracing the problematic in my usuage, but qualifying it, Panentheism seems an appropriate description of the nature of relationship between God and man (and the rest of creation).

I am not interested in debating those articles, Lon.

I really do not understand you sometimes (most of the time lately).

You understand that you don't get to just cherry pick any particular doctrines you want as though you're in some theological buffet line where beliefs are handed out in an a la carte fashion. Ideas have consequences and they're tied to other ideas. That's why you're forced to goof around with concepts that cause you to write nonsensical things like, "'in' causes problems with we-physical and He-Spirit", which makes no sense whatsoever, even in your own mind! You don't get to simply "disagree with Matt Slick over all of it being heresy" and still pretend that you have a rational worldview. The fact is that it is all heresy! That isn't an opinion, that's a fact. WE DO NOT EXIST INSIDE OF GOD!!!! The bible simply does not teach that and taking Acts 17:27–28 as an indication that creation is somehow embedded within God's being has implications in other vital areas, not the least of which has to do with God's ability to meaningfully interact with and have a real relationship with us.

You claim not to accept "Process Theology" but I can find no modern Christian sect or movement that expresses panentheistic ideas other than Process theologians like Charles Hartshorne and John B. Cobb Jr. There's some really wacko "eco-theologians" who are ultra-left wing tree-hugger, socialist types that want to pretend to also be Christian but who are really just quasi Hindu/pagan mystics that I don't even count as real Christian sects at all. Are you aware that the doctrines you advocate are associated with such groups and with people such as Paul Tillich who taught that God is not a being, but rather that God is being-itself, saying in his "Systematic Theology (1952) that, " ‘God does not exist’ and that ‘to argue that God exists is to deny him.’", which is utterly stupid, self-contradictory nonsense, which that fool built his entire theological worldview upon and thereby twisted his "Christianity" into such a convoluted mess of nonsense that it's unrecognizable as being Christianity at all.

Speaking of ideas having consequences, what benefit does the belief that creation is somehow embedded within God's being have, Lon? I can't imagine where you ever even heard it much less what motivated you to actually buy into it! Why would you want to believe such a thing? Why is this the hill that you're willing to die on? Is there some friendship that dropping it would cost you? Is there some church you'd have to stop attending? What is it about this doctrine, that is so obviously false to everyone but you, that makes you cling to it so tenaciously?

 

[Clete]

Hate speech right there. In the UK posting such would get you a visit from the police and possibly a spell in jail if you were to actually call a pantheist an idiot or con-artist in public.

And yet you decide to continue living under such a tyrannical government. Why doesn't that surprise me?

Plane tickets to America where people are free to speak their mind are cheap by comparison to the cost of giving up control of your life to the thought police. If you think they'll stop at arresting people for insulting pantheists, you're wrong! Maybe read a history book or two to discover where you're headed. I'd get out while the getting is good.

You have no respect for anyone with differing opinions to your own.

I have all kinds of respect for a great many people with whom I disagree strongly on all kinds of various issues. It's utter morons like yourself who have so little ability to think that they've permitted their minds to be convinced that it is possible to turn lead into gold that I have no respect for. You are certifiably stupid and worse than that, you're a fool who thinks himself enlightened. You've been trapped into a life of stupidity by your own mind. The most hopeless sort of fool that can exist. Pity is the most positive emotion such people can elicit in me.

 

[Lon]

I am not interested in debating those articles, Lon.

I really do not understand you sometimes (most of the time lately).

You understand that you don't get to just cherry pick any particular doctrines you want as though you're in some theological buffet line where beliefs are handed out in an a la carte fashion. Ideas have consequences and they're tied to other ideas. That's why you're forced to goof around with concepts that cause you to write nonsensical things like, "'in' causes problems with we-physical and He-Spirit", which makes no sense whatsoever, even in your own mind! You don't get to simply "disagree with Matt Slick over all of it being heresy" and still pretend that you have a rational worldview. The fact is that it is all heresy! That isn't an opinion, that's a fact. WE DO NOT EXIST INSIDE OF GOD!!!! The bible simply does not teach that and taking Acts 17:27–28 as an indication that creation is somehow embedded within God's being has implications in other vital areas, not the least of which has to do with God's ability to meaningfully interact with and have a real relationship with us.

"in" Him we live and move and have our being. I'm not going to rewrite scriptures. They will inform me rather.

You claim not to accept "Process Theology" but I can find no modern Christian sect or movement that expresses panentheistic ideas other than Process theologians like Charles Hartshorne and John B. Cobb Jr. There's some really wacko "eco-theologians" who are ultra-left wing tree-hugger, socialist types that want to pretend to also be Christian but who are really just quasi Hindu/pagan mystics that I don't even count as real Christian sects at all. Are you aware that the doctrines you advocate are associated with such groups and with people such as Paul Tillich who taught that God is not a being, but rather that God is being-itself, saying in his "Systematic Theology (1952) that, " ‘God does not exist’ and that ‘to argue that God exists is to deny him.’", which is utterly stupid, self-contradictory nonsense, which that fool built his entire theological worldview upon and thereby twisted his "Christianity" into such a convoluted mess of nonsense that it's unrecognizable as being Christianity at all.

Understood. Guilty by association? While I don't mind early dismissal, I do want to get homework done.

Speaking of ideas having consequences, what benefit does the belief that creation is somehow embedded within God's being have, Lon? I can't imagine where you ever even heard it much less what motivated you to actually buy into it! Why would you want to believe such a thing? Why is this the hill that you're willing to die on? Is there some friendship that dropping it would cost you? Is there some church you'd have to stop attending? What is it about this doctrine, that is so obviously false to everyone but you, that makes you cling to it so tenaciously?

Does panentheism entail divergence? Yes. As such I may eschew it in the future but one has to ask 'what do you mean by using it?' to get away from all those who don't mean the same thing. I'm not with the 'in' crowd. Panentheists generally (in agreement with others) differentiate between God and His creation inherently else they'd be pantheists. Rather, Panentheists understand points I've elucidated. What do I mean by 'in?' Nothing more and nothing less that scripture means 'in' God or 'in' Christ. Colossians 1 intimates without Him, nothing exist(s) present active indicative. It necessarily means creation is presently sustained. This, among similar scripture, is very nearly the extent of my panentheistic thought.

 

[Lon]

You claim not to accept "Process Theology" but I can find no modern Christian sect or movement that expresses panentheistic ideas other than Process theologians like Charles Hartshorne and John B. Cobb Jr. There's some really wacko "eco-theologians" who are ultra-left wing tree-hugger, socialist types that want to pretend to also be Christian but who are really just quasi Hindu/pagan mystics that I don't even count as real Christian sects at all. Are you aware that the doctrines you advocate are associated with such groups and with people such as Paul Tillich who taught that God is not a being, but rather that God is being-itself, saying in his "Systematic Theology (1952) that, " ‘God does not exist’ and that ‘to argue that God exists is to deny him.’", which is utterly stupid, self-contradictory nonsense, which that fool built his entire theological worldview upon and thereby twisted his "Christianity" into such a convoluted mess of nonsense that it's unrecognizable as being Christianity at all.

Speaking of ideas having consequences, what benefit does the belief that creation is somehow embedded within God's being have, Lon? I can't imagine where you ever even heard it much less what motivated you to actually buy into it! Why would you want to believe such a thing? Why is this the hill that you're willing to die on? Is there some friendship that dropping it would cost you? Is there some church you'd have to stop attending? What is it about this doctrine, that is so obviously false to everyone but you, that makes you cling to it so tenaciously?

Meh! At a certain point in my theology, the ideas of panentheism looked to coincide with my beliefs. Reading your links and further, especially this one, has to have me eschewing the term altogether. While I have identified, the term used at large, is heretical and cannot jive with Christian thought. It is sad in that it is a good word for what I do believe, it is nothing like what most mean, therefore I must eschew it as describing my theology. :Z Looking for a new word if anybody needs me, and appreciate the input and correction. I'm not, in light of evidence, Panentheistic as the term is applied. In the meanwhile, I'll have to adopt 'biblical' as broad as such allows for the truths thereof.