Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Why I Am Not a Panentheist

Answered by James Anderson, in response to Michael Sudduth's statement, "Consequently, I now accept a panentheistic metaphysics in which the universe and human souls are, to put it roughly, in the being of God."

17 comments:

  1. Doesn't the Scripture tell us plainly that all things exist within God, and vice versa?

    "And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together" (Colossians 1:17).

    "In Him we live and move and have our being" (Acts 17:28).

    Panentheism means "all in God," right? Since there is no existence apart from God, how are we not all in God, to one degree or another?

    As it is said:

    "Where shall I go from Your Spirit?

    Or where shall I flee from Your presence?

    If I ascend to heaven, You are there!

    If I make my bed in Sheol, You are there!

    If I take the wings of the morning

    and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea,

    even there Your hand shall blead me,

    and Your right hand shall hold me" (Psalm 139:7-10).

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well Phillip if that is how we are to understand the verses you quote, then there should have been no condemnation of idolatry, as God is expressed throughout nature right? So Moloch or Dagon or Kali are just expressions of the divine in all right?
    Question for all pantheists or panentheists:
    Was that just God killing God in Auschwitz? (or Rwanda, Kampuchea, the library at Columbine, or fill in the blank with the atrocity of your choice)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Nill,

    Although you distinguish pantheism from panentheism, you seem to be working under the former's assumptions rather than the latter's.

    Panentheists do not hold that God is one with the universe, or interchangeable therewith.

    They simply believe that He pervades the entire cosmos, which feeds upon the create and dynamic supernatural Life which He alone possesses.

    Christian panentheism begins with the Holy Name: "I AM WHO AM."

    God is the very source and wellspring of existence; the fullness of being. Apart from Him, nothing can exist. Saint Augustine wrote voluminously about this in the City of God and in the Confessions.

    If God ceased actively infusing the universe with being, it would instantly disappear, for God alone is self-existent.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "even there Your hand shall lead me, and Your right hand shall hold me"

    Phillip Jude, is it your position that this text is intending to convey that God has a physical hand?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Obviously not. It is a reference to God's perfect omnipresence, which actually serves my point.

    Anyway, such a poetic technique, used in a psalm, can hardly be twisted to dismiss the plain-readings of Colossians 1:17 and Acts 17:28, among other verses.

    ReplyDelete
  6. You cited the Psalm in your favor, not me. In what sense are you defining "perfect omnipresence"? When David makes his bed and Sheol, and God is "there," is God spatially located? Why read verse 30 metaphorically but insist on a non-figurative understanding of the descriptions that precede it?

    And you haven't exegeted Colossians 1:17 or Acts 17:28 to demonstrate why they should be understood in the way you are reading them. Your conclusion isn't immediately obvious. You are the one who has to make your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Philip Jude,

    Some questions for you:

    1. How does God's omnipresence imply God is present in the way panentheism believes he is present? You don't connect the dots to make your argument (e.g. you don't bother to exegete the texts you cited as Evan May rightly pointed out).

    2. The NT teaches believers are "in Christ." Do you think believers are literally "in Christ" then?

    3. Also, are creatures or things in the universe components of God's fundamental nature? Can creatures or things influence his nature? Can creatures or things change God over time?

    4. Are creatures or things innately divine (to some degree) since they are "in" the Divine?

    5. In addition to Evan May's fine point about defining perfect omnipresence, you need to define what you mean by relevant terms like transcendence and immanence too.

    ReplyDelete
  8. ***In what sense are you defining "perfect omnipresence"?When David makes his bed and Sheol, and God is "there," is God spatially located?***

    God is fully present always and everywhere, or else he could not be called simple, eternal or infinite.

    I can't begin to imagine what that means. I just know that the Bible and the Church say as much.

    ***Why read verse 30 metaphorically but insist on a non-figurative understanding of the descriptions that precede it?***

    Don't get caught up on this minor detail.

    The "hand" bit is a poetic allusion to God's protective presence.

    The psalmist could just have easily said, "...even there You shall lead me, and You shall hold me."

    Even so, the point remains: God is inescapable, because everything that is *IS*, and *ISNESS* is special and exclusive to God. The LXX effectively renders the Holy Name as "the Existent One."

    ***And you haven't exegeted Colossians 1:17 or Acts 17:28 to demonstrate why they should be understood in the way you are reading them. Your conclusion isn't immediately obvious. You are the one who has to make your argument.***

    Paul says, "all things were created through Him and for Him" and then goes on immediately to say, "in Him all things hold together."

    I have always understood this to be a reference to Christ as Logos, as Wisdom, who at the beckoning of the Father brings good creation out of dark void.

    After all, He "upholds the universe by the word of His power" (Hebrews 1:3).

    ***"1. How does God's omnipresence imply God is present in the way panentheism believes he is present? You don't connect the dots to make your argument (e.g. you don't bother to exegete the texts you cited as Evan May rightly pointed out)."***

    I reject the idea that panentheism is monolithic. Obviously, Hindu panentheism looks different than Christian panentheism.

    Christian panentheism begins with God as the "fountain of all being" (WCF, II).

    Panentheism renders the cosmos radically dependent upon God, because it deprives it of any ontological independence, any self-existence apart from the active in-dwelling of the One.

    ***The NT teaches believers are "in Christ." Do you think believers are literally "in Christ" then?"***

    Absolutely. In John 17, Christ compares His union with His disciple with the union of the Son and the Father. Pretty astounding!

    "Also, are creatures or things in the universe components of God's fundamental nature? Can creatures or things influence his nature? Can creatures or things change God over time?"

    No, no, and no.

    But that doesn't mean that God does not exist panentheistically.

    Just as I can not begin to imagine what omnipresence is like, neither can I imagine how God pervades all things, granting them existence, giving being where there would be nothingness without Him.

    ***Are creatures or things innately divine (to some degree) since they are "in" the Divine?***

    In as much as we exist, we experience a taste of godliness.

    Plus, the Apostle Peter wrote: "3His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us toc his own glory and excellence,d 4by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. 5For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue,e and virtue with knowledge, 6and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love" (II Peter 1:3-7).

    ReplyDelete
  9. Philip Jude said:

    "God is fully present always and everywhere, or else he could not be called simple, eternal or infinite. I can't begin to imagine what that means. I just know that the Bible and the Church say as much."

    Your response is predominantly just a string of assertions sans argumentation.

    Saying God is omnipresent doesn't imply panentheism is true.

    Saying stuff like the following isn't an argument: "I can't begin to imagine what that means. I just know that the Bible and the Church say as much." Again, you're just making an assertion.

    "Don't get caught up on this minor detail."

    It's hardly a minor detail when you were the one who brought it up in support of your own argument.

    On the other hand, thanks for the concession about the status of your argument.

    "The 'hand' bit is a poetic allusion to God's protective presence."

    In which case you've just shot yourself in the foot since you originally quoted this psalm in support of panentheism.

    "Even so, the point remains: God is inescapable, because everything that is *IS*, and *ISNESS* is special and exclusive to God."

    Actually, that wasn't your original point.

    Also, what are you talking about when you say: "God is inescapable, because everything that is *IS*, and *ISNESS* is special and exclusive to God"? How is this relevant to panentheism?

    "I have always understood this to be a reference to Christ as Logos, as Wisdom, who at the beckoning of the Father brings good creation out of dark void."

    Your interpretation is vague. For example, where in Col 1:17 does Paul refer to Christ as Logos? You have to exegete the text on its own terms. Not jump to other places like John 1, for instance (if that's what you're doing). In fact, you have to exegete the text in the context of the Pauline epistles and Christology before moving onto John.

    However, even if we grant your vague interpretation is somehow true for the sake of argument, it still doesn't support panentheism. Not without further argument, which you don't provide.

    Also, for starters, why don't you try reading Peter O'Brien's commentary on Colossians?

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I reject the idea that panentheism is monolithic."

    Since my questions weren't predicated on "monolithic" panentheism, this point is irrelevant.

    "Christian panentheism begins with God as the 'fountain of all being' (WCF, II)."

    Of course, the WCF authors weren't Christian panentheists. So it's a bit odd that you'd use the WCF to support Christian panentheism.

    Also, the WCF isn't Scripture. Scripture is our authority.

    Once again, you just make an assertion. But you don't bother to provide any argumentation for your assertion. Why should God as the "fountain of all being" indicate panentheism rather than traditional orthodox Christianity?

    "Panentheism renders the cosmos radically dependent upon God, because it deprives it of any ontological independence, any self-existence apart from the active in-dwelling of the One."

    By the same token, panentheism renders God "radically dependent" upon the cosmos. James Anderson pointed out panentheism entails "ontological containment." Hence my subsequent questions.

    "Absolutely. In John 17, Christ compares His union with His disciple with the union of the Son and the Father. Pretty astounding!"

    Once again, where's the exegesis to support the fact that believers are literally in Christ? Sorry but "Pretty astouding!" isn't exegesis.

    Plus, you think John 17 compares Christ's union with his disciples to the Father-Son union. But even if that's true, it doesn't mean panentheism is true or that believers are literally in Christ. Once again, you just quote and assert. Where's the argument?

    "No, no, and no. But that doesn't mean that God does not exist panentheistically. Just as I can not begin to imagine what omnipresence is like, neither can I imagine how God pervades all things, granting them existence, giving being where there would be nothingness without Him."

    Okay, again, so why not? Particulary since earlier you "Panentheism renders the cosmos radically dependent upon God." Just saying "no" to relevant questions isn't an argument against them. If you're arguing for panentheism, then the questions I asked are relevant and would seem to entail the truth of what I asked. If you say they don't, then why not? On panentheism, why aren't creatures or things in the universe components of God's fundamental nature since they exist ontologically "in" God, etc.? Why wouldn't this follow logically?

    The fact that you "cannot imagine" is not an argument.

    Also, your statement "God pervades all things, granting them existence, giving being where there would be nothingness without Him" can also be taken in an orthodox Christian manner. Why does it have to entail Christian panentheism?

    "In as much as we exist, we experience a taste of godliness."

    You're missing the point. You haven't answered my question. I'm not solely speaking about experience. Or can't you follow the logic of your own position? If on panentheism we exist ontologically "in" the divine, then why aren't we innately divine as well (to some degree)?

    "II Peter 1:3-7"

    Yet again, no exegesis to support your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Perhaps this might shed some light on where Philip Jude is coming from.

    In the article, Anderson raises a problematic conclusion for the sort of panentheism he is critiquing:

    "Since the universe is in God, insofar as there is good in the universe there must be good in God. So far, so good — so to speak. But by the very same token, insofar as there is evil in the universe there must be evil in God. If the universe is a mixture of good and evil (which I take to be an obvious truth) then God must also be a mixture of good and evil, on the supposition that God contains the universe."

    Philip Jude,

    Do you see this problem for the panentheism Anderson describes (in which the creation shares something of the essence or being of God) as applying to your type of panentheism? How does your version of panentheism escape the problem raised by Anderson?

    ReplyDelete
  12. All of this discussion is what I referred to in a shorthand statement. I don't think panentheism escapes the same problem that pantheism has. If in some mystical way God is literally in all of the universe ( and of course more than that for the panentheist). How is God in us and yet we murder each other? The Hindus couldn't resolve this without resolving to maya (reality as an illusion) or conclude that the divine brahman is both good and evil. How are you making an ontological distinction between alleged Christian panentheism and the Hindu versions is beyond me at this point. Maybe you could explain that?
    Good luck putting Augustine in this camp...
    As your best known compatriots are heretics like the process gang and the emergent clowns, one maybe should be more prudent about whom you identify with.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ***Also, what are you talking about when you say: "God is inescapable, because everything that is *IS*, and *ISNESS* is special and exclusive to God"? How is this relevant to panentheism? ***

    Nothing exists apart from God's Word.

    Insofar as things exist, they exist by participating in the Logos ("in Him all things hold together").

    Insofar as things exist, they are in-dwelt by the generative Logos, "which enlightens every man who comes into the world."

    As I originally said, "Panentheism means "all in God," right? Since there is no existence apart from God, how are we not all in God, to one degree or another?"

    Anything that exists can be said to be in God, or God can be said to be in it, as Scripture states repeatedly.

    Call me simple, but given that the Spirit is responsible for Bible, I am not interested in the sort of high-stylin' exegesis you deem so necessary.

    There is no difference between Pauline Christology and Johannine Christology. There is one God and one Gospel, preached uniformly by the apostles with the guiding presence of the Spirit.

    God alone is self-existent. This renders everything else radically dependent upon Him. We cannot exist apart from Him, so He is in us and we are in Him. This relationship does not transgress the boundary between creature and Creator. Indeed, it makes clear how absolutely dependent we are upon God.

    ***
    "Since the universe is in God, insofar as there is good in the universe there must be good in God. So far, so good — so to speak. But by the very same token, insofar as there is evil in the universe there must be evil in God. If the universe is a mixture of good and evil (which I take to be an obvious truth) then God must also be a mixture of good and evil, on the supposition that God contains the universe."***

    Evil does not exist. It is the absence of goodness. That's why "the wages of sin is death" -- ultimately, evil leads not simply to moral but also ontological deprivation. This was established by Augustine and is the consensus of the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  14. ***How is God in us and yet we murder each other? ... How are you making an ontological distinction between alleged Christian panentheism and the Hindu versions is beyond me at this point. Maybe you could explain that?***

    Don't get too pedantic about the figurative language of in-dwelling. Given the nature of God, it is clearly insufficient.

    Again, this is an ontological issue.

    Christian panentheism posits that creatures must participate in the life of the Creator, the Supreme Being, because there is no life outside of Him.

    The language of habitation or in-dwelling (God being "in" a creature and/or a creature being "in" God) is just a poetic way of expressing such weighty and existential realities.

    Augustine wrote, "Evil has no positive nature; but the loss of good has received the name 'evil.'"

    Furthermore, Saint Paul wrote that the "wages of sin is death."

    To sin is to remove oneself from God, who is the fountain of being. It is quite literally to fall a little further into non-existence, into death. When we are good we are godly: we participate more fully in being. When we are evil we are ungodly: we fall away from the Existent One, and fade into the terrible shadow-existence that is Sheol, hell, the abode of the lost, the dead, the lifeless.

    Describing the nature of the rebel angels, Augustine wrote "abandoning Him it should become, not indeed no nature at all, but a nature with a less ample existence, and therefore wretched."

    The same is true of man. Through Christ we are redeemed and able to "have life [and] have it more abundantly" (John 10:10).

    On the other hand, each choice to sin takes us one step away from the fountain of life and one step closer to the desert of death.

    I have found this, the ontological dimension of Christianity, considerably ignored by Protestants. It is why, I suppose, there is considerably more interest in the Crucifixion, which can easily be understood juridically, than in the Resurrection. Indeed, the Resurrection has been reduced to a sort of side-show among many Protestants, a mere way for Christ to prove His deity.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The Resurrection is bypassed??? You really need to get out more.
    You skipped the real question - Was God killing God in Auschwitz? If you want to play the ontological shell game and say that some of those who are all in God killed some others who are all in God (your description correct?) then like what Marx did to his teacher Hegel's thought rings true. Since Hegel was equivocating between God (welt Geist) and nature and talking about how the WG was in all of nature, and the wonders of the dialectic lead nature and history in development - Marx stripped away the redundancy (in this case he got rid of the WG) and produced the materialistic dialectic. So as Hegel thought, the WG was working through Bonaparte and all his atrocities!!! How is your ontological distinctions helpful in any way if this happens? And please quit hiding behind Bible verses that you know have not been interpreted the way you are doing.
    Your view seems closer to Heidegger than Augustine. Not a good thing btw.

    ReplyDelete
  16. PJ, you're not making any sense.

    Panentheism by definition holds that the created order is ontologically indistinguishable from God in some sense.

    Ie, contingent entities are of one substance with God, though not exhaustively delimiting his being.

    How is that remotely implied by any of the passages you've cited?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Philip Jude said:

    "Nothing exists apart from God's Word. Insofar as things exist, they exist by participating in the Logos ('in Him all things hold together'). Insofar as things exist, they are in-dwelt by the generative Logos, "which enlightens every man who comes into the world."

    1. Once again, you're using terms in a vague way. For example, what do you mean by "God's Word"? Are you referring to "God's Word" in the sense of the canon of Scripture, in the sense of Heb 1:3, or something else? If, for instance, you're referring to "God's Word" in the sense of Heb 1:3, then how does Heb 1:3 support panentheism? Where's your exegesis? Where's your argument?

    2. Once again, you're failing to exegete the text. Yes, it's true Christ is the Logos (e.g. John 1). But where does Logos appear in Col 1:17? Why don't you exegete Col 1:17?

    3. Once again, how does Col 1:17 support panentheism?

    "As I originally said, Panentheism means 'all in God,' right? Since there is no existence apart from God, how are we not all in God, to one degree or another? Anything that exists can be said to be in God, or God can be said to be in it, as Scripture states repeatedly."

    1. That's what you asserted, but that's not what you argued.

    2. Once again, your statement here is totally vague. You're suggesting the fact that we're "in" God indicates panentheism is true. But that's not evident from your statement. Where's your argument? After all, an orthodox Christian can say we're "in" God (Christ) but take "in" God not to indicate panentheism.

    "Call me simple, but given that the Spirit is responsible for Bible, I am not interested in the sort of high-stylin' exegesis you deem so necessary."

    1. Yes, you're simple or rather simple-minded.

    2. It's unfortunate you think basic exegesis isn't "necessary."

    3. However, #2 helps explain #1.

    "There is no difference between Pauline Christology and Johannine Christology. There is one God and one Gospel, preached uniformly by the apostles with the guiding presence of the Spirit."

    1. Obviously there is one Christ. Obviously Paul and John believe in the same Christ. But there are different emphases, for example. Just check out works by men like Tom Schreiner, G.K. Beale, or Jim Hamilton.

    2. Anyway this is already probably too much for you. You apparently aren't even able to exegete a single verse in support of your argument for Christian panentheism. So I highly doubt you can appreciate the Christology of Paul, for instance.

    "God alone is self-existent. This renders everything else radically dependent upon Him. We cannot exist apart from Him, so He is in us and we are in Him. This relationship does not transgress the boundary between creature and Creator. Indeed, it makes clear how absolutely dependent we are upon God."

    Once again, how does any of this support your argument for Christian panentheism? How does the fact that God is self-existent, that we cannot exist apart from God, that he is the Creator and we are his creatures, and that we are absolutely dependent on him support Christian panentheism?

    ReplyDelete