Panentheism

[James_Bogle]

Is Panentheism a heresy?

 

[sedonaman]

Is Panentheism a heresy?

Do you mean pantheism ?

 

[SonCatcher]

I don’t know what the Latin Church has to say about it, but the Eastern Church seems to hold to it according to the Wikipedia article.

 

[ParvaDei]

Here’s the short answer from Stanford University:

“Panentheism” is a constructed word composed of the English equivalents of the Greek terms “pan”, meaning all, “en”, meaning in, and “theism”, meaning God. Panentheism understands God and the world to be inter-related with the world being in God and God being in the world. It offers an increasingly popular alternative to traditional theism and pantheism. Panentheism seeks to avoid both isolating God from the world as traditional theism often does and identifying God with the world as pantheism does. Traditional theistic systems emphasize the difference between God and the world while panentheism stresses God’s active presence in the world. Pantheism emphasizes God’s presence in the world but panentheism maintains the identity and significance of the non-divine. Anticipations of panentheistic understandings of God have occurred in both philosophical and theological writings throughout history (Hartshorne and Reese 1953; Cooper, 2006). However, a rich diversity of panentheistic understandings has developed in the past two centuries primarily in Christian traditions responding to scientific thought (Clayton and Peacocke 2004).

From plato.stanford.edu/entries/panentheism/

On the other hand, pantheism usually refers to the belief that* everything in the universe* is God (and as such, God is present in everything). So, in such a world, I am God; you are God; the computer, your house, and your tree are God, etc.

Hope that helps. . . .

 

[ParvaDei]

Oh, also, panentheism in the Eastern Churches (both Orthodox and Catholic) is a little bit different from the secular type I just described above and is not considered heresy (as far as I know of! ).

Perhaps this blurb from another Forum can clarify:

From **adventistnomore **

Re: Panentheism-a valid way of seeing GOD
Adam,

Please, in the love of Christ, I must ask that you examine the pride I sensed in your response.

First, I recognize that “Panentheism” can mean many things to many people. I am of an Eastern Catholic persuasion, and am a devotee of St. Gregory Palamas. My theology (influenced by Hesychasm) recognizes a distinction between the essence of God, and the energies of God, which pervade the universe. I believe in the perfect universlity, omnipresence, and activity of the divine energies of God in all creation. However, I am disturbed by attempts to unite the divine essence of God with the create world, as I see in most interpretations of Panentheism.

In one sense, my (Hesychast) understanding may be viewed as “Panentheism” (that God is IN all). Truthfully, I believe that “panentheism,” a term that still lacks a greater circulation, is far too ambigious. Most commonly, it is used within a conceptual context that is not reconcilable with Biblical theism (as in the case of Process Theology, which I would oppose). Being skeptical of Borg from the beginning, I assumed that he probably advocated this more mainstream (and dangerous) interpretation of panentheism. Seeing how I have not read the book myself, I should properly drop my initial objections until I have leared more (and I do).

Nonetheless, I will contribute my considerations of Panentheism:

1. Biblically, we must be overwhelmed with the infinite and intimate presence of God in the world. His personal activity, relationship, and power within the world is astounding. As an Eastern Christian at heart, I would add, this is especially true within the the sacraments, where the material elements and the divine energies are fully united.

Affirming this (very beautiful) truth is perfectly acceptable and necessary within Christianty. It is one of the truths that most delights me.

1. Nonetheless, classical (and I would add Biblical) theism distinguishes between the creation and its Creator in their essences. Their relationship is not a strict holistic unity. Such a union exists only within the Incarnation (where the divine essence of God and the material elemens are truly and uniquely related). Thus, a “Panentheism” that affirms a unity or indwelling between the divine essence of God and the entire universe (as a soul within a body) represents a radical departure from the theistic framweork within which the Incarnation can be properly confessed.

Such an idea (especially when it undermines the personal nature of God) has been condemned by the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Interreligious Dialogue in its appraisal of the philosophy of the “New Age:” vatican.va/roman_curia/po…ew-age_en.html. Likewise, it is condemned by the philosophical tradition of the Church, as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, using a scholastic definition of "essence,: “God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works.” (Summa Theologica 1:8:1) The Trinity is an external, though intimately immanent, Agent or Cause. “He is in all things by His essence, inasmuch as He is present to all as the cause of their being.” (Ibid., 1:8:4) This definition protects the omnipresence of God as well as His singular distinction from creation as the universal Deity.

This is orthodox Judeo-Christian theology. Many concepts of “panentheism” undermine that theological framework, and should be considered heterodox. In so doing, the Christian is not rejecting an idea because it is “novel” – panentheism is anything but “novel.” The term used may be novel, but the (many) concepts identified by that term have permeated world philosophy for millenia. Rather, the Christian has understood the essence of Christian theology so as to properly exclude that which would undermine it.

 

[JDaniel]

Is Panentheism a heresy?

James:

It is. See:
“The heresy of Panentheism originated in the fifth century B.C. (though not named as such until three centuries ago) and is a variant of Pantheism. It teaches that everything is a part though not the whole of the being of god, yet differs from Pantheism’s everything is god. Though not a heresy belonging to the Christian era per se, yet much of this type of thought has moved into professing postmodernist Christendom. Christ has no place as redeemer of sinful man, nor the Holy Spirit any place at all within Panentheism.” - Soteriological Heresies

However, see above.

God bless,
jd

 

[ThinkingSapien]

On the other hand, pantheism usually refers to the belief that* everything in the universe* is God (and as such, God is present in everything). So, in such a world, I am God; you are God; the computer, your house, and your tree are God, etc.

Actually, it’s more that those things are thought to be a part of god. In much the same way your arm is you, your head is you, your brain is you, and your heart is you. At least that’s my understanding.

 

[shoe]

Is Panentheism a heresy?

From: praybrethren.blogspot.com/2011/09/panentheism-and-gnostic-reaction.html
*Panentheism and the Gnostic Reaction *

Differing from pantheism (which is the belief that God and the physical universe are coextensive, that God and the universe are two sides of the same coin), panentheism states that everything we see, taste, touch, hear, and smell is divine but that God’s existence also extends beyond this universe. In other words, the physical universe is a part of God though not the whole of God. In this book Handbook of Christian Apologetics, the philosopher Peter Kreeft calls panentheism “clearly heretical.”

 

[empther]

God is infinite and unchanging.
He does not need the universe.
Nor can the universe be part of him since the universe changes but God is unchanging.

We are talking about two different modes of existence. God and the universe have nothing to do with each other with respect to substance or essence, defined as that which makes something what it is.

To say “God is in the universe and the universe is in God” is meaningless. For one thing, “in” implies location, but God does not have or need a location.
Or if by “in” you mean God and the universe share existence substantially then this is nothing but pantheism again. Apparently, there is not an independent God which is no God at all, no matter how hard panentheists or pantheists try to pretty up their ideas by using the word God.
Many other objections to panentheism could probably be made, but this should be sufficient.

 

[Sair]

God is infinite and unchanging.
He does not need the universe.
Nor can the universe be part of him since the universe changes but God is unchanging.

We are talking about two different modes of existence. God and the universe have nothing to do with each other with respect to substance or essence, defined as that which makes something what it is.

To say “God is in the universe and the universe is in God” is meaningless. For one thing, “in” implies location, but God does not have or need a location.
Or if by “in” you mean God and the universe share existence substantially then this is nothing but pantheism again. Apparently, there is not an independent God which is no God at all, no matter how hard panentheists or pantheists try to pretty up their ideas by using the word God.
Many other objections to panentheism could probably be made, but this should be sufficient.

Just to clarify, the pantheist usage of ‘god’ has nothing to do with any desire to “pretty up” - as if this were necessary! - the idea that the universe encompasses the sum total of existence and is, in and of itself, divine in the sense of being worthy of reverence. If anything, many modern naturalistic pantheists shy away from the term “god” because of the ease with which it can be misinterpreted - to wit, the idea that any “god” is an entity somehow beyond nature and transcendent to the universe, in the way that a panentheistic god both indwells and transcends the universe.

 

[empther]

Just to clarify, the pantheist usage of ‘god’ has nothing to do with any desire to “pretty up” - as if this were necessary! - the idea that the universe encompasses the sum total of existence and is, in and of itself, divine in the sense of being worthy of reverence. If anything, many modern naturalistic pantheists shy away from the term “god” because of the ease with which it can be misinterpreted - to wit, the idea that any “god” is an entity somehow beyond nature and transcendent to the universe, in the way that a panentheistic god both indwells and transcends the universe.

So there is no God who can exist without the universe?
Is that what pantheism/panentheism is about?

 

[Kilbourne]

In light of Colossians 1:15-20, might panentheism be in some way true?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So there is no God who can exist without the universe?
Is that what pantheism/panentheism is about?

I think what you may be trying to do is make the panentheistic concept of “God” fit the Catholic concept of “God.” But these concepts concepts are not dependent on each other. You’ll find that the word “God” itself is extremely elastic as far as it’s application goes having been used to label statues, carvings, phenomenon in nature perceived as “force(s)”, and so on. Even among the Christian religions there are different attributes applied to God; not all Christians share a compatible concept of God.

 

[empther]

In light of Colossians 1:15-20, might panentheism be in some way true?

15* He is the image* of the invisible God,
the firstborn of all creation.h

Jesus is the Son of God, the Word of God, the Knowledge of God. Through his Omniscience ( and Omnipotenct ) the Father created the world. The Son of God is God, the three Persons of the Holy Trinity being distinguished from each other only by relationship, not substance. The Son is eternal but took up to himself a human nature which was a creation. Therefore, Paul calls Jesus ‘the firstborn of all creation’. But this does not mean God is the universe, or dependent on it, or anything like that.
The rest of the passage can be understood similarly:

16For in him* were created all things in heaven and on earth,
the visible and the invisible,
whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers;
all things were created through him and for him.*(“http://forums.catholic-questions.org/ 59001016-i”)
17He is before all things,
and in him all things hold together.
18He is the head of the body, the church.*
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,
that in all things he himself might be preeminent.j
19For in him all the fullness* was pleased to dwell,
20and through him to reconcile all things for him,
making peace by the blood of his cross*
[through him], whether those on earth or those in heaven.k

 

[empther]

Originally Posted by empther

forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
So there is no God who can exist without the universe?
Is that what pantheism/panentheism is about?

I think what you may be trying to do is make the panentheistic concept of “God” fit the Catholic concept of “God.” But these concepts concepts are not dependent on each other. You’ll find that the word “God” itself is extremely elastic as far as it’s application goes having been used to label statues, carvings, phenomenon in nature perceived as “force(s)”, and so on. Even among the Christian religions there are different attributes applied to God; not all Christians share a compatible concept of God.

Thank you for answering the question.
In panentheism there is no God who can exist without the universe.
I just wanted Catholics to be clear on that point.

 

[Filippo_Bruno]

The Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza is a famous proponent of this sort of worldview. To him, God and Nature were the same thing. More specifically, there were two ways to look at the same thing:

• Natura naturans “nature naturing” – the vital force, the first mover, the creator. This is God. (pantheism)
• Natura naturata “nature natured” – the outward manifestation, the moved, the created. This is the universe. (panentheism)

Spinoza was shunned by the Jewish community for his beliefs.

Giordano Bruno, a Dominican friar, was also executed for being a Spinozist, so that rather neatly points to it being considered a heresy.

 

[Sair]

So there is no God who can exist without the universe?
Is that what pantheism/panentheism is about?

The simple answer is that in pantheism (though perhaps not in panentheism) there is no god distinct from the totality of existence, no transcendent being with an identity separate from that of the universe. As far as any religion that holds an intelligent, transcendent creator deity to be an absolute article of faith is concerned, pantheism is certainly heresy; although I’m not particularly knowledgeable regarding panentheism, I would suppose it is rather less heretical from the point of view of classical theism, since it recognises the transcendence of the divine being.

 

[empther]

The Christian idea about God and the universe:

1 John 2: 15-17

15
Do not love the world or the things of the world.* If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.l

16
For all that is in the world, sensual lust,* enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world.

17

Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever.

 

[Sair]

The Christian idea about God and the universe:

1 John 2: 15-17

15
Do not love the world or the things of the world.* If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.l

16
For all that is in the world, sensual lust,* enticement for the eyes, and a pretentious life, is not from the Father but is from the world.

17

Yet the world and its enticement are passing away. But whoever does the will of God remains forever.

Gotta say, that was one of the things that led me away from Christianity and towards pantheism - we’re here, so why deny and reject it?

 

[empther]

Gotta say, that was one of the things that led me away from Christianity and towards pantheism - we’re here, so why deny and reject it?

It’s not about denying and rejecting.

It’s about not taking this world as all there is.

Some trillions of trillions of years from now, the last proton will spontaneously decay into energy and that will be the end of the material universe.
But our eternity in Heaven will have barely begun.