-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Panentheism and God of the Bible
- Thread starter Orbit
- Start date
Well, I wouldn't say the Panentheistic God is directly related to the God of the Bible, but Christianity certainly can be Panentheistic. Especially eastern churches.
As for "transcendent"? To me, that just simply means beyond the boundaries of time and space.
What I remember from what I was taught as a Christian, and my upg:
1. God is beyond, yet pervades the universe: transcendent and immanent.
2. God created and can destroy the universe. Therefore the universe is not part of God, nor is God identical to the universe, nor the universe identical to God.
In those regards, I can't say the God of the bible is either a pantheistic or panentheistic God.
1. God is beyond, yet pervades the universe: transcendent and immanent.
2. God created and can destroy the universe. Therefore the universe is not part of God, nor is God identical to the universe, nor the universe identical to God.
In those regards, I can't say the God of the bible is either a pantheistic or panentheistic God.
The gnostic gospels are a bit more pantheist friendly but the elements of oneness are certainly there in the bible as well.
That's pretty much where my thinking is. Could some more progressive theologies within the classical monotheisms be panentheistic? Yes; in fact the mystical segments of classical monotheisms often do break down the division between their idea of gods and the material universe. Is classical monotheism traditionally panentheistic? Not at all. Furthermore, neither pantheists nor panentheists are necessarily monotheistic.
gsa
Well-Known Member
There are some great articles and podcasts by Rabbi Artson (at the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies) all about this topic. In this case God is the god of process thought, which is pan(en)theistic. This view begins by rejecting the account of creation ex nihilo in favor of a god that shapes pre-existent matter, more or less.
One point that I think is important in this debate: There are the texts of the Jewish and Christian traditions, which do not reveal any kind of static creator, and then there is the philosophical overlay of history and tradition. Those are not the same, and there's a pretty good argument for pan(en)theism being a more biblical view. Simply put, there is plenty in the text to support the opposite of creation ex nihilo, plenty to cast doubt on omnipotence, plenty to cast doubt on God being static. Of course there's support for the opposite as well; these are not systematic accounts but historical documents.
One point that I think is important in this debate: There are the texts of the Jewish and Christian traditions, which do not reveal any kind of static creator, and then there is the philosophical overlay of history and tradition. Those are not the same, and there's a pretty good argument for pan(en)theism being a more biblical view. Simply put, there is plenty in the text to support the opposite of creation ex nihilo, plenty to cast doubt on omnipotence, plenty to cast doubt on God being static. Of course there's support for the opposite as well; these are not systematic accounts but historical documents.
My argument for pantheism also stems from the trinities description of the "substance" of god which they say is the thing they share which screams to me to be pantheistic. However that is one of the trinity creed, I don't know that people necessarily hold to that substance thing but it makes sense to me.
Had a thread about it a few months back.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-religious-debates/162829-trinity-pantheistic.html
Orbit
I'm a planet
Sometimes I think of God(s) using this analogy. In Papua New Guinea, the native culture is centered around the pig, not because pigs are good to eat, but because pigs are good to *think*. They symbolize relationships, prosperity, and wealth. Sometimes I think about gods that way. I like them not because they are true, but because they are good to *think*.
Matityahu ben Avraham
Member
I would say that you only ruled out panentheism doesn't fit with western Christianity for the most part. There has been several christian scholars, especially among the Weslyians, also N.T. Wright has also written on this if I'm not mistaken, and among eastern Christians that have made comments to where they see that the God of the Bible is panentheistic. Also, In Judaism, it is very panentheistic, especially in the kabbalistic sources.
Gnostic Seeker
Spiritual
I don't limit God to just the Bible, but in my humble opinion yes. Passages like 'be still and know I am the Lord', 'in returning and rest is your salvation, 'one God and Father of all who is by you all... ', etc.
Rather:
Sorry. I didn't notice that this thread is in a DIR. Please feel free to delete it.
Last edited:
Orbit
I'm a planet
I hope it doesn't get deleted, it was very helpful.
I think it is helpful to show the contrast within traditions between strict theistic views and a panentheistic view which has God "in the world". To the strict theist the world is sin and fallen and needs to be overcome, or in Eastern traditions to "flee samsara and seek nirvana". Whereas the panentheistic view is seen as heretical or even blasphemous to sound as if it is equating the fallen world with the holy God. Yet, as you can see by the fact the criticism exists within that tradition, that many within that tradition in fact interpret things in that light, one where the transcendent and the immanent are united; the sacred and profane are not universes apart, but united in the One.
In Christian tradition this transcendence and immanence is even more clearly spoken of, even though traditional Western orthodoxy seems to manage to make the Trinity more theistic than panenthiest which is expressed within it. "He was in the world, the world was made by him, and the world knew him not". God was clearly immanent in the human expressed by Jesus according to the Gospel of John, and Paul, and others. "In him the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily". That's panentheistic. The holy, sacred transcendent One in form. The Formless in Form.
And then to add "The Holy Spirit in you". That's not limited to Jesus, but all mankind. "The Spirit will guide you into all truth", etc. That is not just some God "up there" who interacts down here, but rather is "down here" as well as "up there", actively within the world within humans, within the world itself. It's not just a manifestation reflected, but an activation within. That's pretty clearly demonstrated in the language they use. The kingdom of heaven is not here or there but "inside you", as Jesus said. That's transcendence and immanence, not a distinct locational separation. And then when you get to the Gospel of Thomas it becomes unmistakably overt,
3. Jesus said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the (Father's) kingdom is within you and it is outside you.
When you know yourselves, then you will be known, and you will understand that you are children of the living Father. But if you do not know yourselves, then you live in poverty, and you are the poverty."
5. Jesus said, "Come to know the One in the presence before you and that which is hidden from you will be revealed."
70. Jesus said, "If you bring forth what is within you, what you have will save you. If you do not have that within you, what you do not have within you [will] kill you."
That's all very panentheism. That's nonduality, which sees the transcendent sacred imminent and knowable within and through the profane. That is all quite jarring to those who see the world as fallen and separate from God. It is seen as a contradiction to them, an error of thinking, a heresy.
Last edited:
Orbit
I'm a planet
That was a very informative post, thank you. A related question occurs to me. Is the panentheistic God the God of the Gnostic Christians? Is that their way of separating the mythic God from "true God"? Or is it just another dualism where the fallen world is seen as the creation of an evil demiurge? And "true God" is separated from Creation still?
I think there is a confusion about what Gnosticism is historically. Elaine Pagels referred to the other Christian texts such as those found in Nag Hammadi as Gnostic, whereas later scholars such as Karen King points out that's not the case. Early church fathers tended to lump them all together as well. But Gnostic is really more just a bucket term that does not accurately reflect the wide variety of views expressed within them, some of them being Gnostic and others not. The Gospel of Thomas is not Gnostic, but of the Wisdom schools. Traditional Gnosticism back then is a radical dualism, and panentheism would not reflect their views. Theirs is not freed from mythic forms, but is just another interpretation of mythic forms in a radical dualism. Their "true God" is the NT God, and the false God is the OT God.
But I had another thought I wanted to share I had after my post this morning. It's seems to me that panenthiest expressions of God seem to come out of the more mystic traditions within lineages, as opposed to the straight theistic theological definitions that reflect the more 'orthodox' (which means "correct thinking") camps. I see this as the latter being a conceptual framework, and the former being an experiential expression. With mystical experience comes a more 'God is both transcendent and immanent" view, because it speaks to the nature of the experience itself. Whereas a wholly transcendent God seems to reflect a conceptual framework, a mind's eye view of the divine.
I'll have to mull that around some more, but it seems to make sense as in the quote that refuted panentheism in Judaism drew on logical arguments such as what was the purpose for the law then. Those are reasoned deductions, not an expression from personal experience to to describe the experience of God.
Orbit
I'm a planet
This makes sense. I was thinking back to the traditional definition of Gnostic, and it was getting tangled up with these other conceptions.
This also makes sense. It's about the experience. I suppose my question becomes "what exactly AM I experiencing in a mystic experience"? I know that I perceive it to be oneness with God, but what is the *nature* of that God? (Only small questions today...)
I think tying it into a panentheistic description it is the sense of the ineffable, which is experience both within ourselves, and seen and touched in the world. It is seen and sensed outside ourself and within ourself as one. It is understood as in the world, and beyond the world in the sense of its Infinite nature. It therefore 'transcends' the world, as the world is finite.
God is the Face of the Infinite, and the Infinite is within us, and is us. We are experiencing our true Self, not the illusory separated self which is the self-reflexive ego self, but a glimpse of that Identity that is seen as outside of us, as we are peering out through the eyes of the separate self. The more that veil of flesh is pulled back, the veil of the egoic mind, the more the Infinite is seen and revealed to it. Until it sees itself in the Face of the Other, and the two become One. As in Christianity, "I and my Father are One." And, "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known."
The theistic view sees this as not in this world, but in an after-world. The panentheistic view sees and experiences this as within this world. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you, in you here and now, seen when the veil of flesh, or the illusory mind is pulled back to reveal that glory of God that is in this world, in all things, in ourselves, and we become that. "You are the Light of the World", to use further Christian language to express that.
We see and experience God as Infinite, and therefore it transcends the world of form. We see and experience God as infinitely immanent, and therefore is within us and the world without, where there is no place where God is not. And we identify with That and as That, in our form; body, mind, soul, and spirit, and as our Infinite Self, as that eternal, infinite Ground of all being and becoming. It is the nondual, we hold the perspective our our higher mind seeing the Infinite as above and within all things and within ourselves, and we move into identification with and as that which is above and within all things and ourselves.
I see the difference between panenthiesm and theism as a matter of degrees of separateness and the experience of the ineffable within conceptual frameworks. I tend to see panentheism as seeking to express that experience of the transcendent and immanent, and I see theism as an expression of the experience of separation with an inherent yearning for unity with what is seen wholly outside, external to ones own internal self-sense. They are both conceptualizations of God, but coming from different starting points. So the panentheist experiences both the theistic sense of a separate self before the Infinite, as well as the Infinite within the separate self in Unity. It's theistic, and pantheistic held together. Again, "I and my Father are One".
Last edited:
Draco
Universal Church of Humanity...Christian branch
What does your heart tell you.
Orbit
I'm a planet
My heart doesn't know, hence the question.
Yes, and he seems to reflect the thinking of Buber, Kushner, ben Cohen. Sometimes I think the truth is between the anthropomorphism of Hebrew Scripture and the Greek philosophy of Christian Scripture. We need to keep in mind that all that is written has human limitations, as only humans speak words and human language is never adequate to express the reality of God. Personally, I have no problem acknowledging that God remains the Incomprehensible Mystery. Among Christian theologians a book by Sister Elizabeth Johnson,
"Quest for the Living God; Mapping Frontiers in the Theology of God", has come under much criticism from the US Bishops on Doctrine.
The book is faulted by the USCCB for her panentheism as well as her rejection of divine omnipotence and impassibility etc.