This controversy is not likely to die because 'Pantheism' has different meaning from religious and from philosophical POV. To clarify let me cite from WIKIPEDIA.
Philosphically, to Jews and Christians, Pantheism would be dressed up atheism.
But the problem of the controversy, IMO, is in the definition and understanding of Pantheism. For example Spinoza was a self declared monist in Hindu tradition. I cite a small extract from another WIKI article to show that Spinoza was actually closer to Panentheist (Monism of Hindus is Panentheism).
Let me put the above in another fashion. Spinoza held the following three:
- the unity of all that exists;
- the regularity of all that happens;
- the identity of spirit and nature.[101]
The above is closest to Nonduality of Hindus and it does not stop at Pantheism. It is Panentheism.
...........
I hold that if a theist holds a Pantheist view then that person is not clear. What is that God (or essence or Brahman) that gets altered continually as nature? OTOH, if the essence or the all pervading matter is to be equated to God or Brahman, then that essence must be transcendental to all of natures forms.
We can understand this very simply if we use a metaphor used by Shri Krishna in Gita.
Brahman is like air that pervades all forms within and without, yet is distinct and unchanged by the forms.