• 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 Question

I was wondering something about panentheism.

I was pretty much decided that I was panentheistic in my outlook, i.e., that everything is in God and God in everything, but also that God goes beyond that.

However, it seems that everything I'm finding on panentheism associates something called "process theology" with it, which suggests that God is changeable, that what takes place in the world and/or universe influences Him (in what seems like an "I didn't see that coming" sense), or that He is growing -- all which leads me to conclude that, in order to be a panentheist, I must believe that He's somehow not already perfect.

I've always been persuaded that God is already perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, etc., and therefore further growth or change on His part is not necessary. Those are things that make Him 'God' as opposed to just the fellow human next door. :) Is there a form of panentheism that does not include a changeable/growing God, and, if so, is it still considered 'panentheism' or is it something else?

Thanks in advance for helping me out with this one! :)
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the premise. You seem to be assuming somewhere along the line that if something changes, it can't be perfect. Why?

Also, why is this concept we call "perfect" an important or necessary attribute? I don't honestly use terms like "perfect" and "imperfect" to describe the gods at all. They just are what they are. "Perfect" and "imperfect" are human judgements I'm projecting onto reality, not the reality itself. Or at least that's how I see it. :shrug:
 

Penumbra

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm not a panentheist or even a theist, but strictly speaking, change doesn't necessarily imply imperfection.

First, the OP seems to imply that a panentheistic god is bound by linear time rather than transcending time. Considering that spacetime apparently expanded from an infinitely small point at the Big Bang, I would find the idea of a deity of any sort being contained within the results of the physical event to be odd. That would be more along the lines of pantheism than panentheism.

Second, Anselm, in his widely known but logically flawed argument for the existence of god, provided a definition of god as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived". Flaws of the argument aside, the definition can be salvaged for this purpose if one is assuming the idea of perfection.

If someone were to say that god is perfect and therefore unchanging, then if one were so inclined, one could counter argue that a greater conception is a being that can demonstrate perfect in an infinite number of ways rather than just one. Therefore, a deity that can change into infinite forms and express perfection in every one of them would be grander than a deity that is limited to expressing perfection in one unchanging form.
 
I agree -- I do believe God can change, as in take on an infinite number of forms, shape-shift, manifest in various ways, etc. In fact, that's one of the things I've come to appreciate about the diversity of belief in what constitutes "God". Magnificently multi-faceted.

The type of change I'm referring to is more along the lines of His needing to improve Himself in some area, that He's somehow lacking in that which would compel me to consider Him Divine rather than just a really cool super-human (not that there's anything wrong with those). The latter seems to be well covered by the angelic realm, which isn't too shabby either, but I'm not (yet) at the point of considering angels on the same level as God.

Back to my original question, only (hopefully) phrased a bit more clearly: Is there a form of panentheism that does not require belief in a God that essentially still has some growing up to do? (By way of background, I left behind a belief in a God that had some serious maturing to do if the eternal-hell-teaching was any indicator of His maturity ... so if God is given to change where, say, He suddenly decides next Tuesday that endless torment for those who don't play the Game His way is a legitimate way to treat His creation, then yeah, I gotta admit, that's a bit of a problem for me! :) That's the kind of "change" that's going to be difficult for me to digest).

If there isn't any form of panentheism that doesn't require belief in a not-'there'-yet God, that's not a problem -- it's not even an issue -- it just means that I personally would have to hold off on calling myself "panentheist" (which I was otherwise on the verge of doing), because that's the one point I struggle with (at this point in time ... things do change, after all! :D ) If one wants to believe that the Divine stands in need of improvement in some area, no biggie -- my goal isn't to criticize that. My goal here is to determine if "panentheist" is a term I should be using for myself if I'm not yet ready to consider that God hasn't reached whatever ultimate level of ... Ultimateness (or whatever it's called) ... awaits out there in the skies. :)
 
Last edited:

Treks

Well-Known Member
Iridescence ji

I'm loving your thread but I'm confused. From your posts I get the impression that for you, God is a being with a personality, separate from It's creation? But, per panentheism, God is/is present throughout the creation but is also beyond the creation (I know you know this).

Does God's having of a personality of It's own syncretise with the idea of It permeating every molecule and void of the creation and being beyond it?

Also I'm very interested in the question Quintessene touched on - what do you mean by 'perfect'?

Also you mention angels - but in a panentheistic view, the angels and the demons are both essentially of the same stuff.

... right? I'm not so good with this high theology stuff.
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Back to my original question, only (hopefully) phrased a bit more clearly: Is there a form of panentheism that does not require belief in a God that essentially still has some growing up to do?
I'm not sure what your understanding of panentheism is here if you see that God still has some growing to do. Panentheism takes traditional theism which teaches that God is wholly transcendent to the created, manifest universe, and merges it together with pantheism which teaches the opposite that God is wholly immanent to the universe, that the universe itself is God and nothing beyond that. So in panentheism, God is both wholly transcendent and wholly immanent.

To put it in other terms the Unmanifest, formless Emptiness is the unchanging Ground of Being upon which all manifest form arises and falls. The forms are expressions of this eternal Ground, or God. The change of forms are the manifest discovery of that eternal Emptiness in expression. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity actually expresses this panentheistic view, in its esoteric form as opposed to its literal doctrinal statement of three co-equal "persons" in a more strict theistic view of a wholly transcendent deity. "The Logos became flesh" is a great expression of this transcendent taking form in immanence. This can be a whole discussion in itself surrounding that.

Does this help explain better? Think in terms of nonduality, which is by the way not the same as monism. From the One to the many, and from the Many to the One.
 
Panentheism takes traditional theism which teaches that God is wholly transcendent to the created, manifest universe, and merges it together with pantheism which teaches the opposite that God is wholly immanent to the universe, that the universe itself is God and nothing beyond that. So in panentheism, God is both wholly transcendent and wholly immanent.
Yes, this part of it I understand. :)

I'm not sure what your understanding of panentheism is here if you see that God still has some growing to do.
I could just be misunderstanding what I've been reading about the subject.

The articles on panentheism I've been reading have incorporated something called 'process theology' or 'process panentheism' into the mix, which is what's giving me that impression.

According to one source (Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)):
"Process panentheism recognizes two aspects of the divine, an abstract and unchanging essence and a concrete state that involves change. Through this dipolar concept, God both influences and is influenced by the world."
Of course, if the "concrete state" to which they refer is His manifestation via the physical realm, then I don't have a problem with that, because as I said, I do believe He can change form and, if the physical (concrete) world is part of Him, then obviously those changes are happening constantly.

Then there's this one, from the same article:

"Hegel (1770–1831) and Schelling (1775–1854) sought to retain the close relationship between God and the world that Spinoza proposed without identifying God with the world. Their concept of God as developing in and through the world provided the means for accomplishing this. Prior to this time, God had been understood as unchanging and the world as changing while existing in God (Cooper 2006, 90)."
So I think maybe the "God-is-growing/underdeveloped" idea might actually be a more recent development, and that what I fall under is more of a 'pre-Hegelian/Schelling Panentheism" (one where God influences the world and not the other way around).

There's another source that emphasizes the God-is-growing aspect, from the Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (I never explored panentheism when I was a Christian, so I have no idea whether Christians are for or against it):

"Rather than viewing God as the infinite, unchanging sovereign Creator of the world who brought it into existence, panentheists think of God as a finite, changing, director of world affairs who works in cooperation with the world in order to achieve greater perfection in his nature." (http://www.jashow.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/theological-dictionary/TD3W0901.pdf)​

Oh and by God being "perfect" I simply mean that He's reached the ultimate state of wholeness (that unchanging essence panentheism refers to, I would suppose). He's the ultimate of that which would distinguish "God" from "human". But that's for another thread -- my intention here is to figure out if there's a form of panentheism in which a belief in process theology isn't needed (and I think you guys helped me zero in on it better ... thank you!! :yes:) .
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The articles on panentheism I've been reading have incorporated something called 'process theology' or 'process panentheism' into the mix, which is what's giving me that impression.

According to one source (Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)):
"Process panentheism recognizes two aspects of the divine, an abstract and unchanging essence and a concrete state that involves change. Through this dipolar concept, God both influences and is influenced by the world."
Here's my take on the challenge to try to talk about this. Anytime you are trying to describe anything about God in the sense to understand it cognitively, you are doing so creating mental models that are inherently dualistic. Our language, its terms, etc, inherently reflect a subject/object duality. Is God wholly transcendent? Yes. Is God wholly immanent? Yes. These are a contradiction. But only in a dualistic paradigm. God, or Ultimate Reality is paradoxical. It is nondual (which acknowledges the truth of both monism and dualism).

Whitehead who espoused a panentheistic view of God expressed this seeming contradiction like this (from Wiki):

  • It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.
  • It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.
  • It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.
  • It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.
  • It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.
  • It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.

It seems to follow a negatation, or deconstruction theology in saying what we cannot say what God is, in order to intimate what cannot be comprehended. It is by going beyond mind's attempt to comprehend, that we may apprehend (a difference in meaning in terms: Difference Between Apprehension and Comprehension | Difference Between )

Where panentheism has value over traditional theism is because it allows the value and benefit of a 2nd person perspective of God (the personal I-Thou relationship, the Holy "Other"), without removing God from the world as traditional theism does. It allows a 3rd person perspective of God which traditional pantheism allows; God as the web of life, Nature mysticism, etc, without removing the value of that I-Thou, personal relationship which traditional pantheism does.

The key is that it is an assume perspective, consistent with common human experience of 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person perspectives, while allowing God to be in fact beyond the rational plane - also consistent with the nature of our being itself as humans (rational thought is but one aspect or tool of our humanity, not the sole truth validator or giver of light to our being, as is the popular modern belief).

Anyway, I'll continue my thoughts on this later as the discussion with you unfolds.
 
Here's my take on the challenge to try to talk about this. Anytime you are trying to describe anything about God in the sense to understand it cognitively, you are doing so creating mental models that are inherently dualistic. Our language, its terms, etc, inherently reflect a subject/object duality. Is God wholly transcendent? Yes. Is God wholly immanent? Yes. These are a contradiction. But only in a dualistic paradigm. God, or Ultimate Reality is paradoxical. It is nondual (which acknowledges the truth of both monism and dualism).
I agree; outside of an either/or paradigm, the trascendance/immanence combination is rather harmonious. He permeates all of creation and extends beyond that into infinity. It's what makes panentheism such a great alternative to a strictly monistic or dualistic approach.

Whitehead who espoused a panentheistic view of God expressed this seeming contradiction like this (from Wiki):
  • It is as true to say that God is permanent and the World fluent, as that the World is permanent and God is fluent.
  • It is as true to say that God is one and the World many, as that the World is one and God many.
  • It is as true to say that, in comparison with the World, God is actual eminently, as that, in comparison with God, the World is actual eminently.
  • It is as true to say that the World is immanent in God, as that God is immanent in the World.
  • It is as true to say that God transcends the World, as that the World transcends God.
  • It is as true to say that God creates the World, as that the World creates God.
Oh yes -- I remember reading this over there ("God and the World Relationship", en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_theology#God_and_the_World_Relationship). At first it seemed contradictory to me, but, upon examining it further, it's beginning to make more sense when I consider that the World is a part of God. If the world is a part of God and vice versa, then saying that each influences the other, transcends the other, creates the other, etc., makes more sense.

I also noticed, a little further down in that same Wiki article under "Process Theism's Themes", it says: "Because God interacts with the changing universe, God is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally solid."

That right there is very reassuring, considering my previously-expressed concern that God's changeablilty might include His suddenly deciding to implement some atrocity such as eternal torment for 'sinners'.

Where panentheism has value over traditional theism is because it allows the value and benefit of a 2nd person perspective of God (the personal I-Thou relationship, the Holy "Other"), without removing God from the world as traditional theism does. It allows a 3rd person perspective of God which traditional pantheism allows; God as the web of life, Nature mysticism, etc, without removing the value of that I-Thou, personal relationship which traditional pantheism does.
Indeed. That's what I like about it.
 
Last edited:
I was pretty much decided that I was panentheistic in my outlook, i.e., that everything is in God and God in everything, but also that God goes beyond that.
I believe God is a spirit, and a spirit cannot regulate with a natural thing generally speaking. We cannot see spiritual things unless we are in spirit.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I believe God is a spirit, and a spirit cannot regulate with a natural thing generally speaking. We cannot see spiritual things unless we are in spirit.
Panentheism would not differntiate it that way. It's a different model where everything is natural and is also spiritual, both.
 
Top