# Hegelianism and pantheism



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 3, 2014)

Could someone please explain the link (if there is one) between Hegelianism and pantheism?

Also, what are the best sources for understanding Hegel's philosophy of religion, or, for understanding the long-term impact of Hegelian thinking on professedly Christian theology?

Thanks in advance for your help.


----------



## rbcbob (Apr 3, 2014)

Hegel’s philosophical method of thesis – antithesis- synthesis is in essence one of many denials of absolute truth. Nothing , absolutely, IS. All things are BECOMING.

In pantheism, God is all things and all things are God. For Hegel (as I understand) God is not all things but He is from all things and is, in a continuum, more than any of
those things individually. He is still becoming and is in advance of all other “becoming things”.

This means that there can be no absolute or final or definitive truth. Truth itself is still BECOMING.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 3, 2014)

The absolute spirit needs the finite world for true actualization. Hegel is not a pantheist in the hippie sense of "God is one with nature, dude." But on his gloss its hard to imagine the Absolute as independent of the contingent world. I have a Bruce McCormack lecture on this where he outlines Hegel's place in modern theological development (without endorsing him). I'll send it to you if you are interested, Daniel.

Also related his Hegel's view of the Trinity

Absolute Spirit ----------> Holy Spirit (which for him is the church community) <----------------Man Jesus (in whose finitude the Absolute Spirit became embodied)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 4, 2014)

Baroque Norseman said:


> Hegel is not a pantheist in the hippie sense of "God is one with nature, dude."







Baroque Norseman said:


> I have a Bruce McCormack lecture on this where he outlines Hegel's place in modern theological development (without endorsing him). I'll send it to you if you are interested, Daniel.



Yes, please do. Thanks to Bob and yourself for the responses.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 4, 2014)

I do not disagree with what either Bob or Jacob say: none of what they say, however, makes Hegel a pantheist _simpliciter _but closer to a panentheist. 

A theist would see a clear separation between God and the world; a pantheist, an identity. The panentheist would distinguish the two as does Hegel, who sees God developing in and through the world, the Absolute (of Kant's noumenal realm) immanentizing itself in all of history (in Kant's phenomenal realm). This is an evolutionary model applied to all things, in which God is not Being but is Becoming, the _Weltgeist_ realizing and manifesting itself in the development of world history. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 5, 2014)

Thanks, Professor Strange. Are you familiar at all with the theology of Professor J. Ernest Davey, who was tried for heresy in the PCI back in 1927 but was cleared of the charges? I was once told that his outlook was heavily influenced by Hegel, and, upon reading his works and the records of the trial this week, I could detect some elements of panentheist thinking in his theology. Was this outlook common among theologians with modernist tendencies in the early 20th century?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 5, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> I do not disagree with what either Bob or Jacob say: none of what they say, however, makes Hegel a pantheist _simpliciter _but closer to a panentheist.
> 
> A theist would see a clear separation between God and the world; a pantheist, an identity. The panentheist would distinguish the two as does Hegel, who sees God developing in and through the world, the Absolute (of Kant's noumenal realm) immanentizing itself in all of history (in Kant's phenomenal realm). This is an evolutionary model applied to all things, in which God is not Being but is Becoming, the _Weltgeist_ realizing and manifesting itself in the development of world history.
> 
> ...



Good distinction. Not many people are actually hard pantheists. Eriugena probably was, as was Spinoza. I can see Hegel's being charged with holding that the existence of God is correlative with creation but I couldn't find a 1:1 correlation between nature and God.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 5, 2014)

Daniel,

I've only heard of Davey and am aware that he was tried and acquited for heresy. I think that he was later Moderator of the GA. But I don't know his theology. Are those trial records readily available? I would be interested in reading them. 

Yes, the Hegelian dialectic had vast influence on theology in the 19th and early 20th centuries. The Princetonians were quite concerned about this and devoted much space to arguing against Hegelianism of various sorts. It had influence not only in specifically liberal/Enlightment circles but also in Reformed circles like Mercersburg: both Schaff and Nevin were clearly influenced by Hegel. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 5, 2014)

Dr. Strange, I know so little about Hegel but was reading something that referenced him the other day (Lewis' 'The Discarded Image') and wondered if there has been a 'legitimate' influence of the historicist (is this the correct term?) approach in the development of reformed biblical theology? Was someone like Geerhardus Vos (one of the Princetonians who wrote against Hegelianism?) also in some way legitimately influenced by the movement to see history as a development? (Again, I'm afraid this may be a terribly ignorant question. I've wondered what factors sparked the rise and development of biblical theology?)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 6, 2014)

Alan D. Strange said:


> Daniel,
> 
> I've only heard of Davey and am aware that he was tried and acquited for heresy. I think that he was later Moderator of the GA. But I don't know his theology. Are those trial records readily available? I would be interested in reading them.



Thanks again for your answer, Professor Strange. My copy of the records of the trial has been written over and "defaced" with a highlighter. I will, however, try to acquire a clean copy which can be scanned onto archive.org, and will try to remember to alert you when this is done.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 6, 2014)

a mere housewife said:


> Dr. Strange, I know so little about Hegel but was reading something that referenced him the other day (Lewis' 'The Discarded Image') and wondered if there has been a 'legitimate' influence of the historicist (is this the correct term?) approach in the development of reformed biblical theology? Was someone like Geerhardus Vos (one of the Princetonians who wrote against Hegelianism?) also in some way legitimately influenced by the movement to see history as a development? (Again, I'm afraid this may be a terribly ignorant question. I've wondered what factors sparked the rise and development of biblical theology?)



I was thinking about that, too. On one hand I don't think Hegel's "organic development" motif (loosely speaking, most forms of historicism) is all that original with Hegel. Everyone in the wake of Hegel had to deal with his arguments--from Russian Orthodox Patriarchs to American politicians (the infamous elections in the late 1840s).

As long as one doesn't go haywire with it, the organic development metaphor isn't all that bad.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 6, 2014)

Thanks so much, Daniel. You are very kind. Please don't trouble yourself too much on my account and there is no need to rush on such.

Heidi, among the orthodox, developing theology through the history of redemption goes back to at least Irenaeus (2nd century). After the Reformation, figures like Owen and Edwards would serve as precursors to Vos in surveying redemptive history and engaging in biblical theology. 

It is the case, however, that biblical theology, over against dogmatics, developed as part of German rationalism in the 18th century. J.P. Gabler's famous lecture (in the 1780s) carved out a place for this discipline in opposition to systematic theology, arguing that looking at the development of doctrine properly accounted for the evolution of theological thought over against the static, absolutistic approach of systematics. Systematics, in other words, assumed a unity of the whole that the growing historicism of the age denied (as one wag put it, "Heraclitus triumphed over Parmenides") and that came to be expressed in biblical theology. Hegel and his students added to this in a number of ways (_inter alia, _in the _Religionsgeschichtliche Schule_, history of religions school). 

Vos sought to redeem biblical theology and recover its older usage among the orthodox. He did not argue against systematics or deny its validity. Rather, he argued that a proper understanding of redemptive history as foundational to biblical theology would serve in the proper development of our systematics. In other words, he showed how better to appreciate and understand the situatedness and historicalness of God's revelation without succumbing to historicism. The Bible is not a "book of timeless truths." Rather it is a historical book given over many centuries recording the progressive unfolding of God's redemptive acts, with Christ's person and work standing at its center and giving defintion to its whole. Much, much more could be said, but that may be enough for now (and I must go at any rate).

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Claudiu (Apr 6, 2014)

As mentioned, Hegel was not a pantheist, as much as he was a panentheist. His dialectic showed how the unconscious spirit was moving toward a conscious spirit through a series of triads. All of history is driven by this. Thus, history is very important for the Hegelian system. In many ways, I like what Hegel did. He connected philosophy, and everything back into the historical process. Hegelianism has helped me understand the historical-redemptive process as outlined in the bible much better. I see biblical theology as a better alternative to the Hegelian system. Any philosophical system seems to be better resolved with biblical answers as opposed to man's reason. Many times philosophy will raise valuable questions, but it alone will not add much to resolve anything. Hence, ultimately all things are disciplined by theology.


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 6, 2014)

Thanks so much, Dr. Strange. 

I wondered if a Hegelian might try to cite orthodox biblical theology as part of the process -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis, and what would be the more proper framework in which to understand that. (I understand that approach leaves one without any certainty.) From what you said above, it seems to fit the pattern of heresy being a catalyst for a fuller development of the expression of truth. Is that a sufficient answer?


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 6, 2014)

Claudiu said:


> As mentioned, Hegel was not a pantheist, as much as he was a panentheist. His dialectic showed how the unconscious spirit was moving toward a conscious spirit through a series of triads. All of history is driven by this. Thus, history is very important for the Hegelian system. In many ways, I like what Hegel did. He connected philosophy, and everything back into the historical process. Hegelianism has helped me understand the historical-redemptive process as outlined in the bible much better. I see biblical theology as a better alternative to the Hegelian system. Any philosophical system seems to be better resolved with biblical answers as opposed to man's reason. Many times philosophy will raise valuable questions, but it alone will not add much to resolve anything. Hence, ultimately all things are disciplined by theology.



How much of this "movement" in history that Hegel saw was the movement that entered history with the coming of God's kingdom in Christ in the first century onwards?

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## jwithnell (Apr 7, 2014)

The idea that history, particularly the history of thought, is an evolutionary process is such a foundational presupposition for modern thought and attitude. It allows for a smug dismissal of Christian thought and flatly contradicts that there is nothing new under the sun.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 7, 2014)

Heidi:

Well there appear to be two things here: the progressive revelation of God in the Scriptures and the development of the history of the church. What you have in the first instance is superintended by the Spirit so that the canon of Scripture is produced. It is in inspired, infallible, and inerrant. It is authoritative and self-attesting. 

And the same Spirit who thus produced the Bible over the course of many years (with magnificent redemptive-historical disclosure) illumines the church to understand it, not infallibly but truly, in the main. The church has the fullness of truth in the Word of God and testifies to that with increasing clarity. Issues often become especially clear when confronted with heresy. It's not that the church did not believe X before the teaching of heresy (e.g., it's not that the church did not believe in the full deity of Christ before Arius prompted the response that he did): the faith of the church is always based in the Word and since the Word taught X, that's the belief of the church. Heresy provokes the fuller development and expression of orthodoxy. This is not quite the same as Cardinal Newman's view of doctrinal development and certainly not that of the "evolution of dogma" propounded by Loisy (which was influenced by Hegelianism). 

You have in the Scripture an infallible history. We do not have such for the history of the church, but we do see in its history a particular providential guiding (even more so than in the broader providential guidance of all of history), in which our faithful Savior, who led us into all truth in the giving of the Word, keeps us in that truth, even when the flame burns low and seems close to going out. Before the Reformation was such a time. Perhaps now, in many respects, is such at time, particularly as one looks at the broader church. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## a mere housewife (Apr 7, 2014)

Thank you for distinguishing those two aspects of the question Dr. Strange: that is very clarifying. I will reread and think more carefully about that.

Jean yes, I can't help thinking that if history is not developing along the lines of divine revelation and its fulfillment, we have only managed to narrow the view and cheapen the expression of our own vanity with a belief in novelty.


----------

