Panentheism and Divine Immensity

[Afterthought]

What are some problems with/solid rebuttals to panentheism, especially from a natural theological standpoint?

How does panentheism differ from the fact that God is immense and so fills heaven and earth; that in God we live and move and have our being; and that all that comes to pass is by God's Providence? There are a varieties of panentheism (it seems they all affirm that God is distinct from the creation?), so it is possible (?) that some of these ideas are not incompatible with the basic idea that "God is in all" or that "Creation is contained within God", depending on what is meant by "is", "contained", "in", and "within"? Agree or disagree?

 

[Afterthought]

Bumping. Maybe one difference is that in panentheism, the creation is seen as "part" of God? But I'm not sure all panentheist views hold that, since some claim God is distinct from the creation?

 

[MW]

Bumping. Maybe one difference is that in panentheism, the creation is seen as "part" of God? But I'm not sure all panentheist views hold that, since some claim God is distinct from the creation?

Raymond, This also comes down to the divine attributes being God Himself. The panentheist claims that there is still something of God distinct from or transcendent to creation, but it can only be by means of separating God from His attributes.

 

[Afterthought]

Raymond, This also comes down to the divine attributes being God Himself. The panentheist claims that there is still something of God distinct from or transcendent to creation, but it can only be by means of separating God from His attributes.

It's interesting that this too comes down to the same problem, but I'm not sure how this is the case? Perhaps this is because I keep reading descriptions of panentheism, but I'm having difficulty grasping precisely what it is advocating; in part due to the different views and in part because there seems to be some vague (incomprehensible?) language and a "dialectical" (?) view immanence and transcendence, which just seems to me to be a contradiction (Hegelian streams of thought is something I missed out on at school)? Understanding what it teaches better (and so being able to see where it is wrong better) was one of the things I was hoping to find by contrasting it with such things as us moving and living and having our being in God.

Do you mean that the panentheist views creation itself as some of God's attributes, and so by saying God is distinct from or transcendent to creation, panentheists are separating God from His attributes?

(And anyone else feel free to chime in or to explain how the panentheist separates God from His attributes.)

 

[MW]

Raymond, are we working with the same definition? Perhaps the following article from Dr. Geisler will help to clarify the point.

https://www.jashow.org/wiki/index.php?title=Panentheism_-_Part_1

 

[Afterthought]

I started from the Wikipedia article, but finding it unhelpful, I looked here (and after looking through it again, I finally found some definitions of "in"): Panentheism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

I read through Geisler's article and thought I figured it out, but now I'm confused again, so I'll take some more time on it before explaining my understanding of how panentheists separate God from His attributes (I think they claim the poles are aspects of God, rather than parts? It also seems not all panentheists hold there are two poles, e.g., Cobb, and not all view the relation of God to world as that of mind to body.).

My basic confusion (before reading the Geisler article) seemed to depend on what exactly is meant by "in" in "All is in God" and "God is in all," since we would claim "in" allows for God to fill the universe and be everywhere present; and since all spirits are immaterial entities, we might say God "penetrates" the material (and possibly all of the created) order (I'm not sure I'm using the correct word and that may add to my confusion in trying to distinguish our view from some small parts of the views of panentheism, since panentheism uses "penetration" and "interpenetration" in explaining its views; I'm trying to find a word that contrasts with a Judaistic idea that God in Creation had to "contract" Himself so as to leave an empty "space" in which to create the world)? From Geisler's article though, if indeed all panentheists hold to this bipolar or dipolar view of God and the world, that is very problematic, to say the least.


Edit: I think I figured it out. The something of God that is distinct or transcendent from creation are the divine attributes. But God is identical with His attributes. So God must be distinct or transcendent from creation, not merely something of God. When I have some more time (maybe tomorrow), I'll try to explain it with the panentheistic vocabulary of "poles" to make sure I'm not overlooking something that invalidates this criticism of panentheism. Does anyone here want to provide proof from reason or Scripture why God must be His attributes? I've read people such as Samuel Clarke give reasons, but you all here often explain things in helpful, complementary ways that often further illuminate subject matters for me.

 

[Afterthought]

Okay, so my understanding thus far is that panentheists distinguish between God's actual pole and potential pole. The actual pole would be the world and would be God's body for the panentheists who view the "in" as a relation of mind to body (incidentally, this view seems to place personality in God rather than the unification of God and the world, unlike with actual human personality which is made up of soul and body? I say this because these sort claim God is distinct from the world.). For this stream, I don't see how they necessarily separate the attributes, but instead will run into a contradiction by affirming God to be both finite and infinite, unless they either separate the attributes or understand the world to manifest God in the usual orthodox Christian manner (and cease holding that the world actualizes God). For others, it appears they would view God as being both the world and beyond the world. This form seems to be nothing but a pantheism that has God be more than just the world.

So having said all that, it appears that through this bipolar terminology, God's attributes (as we understand them) are placed in the potential pole. For those who view this pole as merely potential--one that God grows into?--they have definitely separated God from His attributes. For those who view this pole as being another actual aspect of God or as another aspect of God by which God acts in unity with the actual pole, it does not seem they separate the attributes but instead drive themselves into a contradiction?

 

[Afterthought]

Bumping for others (and for Rev. Winzer, if the long time in taking to reply does not cause too much difficulty in continuing conversation). Any further thoughts from anyone, especially on reasons for God not being separate from His attributes?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Panentheism ("all in God") conjures up the image of God as a giant fishbowl with all of creation inside it. This view of immanence ignores the fact that God is ontologically distinct from the world. If He is not, then there there there are parts of the world that are like God (i.e., the universe is identical to God’s consequent pole), hence the commandment to not create graven images of God is in error.

 

[Afterthought]

That's a good point, thanks. It's tricky in that they seem to want to say God is both distinct from the world but the world is also a part--but not the totality--of God.