Why Panentheism is False.

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
"in" Him we live and move and have our being. I'm not going to rewrite scriptures. They will inform me rather.
Nice dodge.

You need to stop pretending that you're being intellectually honest in your "study" of the scripture. The fact is that you really don't give a damn what anyone might say, do you? You're going to ignore every argument anyone ever makes. You've chosen your doctrines and arguments to the contrary be damned.

Understood. Guilty by association? While I don't mind early dismissal, I do want to get homework done.
That response makes no sense whatsoever!

I'm the one, it seems, who is doing your homework for you. And while the fact that what you believe is also believed by others who are obvious nutjobs doesn't prove your doctrine false, the fact that they are the only people around that anyone can find who share your doctrine aught to at least serve as a red flag that indicates a need to reevaluate things to make sure you aren't also one of the nut jobs!

Does panentheism entail divergence? Yes. As such I may eschew it in the future but one has to ask 'what do you mean by using it?' to get away from all those who don't mean the same thing. I'm not with the 'in' crowd. Panentheists generally (in agreement with others) differentiate between God and His creation inherently else they'd be pantheists. Rather, Panentheists understand points I've elucidated. What do I mean by 'in?' Nothing more and nothing less that scripture means 'in' God or 'in' Christ. Colossians 1 intimates without Him, nothing exist(s) present active indicative. It necessarily means creation is presently sustained. This, among similar scripture, is very nearly the extent of my panentheistic thought.
Well, Lon, that just isn't the way reality works! You don't get to shave off this razor thin aspect of a major thought process and think you can stick that in your pocket and not bring a big bunch of the rest of that thought process with it. Ideas have consequences! That isn't just a slogan, that's real!

Notice, for example, how you twist the scripture so naturally that you almost certainly don't even notice that you've done it. Colossians 1 DOES NOT say that with Him, nothing exists! That isn't what it says and that isn't what it means! It simply means that God maintains the universe. You simply cannot take the phrase "in Him" and apply it the way you're trying to apply it. Besides all the other problems such an interpretation creates that I've already presented, the bible tells us that believers are identified "in Him". In fact, its quite an interesting study to go through and look in detail at all the time Paul uses the phrase "in Him" throughout his epistles. What would any of it mean if we are already "in Him" as your doctrine explicitly teaches? If the whole universe, including every unbeliever and rebellious demon and Even Satan himself is "in Him" then what the heck is Paul even talking about?
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Meh! At a certain point in my theology, the ideas of panentheism looked to coincide with my beliefs. Reading your links and further, especially this one, has to have me eschewing the term altogether. While I have identified, the term used at large, is heretical and cannot jive with Christian thought. It is sad in that it is a good word for what I do believe, it is nothing like what most mean, therefore I must eschew it as describing my theology. :Z Looking for a new word if anybody needs me, and appreciate the input and correction. I'm not, in light of evidence, Panentheistic as the term is applied. In the meanwhile, I'll have to adopt 'biblical' as broad as such allows for the truths thereof.
I love this post except for the last sentence. The whole idea needs to be just thrown out. We simply do not exist inside God.
 

Lon

Well-known member
I love this post except for the last sentence. The whole idea needs to be just thrown out. We simply do not exist inside God.
I yet must reconcile 'in Christ' and 'in God' from scriptures. It cannot be ontological else God is physical but I yet must wrestle with 'in Him we live and move and have our being' which intimates at least our own physicality. I simply want to know God, know His word, and what He is trying to teach me/us.
 

Right Divider

Body part
I yet must reconcile 'in Christ' and 'in God' from scriptures. It cannot be ontological else God is physical but I yet must wrestle with 'in Him we live and move and have our being' which intimates at least our own physicality. I simply want to know God, know His word, and what He is trying to teach me/us.
Try learning about figures of speech.
 

Lon

Well-known member
Try learning about figures of speech.
I appreciate that and have thought accordingly. Let me say at this point, that it goes much further than that because I'm still wrestling where others have already stopped. Good/bad? I believe good else I'm not after the pattern of the Bereans. I want to search a thing out. Part of me being hard to follow is that I don't settle nearly as quickly as any other theologian I know. You'd say I'm in 'limbo' and you'd be correct, to a point, and it shows. It is purposeful, for what it is worth. I want God molding me, and not the other way around. Is it too high an aim? Yes. It is only in 1 John 3:2,3 that any of us get there (1Co 13:12 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.) also . Until then? I have the Holy Spirit and I have you. I'll thank Him for both and keep working on it. In this, I pray encouragement to you. I am trying to be a faithful steward and brother. After 50 years, my theology is broader, but even less nailed down, only in the sense that I don't want 'Lonology.' Not in light of God's continued work on me as His creation. I would have been among you with a label and everything ready to go, but in order to even discuss legitimately with such a plethora of systems on TOL, I've had to let each enter my thoughts empathetically. Granted one may be frustrated when I'm resistant. On point: If I ever became Open Theist, 1) it'd be ten years before I think you'd know. 2) I'd yet be studying to insure that it fit all of scripture and that means years of devotion in my textual reading. I have a good working theology, and would think it evident what informs it in discussion. There are deep influences of Dispensationalism and Covenant in my formal education but I'm often called Mid Acts. Wishy washy? No. I am more comfortable with 'not knowing everything.' It keeps me, I think, in the right place. For what it is worth. -Lon
 
Top