modernism and God
tdavis@mcis.messiah.edu
Fri, 28 Feb 97 09:19:00 -0500I appreciate very much George Murphy's response
to my post about "obscurantism" and his definition
of panentheism, which I find helpful (and clearer
than some other statements I have seen). George
states that Psalm 139 is hard to understand without
"some responsible concept of panentheism." Given
his definition, and his statement that there are
resemblances to the traditional notion of God's
omnipresence, I can accept that, for my own view
is that Psalm 139 cries out for the doctrine of
divine immanence, or omnipresence (I know they
may not be identical, but they also have quite a
bit of similarity). In other words, classical
theology has all the tools it needs to understand
Psalm 139; that passage (for me, at least) raises
no special questions that the traditional notions
of immanence/omnipresence don't already answer.
My next question for George: What does panentheism
(defined as he has defined it) add that wasn't already
there in classical theology? Process versions of
the notion, if I understand them correctly, add quite
a few things that I don't accept. But non-process
versions are what I inquire about here.
It might be the case that my objections to panentheism,
which are strong, are only to the part of panentheism
that I have encountered in process theologians. I'd
like to test this hypothesis.
In another post, I'll offer a critique of liberal
Protestant theology of nature that does not make
reference to panentheism.