Monotheistic PanENtheism?

[Tumah]

What distinguishes Monotheistic Panentheism from classical monotheism?

I'd probably go with:

1) In mainstream Western culture, monotheism tends to be taken as synonymous with classical monotheism, which places a very strong focus on transcendence with little (if any) belief in divine immanence.

2) Neither pantheism nor panentheism must be monotheistic, as has been noted earlier.

The terms Pan(En) are what make it distinct meaning "all is within" God. I understand monotheism in terms of Abrahamic religions to mean god can be omnipresent, which in a way is saying the opposite that god is within it's creation and distinct. When saying all is within god, god is omnipresent by virtue of being part of its own creation.

I am understanding from these two comments that the difference between classical monotheism and panentheistic monotheism is a question of the relationship between the Creator and the created. Classical monotheism relates to G-d as mostly transcendent. The panentheistic version G-d would be the same, except his relationship to the creation would be one of immanence.

Is this correct and are there any other differences?

 

[Willamena]

I would ask what period's image of "god" defines the classical?

 

[Tumah]

I would ask what period's image of "god" defines the classical?

Haha, how about "colloquially"?

 

[Willamena]

Haha, how about "colloquially"?

As far as I'm concerned, "pantheism" and "panentheism" are terms introduced by philosophy, rather than theism, to address a particular image of god (deity) for discussion. Both images have on one hand a natural world whose context is that it is knowable, and on the other the god that is imagined either to extend no further than the knowable universe, or to extend beyond the boundary of what is knowable. Both are about what is knowable, and hence about consciousness, and they are differentiated by consciousness.

Pantheism arrived at through grasping nonduality holds the beholder of the universe and what is beheld to be the same; hence, nothing is truly unknowable. Where it is understood that the person, the ego, the "I," is nothing greater than the sum of objects it perceives/conceives, the sum of objects and the self are one, and together they are "god." Panentheism acknowledges a unique consciousness that--for lack of a better term--is emergent of what is knowable (universe) and so extends that image, in various ways.

 

[Quintessence]

I feel like I should clarify some additional concepts attached to "classical monotheism" that I didn't mention in that post because it was not relevant at the time. I have a succinct list somewhere, but I don't have easy access to it right now so I'll just note a couple I recall right now that might also be distinct from panentheism:

1) Eternal. The god of classical monotheism is typically presented as eternal. While this may be the case for a panentheistic one-god, there is no agreed-upon creation mythology associated with panentheism in of itself.

2) Benevolence. The god of classical monotheism is also typically presented as all-good. This adds a moralistic dimension to the divine that may or may not be present within panentheism.

 

[nazz]

What distinguishes Monotheistic Panentheism from classical monotheism?

I am understanding from these two comments that the difference between classical monotheism and panentheistic monotheism is a question of the relationship between the Creator and the created. Classical monotheism relates to G-d as mostly transcendent. The panentheistic version G-d would be the same, except his relationship to the creation would be one of immanence.

Is this correct and are there any other differences?

I don't think the divide comes down to the transcendence/immanence issue per se. Rather it is an ontological distinction. The classical monotheistic view is that God is of a wholly different substance than that which God creates whereas the pantheistic/panentheistic view is that the creator and creation are one substance. The distinction between the two latter views is that while pantheism posits the creation is all there is to this God, panentheism sees God as existing also transcendently and distinctly from creation (it should be noted that creation as a distinct act in time is not necessarily a component of the latter view).

Both classical monotheism and panentheism assert a God who is at the same time both immanent and transcendent.

 

[Willamena]

Transcedence isn't a concept that should be applied to the verb "existing." It adds nothing to the ontological picture, by which I mean that if painting a "what is" that transcends "what is" is a painting of "what is," it hasn't really transcended anything at all.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Can a Panentheist theology allow for multiple gods?

 

[nazz]

Can a Panentheist theology allow for multiple gods?

Mine does

 

[Avi1001]

I feel like I should clarify some additional concepts attached to "classical monotheism" that I didn't mention in that post because it was not relevant at the time. I have a succinct list somewhere, but I don't have easy access to it right now so I'll just note a couple I recall right now that might also be distinct from panentheism:

1) Eternal. The god of classical monotheism is typically presented as eternal. While this may be the case for a panentheistic one-god, there is no agreed-upon creation mythology associated with panentheism in of itself.

2) Benevolence. The god of classical monotheism is also typically presented as all-good. This adds a moralistic dimension to the divine that may or may not be present within panentheism.

Hi Q, can you please share with us where you are getting these definitions ? Can you provide any citations, or are they your opinion ?

 

[Quintessence]

Hi Q, can you please share with us where you are getting these definitions ? Can you provide any citations, or are they your opinion ?

It's from a book on polytheistic theology by J.M. Greer that I don't have access to right now. And I strongly suspect he didn't invent the term "classical monotheism" either. When I have time (and get home) I might reference it up and see what else I can find.

 

[Tumah]

Panentheism acknowledges a unique consciousness that--for lack of a better term--is emergent of what is knowable (universe) and so extends that image, in various ways.

What about the other way around, as the knowable emerging from the Unknowable.

 

[Tumah]

I feel like I should clarify some additional concepts attached to "classical monotheism" that I didn't mention in that post because it was not relevant at the time. I have a succinct list somewhere, but I don't have easy access to it right now so I'll just note a couple I recall right now that might also be distinct from panentheism:

1) Eternal. The god of classical monotheism is typically presented as eternal. While this may be the case for a panentheistic one-god, there is no agreed-upon creation mythology associated with panentheism in of itself.

2) Benevolence. The god of classical monotheism is also typically presented as all-good. This adds a moralistic dimension to the divine that may or may not be present within panentheism.

What you are listing is qualities that may not but could be present in panetheism. I would like to know if there are specific qualities that always distinguish them.

 

[Willamena]

What about the other way around, as the knowable emerging from the Unknowable.

I believe the best way to view panentheism is keeping the way we create the world around us and the way "god" created the world in the same context.

Then, at least, we can claim to know what we're talking about (pun intended).

 

[Quintessence]

It's from a book on polytheistic theology by J.M. Greer that I don't have access to right now. And I strongly suspect he didn't invent the term "classical monotheism" either. When I have time (and get home) I might reference it up and see what else I can find.

This page pretty much gets at classical monotheism. Apparently, it often unfortunately gets called classical theism, which is really a misnomer since it's not theism, it's MONOtheism.

I also dug up an older thread I created that quotes a section from Greer's work that discusses the idea.

Basically, it's a way of referring to the typical monotheistic god-concept found in the Abrahamic religions that has been the focus of most Western philosophy of religion since it's inception. To just put an easy reference list of qualities this god-concept tends to have:

• omnipresent
• omnipotent
• omnibenevolent
• transcendent
• ultimate or infinite
• eternal or timeless
• unchanging or unmoving

Pantheistic and panentheistic god-concepts - assuming a monotheistic framework - may or may not have all of the above qualities.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Mine does

How does it work?

The only explanation I can see is multiple universes.

But that also prohibits the definition of universe, as does Panentheism, as far as my little understanding knows at least. Universe is usually synonymous with reality, all existence. How can something transcend reality?

 

[nazz]

How does it work?

The only explanation I can see is multiple universes.

But that also prohibits the definition of universe, as does Panentheism, as far as my little understanding knows at least. Universe is usually synonymous with reality, all existence. How can something transcend reality?

I do believe in a spiritual multiverse. But it's not really location at issue as I understand it. Panentheism posits that God has a separate existence from created reality but also that created reality is made from the same substance as God.