Статті в журналах з теми "Doctrine of panentheism"

In this paper I offer an argument against one important version of panentheism, that is, mereological panentheism. Although panentheism has proven difficult to define, I provide a working definition of the view, and proceed to argue that given this way of thinking about the doctrine, mereological accounts of panentheism have serious theological drawbacks. I then explore some of these theological drawbacks. In a concluding section I give some reasons for thinking that the classical theistic alternative to panentheism is preferable, all things considered.

Abstract This paper attempts to reinterpret the idea of minjung messiah, a major doctrine of Korean minjung theology, in order to reveal its nondualistic understanding of Christian eschatology, by using process non-substantialist metaphysics. In a dialogue with process panentheism, minjung theology gets philosophical languages to articulate its organic ideas of the relationships between historical liberation and eschatological salvation, minjung’s self-transcendence and divine providence, and history and the Kingdom of God.

AbstractIn the recent literature there have been several accounts of Jonathan Edwards's doctrine of God (Theology Proper). In this paper, I offer a rather different interpretation of Edwards, showing that his understanding of the divine nature is much more in keeping with the Reformed scholastic tradition in which he was educated, despite the fact that he ends up embracing a version of panentheism.

A critical and mutually enriching conversation may be facilitated between Jürgen Moltmann's eschatology and some of the concerns of contemporary theologians of mission. In the service of greater theological clarity, the following essay suggests four distinct lines of inquiry: how Moltmann's understanding of an “eschatologically open future” challenges the modern doctrine of cause and effect; the importance of a Trinitarian depiction of God as a sending God; Moltmann's proposal for a robust, Christian theology of history; and the scope of God's salvation, particularly as it is related to Moltmann's complicated and creative panentheism.

In this article, I explore the significance of the protological and eschatological dimensions of the Trinity, critiquing and building upon the Trinitarian doctrines of Karl Barth and Robert Jenson. The traditional doctrine of the Trinity tends to separate the Triune God’s saving economy, which Barth attempts to reconcile via reclaiming their inseparability in his Church Dogmatics. However, Jenson critiques Barth for continuing to abstract the eternal life of God from God’s act in history and instead proposes an eschatological view of the immanent Trinity as the temporal fulfillment of God’s economic actions. By placing Barth and Jenson in mutual dialogue, I argue for a balanced integration of Barth’s and Jenson’s perspectives, asserting that both the primordial existence and the eschatological fulfillment of the Trinity are critical to understanding the Triune God as the Creator and Redeemer. At the end of the article, I propose a soteriological panentheism that aims to reconcile these dimensions. This scheme highlights the continuous, dynamic interaction between God’s eternal nature and temporal creation.

A knowledge argument is offered that presents unique difficulties for Christians who wish to assert that God is essentially omniscient. The difficulties arise from the doctrine of the incarnation. Assuming that God the Son did not necessarily have to become incarnate, then God cannot necessarily have knowledge de se of the content of a non-divine mind. If this is right, then God’s epistemic powers are not fixed across possible worlds and God is not essentially omniscient. Some options for Christian theists are discussed, including rejecting traditional theism in favour of some version of pantheism or panentheism.

AbstractSince Augustine, western medieval thinkers have largely identified ‘simplicity’ as the most fundamental feature of the divine nature. Although the western tradition of thinking about God has often been regarded as relatively continuous, I will demonstrate in this paper that a separate line of thought developed amongst early thirteenth-century Franciscan thinkers. This new tradition stressed God's immensity or infinity. In doing so, I will argue, it instigated a fundamental shift in the way of conceiving the nature of God that holds profound promise for reconciling factions in systematic theology today, particularly between classical theists and panentheists.

The precise understanding of “classical theism” varies somewhat within analytic philosophy of religion. Sometimes it is understood as something like a synonym for generic Christian theism (in contrast to deism or pantheism or the theisms of other world religions). Alternatively, the label is often understood by reference to a specific understanding of the doctrine of divine simplicity (namely that promulgated by such figures as Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas) and the larger conception of God which flows from it. The latter usage of the label is quite common within the recent literature, such that classical theism in this sense is viewed as competing with other prominent ways of conceptualizing Christian theism, notably panentheism, theistic personalism, and open theism. Where does the Palamite understanding of God (normative within Eastern Orthodox theology) fall within a contemporary taxonomy of Christian theisms? I seek to answer this question. By way of a literature review consulting representative contemporary sources on the various alternative theisms plus Palamism, I clarify the distinctive commitments of each position and draw out their assorted conceptual relationships and interconnections. I then go on to suggest that Palamism is uniquely well-situated to function as a bridge-builder and corrective force within the current literature, capable of dialoguing productively with the aforementioned range of Christian theisms.

This article outlines the key features of the Christian understanding of divine providence in comparison with the philosophical trends of Antiquity from the 1st to the 3rd centuries (before Neoplatonism). The author identifies three paradigms of understanding divine providence in the ancient pagan philosophy of this period (atheistic, pantheistic and deistic) and in this context defines the Christian paradigm as “dialogical panentheism”. According to the author, Christianity at its core offers a worldview, which is uncharacteristic for paganism: the cosmos is focused on the implementation of a dialogue between man and God and the achievement of existential intimacy between the Creator and creation. It is also noted that Christianity, in contrast to ancient thought, placed an emphasis on the fact that the fundamental property of the higher Deity is His openness in relation to the Other, and not just self-contemplating or self-contained calmness. This, in turn, determines two other aspects in the Christian doctrine of providence: the all-pervading participation of God in the life of the world and His concern for the individual and those who are flawed. The author also says that the Orthodox understanding of providence is a harmonious middle between the extremes of pantheism and deism.

AbstractJonathan Edwards had some strange ideas. He was an idealist like Berkeley. He denied that the world persists through time, claiming that it is continuously created out of nothing by God moment-by-moment. He also denied creaturely causal action in his doctrine of occasionalism. Moreover, he thought that the world is the necessary output of the essential creativity of the deity, embracing the idea that this is the best possible world. Often these views are not reported in popular accounts of his work, though they are widely known in the scholarly community. But is his position theologically orthodox? This article argues that he is faced with anEdwardsian Dilemma:Either he must admit that his theology proper implies that God is not metaphysically simple, or he must embrace pantheism. Neither horn seems particularly attractive. Of the two, the second seems less appealing than the first. Nevertheless, it looks as if the logic of his position presses in this direction. His idealism and Neoplatonic conception of God's necessary emanation of the world imply panentheism. When coupled with his doctrine of divine simplicity, it looks as if his position could be pressed in a pantheist direction. However, if he opts for the first horn, he must deny the doctrine of divine simplicity, which he endorses in a range of works. If God is simple, then it looks as if all his ideas imply one another and the divine essence. Yet the world is an emanation of divine ideas, which Edwards believes God constantly ‘communicates’. Suppose with Edwards that the world is an ordered series of divine ideas. Then it looks as if they must imply each other and the divine nature as well, given divine simplicity. Clearly this is intolerable, as far as orthodoxy goes. One option is for the Edwardsian to revise divine simplicity, so that God is merely a metaphysical simple like a soul. Then he may have distinct states and properties. However, in addition to this revision one would need to amend Edwards’ occasionalism because it provides an apparently insuperable problem of evil for his metaphysics. Thus, revising the first horn involves more than a little tinkering with the deep structures of Edwards’ thought. However, I argue that this is what the Edwardsian must do if she wants to hold onto a broadly orthodox Edwardsian view on these matters.

The commonality of views of S. Frank and M. Scheler on the question of the relationship between God and the world is based on the fact, that both philosophers relied on the ideas of Platonism and German mysticism. Both philosophers were convinced of the existence of a spiritual identity between Russia and Germany. This affinity is expressed in the reception of the mystical worldview. The article examines the views of Scheler and Frank on the development of Russian and German cultures. The article examines Frank's point of view on the existence in Europe of a single “eternal philosophy” that goes back to Platonism and Eastern Patristics. This philosophy, according to Frank, is the main line of philosophy in Europe and Russia. Frank continues the tradition of Neo-Platonism, medieval German mysticism and mysticism of German classical philosophy (Baader). God, according to Frank, is an incomprehensible fundamental principle of being. The creation of the world is the revelation of the inner life of God. In a later book “The light shineth in darkness” Frank doubts the omnipotence of God, but does not renounce the idea of the existential unity of God and the world. God as Spirit reveals “weakness” in the world. Frank's position is panentheism. Scheler, like Frank, is associated with Neoplatonism and German mysticism (Schelling). Scheler’s world and God are in close connection. God becomes a personal God in the process of creating the world. Like Frank, Scheler comes to the conclusion that the spiritual principle has no power over the vital principle. His position should be characterized as pantheism. Thus, Frank and Scheler act as followers of the mystical doctrine of the direct connection between God and the world. In their worldview, neoplatonic mysticism, German mysticism and Christianity are united into one whole.

A doutrina neotomista tradicional, retomando os argumentos de Tomás de Aquino, pretende demonstrar a existência necessária de Deus como sendo a primeira causa não-causada de toda a série de causas. Puntel retoma este argumento com maior clareza, distinguindo a totalidade do Ser – existente e possível – e, dentro dela, a subtotalidade do ser necessário (Deus) e a subtotalidade dos seres contingentes (mundo). Contra esta posição considera-se a existência de uma única totalidade omniabrangente e universalíssima, que em sí é necessária e que engendra, dentro em si, subtotalidades contingentes. Ao invés de uma totalidade do Ser com duas subtotalidades, das quais uma é Deus, a outra, os seres criados, propõe-se uma única totalidade que é Deus e que engendra, dentro em si, as várias subtotalidades que são os seres contingentes. Ao invés do teísmo tradicional dos neotomistas, o panenteísmo dos místicos neoplatônicos.Abstract: The traditional neo-Thomist doctrine, retaking Thomas Aquinas´ arguments, intends to demonstrate God’s necessary existence as being the first non-caused cause of the whole series of causes. Using this argument, Puntel clearly distinguishes the existing and possible wholeness of being and, within it, the subtotality of the necessary being (God) and the subtotality of contingent beings (the world). Against this standpoint, the existence of a unique, universal and all-encompassing totality, which is in itself necessary and generates within itself contingent subtotalities, will be considered. Instead of a totality of the Being with its two subtotalities, God and the created beings, a unique totality is being proposed, that of God, which generates within itself all the other subtotalities that are the contingent beings. Therefore, instead of the traditional theism of the neo-Thomists, it is the panentheism of neo-Platonist mystics that is being proposed.

What is the purpose of Friesen’s 95 theses and what is the audience he has in mind? The title refers to a major church historical event and suggests that — like in 1517 — we are dealing with a concise statement of a new and radical doctrine that is unfolded in opposition to an established canon. But who is the opponent in this case? What is the established canon that is rejected? And what is new or radical in the summary? Dooyeweerd’s philosophy was definitely new and radical at the time of its conception. It still has an enormous potential for the special sciences. It offers important resources for any (transcendental) critique of ‘immanence’ philosophies. However, on first reading and without knowledge of the context, Friesen does not seem to aim at offering a new or radical interpretation of Dooyeweerd’s philosophy. I read the 95 theses as an attempt to wipe off the dust, to provide the overall picture, doing justice to aspects that (maybe) were neglected or (maybe) were wrongly understood in the reformational tradition. However, the audience he has in mind seems to be one that is already familiar with the basic concepts and the thrust of Dooyeweerdian thinking; not an audience that is opposed to reformational philosophical thinking, but one that might be helped by a succinct summary in order to encourage further study and discussion.

Abstract Given the Corpus Hermeticum’s history of formation, it has prompted the attempt to separate layers or groups of writings within the collection of treatises. This process of division, which was for the most part undertaken on criteria of content (dualism, pantheism, etc.), has been viewed rather negatively by the more recent research, on grounds of method. Given the discovery of numerous doctrinal contents that remain constant across different treatises, increased efforts are being made to reconstruct the Corpus’s moments of unity. The present paper aims, in this spirit, to provide a more precise identification of the overarching forms of theological thought in the Hermetic writings. The reflections that follow aim to make it plausible that the defining form of theological thought in the Corpus Hermeticum can be classified as panentheism. In addition, the distinctive form of this influential theological paradigm in the Hermetic writings will be considered.

FAITH AND EVOLUTION: A Grace Filled Naturalism by Roger Haight. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis Books, 2019. 241 pages. Paperback; $30.00. ISBN: 9781626983410. *Roger Haight is a Jesuit priest, theologian, and former president of the Catholic Theological Society of America. He is the author of numerous books and has taught at Jesuit graduate schools of theology in several locations around the world. In 2004, the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) barred Haight from teaching at the Jesuit Weston School of Theology in response to concerns about his book Jesus Symbol of God (1999). In 2009, the CDF barred him from writing on theology and forbade him to teach anywhere, including at non-Catholic institutions. In 2015, Haight was somewhat reinstated and when Faith and Evolution was published, he was Scholar in Residence at Union Theological Seminary in New York City. He is regarded as a pioneering theologian who insists that theology must be done in dialogue with the postmodern world. His experiences with censorship have led to widespread debate over how to handle controversial ideas within the Roman Catholic church. *The main presupposition of this book is that Christian theology must be developed from the findings of contemporary science in general and from the process of evolution in particular. In chapter one, Haight briefly summarizes five principles about our world that can be drawn from science. These principles include the following: (1) our universe is unimaginably large; (2) everything exists as constantly dynamic motion and change; (3) everything in motion is governed by layers of law and systems conditioned by randomness; (4) life is marked by conflict, predatory violence, suffering, and death; and (5) science is constantly revealing new dimensions of the universe. *Haight seeks to explain how the disciplines of science and theology relate to each other in chapter two. He begins by summarizing the four positions proposed by Ian Barbour which include conflict, independence, intersection (dialogue), and integration. After presenting several differences between scientific knowledge and faith knowledge, he concludes by suggesting that the independence model is the one that best describes the practices of most scientists and theologians. Any integration between the two disciplines can occur only within the mind of a person who is able to see things from different points of view, and entertain them together. *The next two chapters deal with creation theology: chapter three focuses on what we can "know" about God, and chapter four describes how God acts in an evolutionary world. Several theological conceptions of God are summarized in chapter four. These include the following: God is pure act of being (Thomas Aquinas), God is ground of being (Paul Tillich), God is serendipitous creativity (Gordon Kaufman), God is incomprehensible mystery (Karl Rahner), and God is transcendent presence (Thomas O'Meara). This last definition of God is the one that Haight latches on to, and he mainly refers to God as "creative Presence" throughout the rest of the book. While acknowledging that God is personal, he emphasizes that God is not a "big person in the sky," but a mysterious and loving presence within all material reality. He insists that all anthropomorphic language about God needs to be discarded as it not only misrepresents scientific knowledge but also offends religious sensibility. God is the "within" of all that exists which emphasizes God's immanence, but God is also "totally other than" created reality, which allows for God's transcendence. Haight's understanding of God is basically a form of panentheism, a term that he introduces in chapter three and then revisits in later chapters of the book. *Chapter four, entitled "Creation as Grace," attempts to answer the question of how God acts in an evolutionary world. Haight states that "one can preserve all the assertions of tradition without the mystifying notions of a supernatural order or interventions into the natural order by following the path laid out by creation theology" (p. xi). His answer to the question of how God acts in history is to be found in the classic notion of creatio continua, God's ongoing dynamic presence within all finite reality. God does not act as a secondary cause but works as the primary agent present to and sustaining the created world. This concept of God as creative Presence is then compared to the scriptural understanding of God as "Spirit," which Haight concedes is the most applicable way of talking about how God works in history. A third way that God acts in the world is then developed from a brief history of the theology of grace. These three sets of theological languages that include God's ongoing creation, the working of the Holy Spirit, and the operation of God's grace in people's lives are, according to Haight, different ways of referring to the same entity. *Chapter five examines the doctrine of original sin in light of evolution. Haight argues that this doctrine in its classic form contains serious problems and therefore needs to be discarded. The Genesis account of Adam and Eve is nothing more than an etiological myth which has no historical basis. Consequently, "when original sin becomes unsteady, the whole doctrine of salvation in terms of redemption begins to wobble" (p. 121). Human beings have not "fallen" and, even though they retain the influences of past stages of evolution, they cannot be born sinful. While Haight admits that humans are sinners, the sins that we commit are nothing more than social sins derived from our participation in sinful institutions that are a part of our evolutionary heritage. It is these sinful social structures that are primarily responsible for corrupting our moral sensibility, rather than some innate propensity to sin. *The person of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of Christology are the subjects of chapters six and seven respectively. Haight introduces chapter six by contrasting the different ways of interpreting Jesus of Nazareth that are presented by Marcus Borg and N. T. Wright. He obviously sides with Borg's perspective as he suggests that one should think about Jesus as simply a "parable of God." Jesus was not an intervention of God in history, but a human representative of God who was "sustained from within by the Presence of the creator God in a way analogous to all creatures and especially human beings" (p. 202). While Haight admits that God was present within Jesus in a unique and more intense way, this same God can also be more powerfully present in others, making them in some measure true revelations of the divine Presence. Jesus provides salvation by "revealing God" and, although this particular revelation of God is meant for all humankind, it does not exclude the likelihood of similar kinds of revelation within other religious traditions. *The last chapter of the book, chapter eight, is a response to the question of what we can hope for in an evolutionary worldview. Haight discusses the following possibilities: faith in a creator-finisher God who injects purpose into the process of the universe, hope for a cosmic preservation of the value and integrity of being, hope for a restoration of meaning relative to innocent suffering, and hope for the preservation of the human person and personal resurrection. He describes resurrection as a passing out of materiality into the sphere of God that transcends the finite world, or in other words, eternal union with God. The resurrection of Jesus was not a historical event, but a spiritual conviction developed by his followers after his death. It was this "Easter experience" which became the basis for the written witness to the resurrection of Jesus that is recorded in the New Testament. In death, Jesus was "received into God's power of life; he did not cease to exist as a person, but lives within the sphere of God" (p. 179). Our hope for an analogous form of personal resurrection ultimately comes down to faith in a creator God who is the "lover and finisher of finite existence." *For whom then is this book written? As stated in the preface to the book, it is not written for scientists, as one will learn very little actual science from its pages. Haight writes that he is mainly addressing Christians who are affected by our present scientific culture and who do not know how to either process their Christian faith in this context or call it into question. However, most of those who fall into this category will likely have difficulty understanding the ideas that are presented in the book without some type of graduate-level training in theology. The book appears to be written primarily for like-minded theologians who are associated with the more liberal wing of the Roman Catholic church. (Many of the footnotes in the book cite publications written by fellow Catholic priests such as Teilhard de Chardin, John Haught, Hans Jung, Karl Rahner, Edward Schillebeeckx, and William Stoeger.) *While Haight's main purpose for writing this book is admirable, it is doubtful that many outside of academia will take the time and put in the effort that is needed to read it and actually understand it. Christians with more conservative, biblically based faith commitments should probably bypass it altogether, as there is very little, if any, orthodox Christianity that is upheld within its pages. *Reviewed by J. David Holland, Clinical Instructor, Department of Biology, University of Illinois at Springfield, Springfield, IL 62703.

Karl Christian Friedrich Krause (1781-1832) and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) are two representatives of German Idealism, both of whom developed impressing category systems. At the core of both systems is the question of the relation of the Absolute to its determinations and the determinations of finite beings. Both idealists try to deduce their respective category systems from the immediacy of the Absolute. Both use combinatorial methods to get from known to new categories or constellations in the system, which then unfold in the world (in creation, in world history etc.). Krause is thereby considered the eponym of so-called panentheism, the doctrine that “Everything is in God.” Hegel is also often referred to as a panentheist. Through a (necessarily superficial) comparison of the two systems of categories, in this essay the thesis will be advocated that Hegel was in no sense a panentheist. Krause is and remains the gold standard of panentheism.

The German philosopher K.C.F. Krause (1781–1832) found deep conceptual parallels between his panentheistic system and the Indian philosophy of Vedānta. This article critically examines Krause’s understanding of Vedānta and popular Hindu religion. I argue that while Krause was correct in viewing the mystical panentheistic doctrine of Vedānta as a precursor to his own philosophy, he was also frequently misled by unreliable translations and secondary texts. Krause, I suggest, was mistaken in characterizing the Hindu practice of image worship as “polytheism” and “idolatry,” and I contend, from a Vedāntic standpoint, that Krause’s denial of the divinity of Jesus is inconsistent with his own panentheistic metaphysics.

AbstractThe term “panentheism” (literally, everything in God) mediates between pantheism of the sort espoused by Spinoza and classical theism (God as transcendent Creator of the world). In this essay, in dialogue with the contemporary Danish theologian Niels Henrik Gregersen I review various historical positions re panentheism before concluding with a summary statement of my own understanding of the God-world relationship. The ancient Greek Orthodox tradition, for example, can be retrieved to set forth what might be called soteriological panentheism whereby the communitarian life of the three divine persons of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is freely offered to all creatures at the end of the world. The German Idealists Krause, Hegel and Schelling focused instead on the progressive self-manifestation of God in the world of creation in and through a dialectical process governed by Divine Mind or Will. In the mid-20th century Charles Hartshorne, the disciple of Alfred North Whitehead, presented what he called dipolar panentheism: God as the “soul” of the world and the world as the “body of God.” The Jesuit paleontologist Pierre Teilhard de Chardin located the goal of cosmic evolution in the Pauline vision of the Cosmic Christ who thereby “personalizes” the whole of creation. Most current understandings of panentheism are derived from one or another of these earlier efforts at understanding how the world can be both in God and yet distinct from God. I myself use the notion of hierarchically ordered systems employed in the life-sciences to make clear how the higher-order system proper to the communitarian life of the three divine persons both conditions and is conditioned by the lower-order systems proper to the world of creation.

Die keuse van die onderwerp vir hierdie artikel moet teen ‘n bepaalde agtergrond gesien word. In die eerste plek het dit om die plek en taak van die dogmatiek, waarin die Godsleer en die Skrifleer ‘n besondere plek inneem, gegaan. Dogmatiek is immers die wetenskaplike sisteem van die kennis van God, en God openbaar Hom in besonder deur die Skrif. In die tweede plek het dit oor die aktualiteit van die onderwerp gegaan. Daar word vandag toenemend gepleit vir ‘n nuwe Godsbeeld, wat God se verhouding tot die wêreld betref. Die begrip wat gebruik word is panenteïsme. Wat die Skrifleer betref, is die vraag na die gesag van die Skrif voortdurend aan die orde. Wat die begrip panenteïsme betref (God in alles en alles in God), in onderskeid van die begrippe deïsme, panteïsme en teïsme, is vanuit die Skrif bevind dat daar geen ineenvloeiing van God en die geskape werklikheid is, soos die voorstanders van panenteïsme (o.a. die Nuwe Hervorming en Julian Müller in Suid-Afrika) bepleit het nie. Wat die Skrifleer betref, het die debat weereens, soos in die 16de eeu, saamgetrek in die vraag of die Bybel die Woord van God is of die ervaring van mense. Die skrywer se eie standpunt het saamgetrek in volledige instemming met die Gereformeerde belydenis soos verwoord in Nederlandse Geloofsbelydenis, Artikel 2–7. Die voorstanders van ‘n nuwe Godsbeeld (panenteïsme) het egter in hulle Skrifleer radikaal van die Reformatoriese tradisie afgewyk. Die fokus en uitdaging vir die Gereformeerde dogmatiek lê in die onverswakte handhawing van die Goddelike gesag van die Woord. In sy Woord openbaar God Homself as die transendente en immanente God (teïsme). Hierdie waarheid het onder andere besondere implikasies vir die leer van die voorsienigheid. Wanneer die dogmatiek, in samewerking met ander relevante teologiese dissiplines en die wetenskap van die wysbegeerte en literatuurwetenskap sy taak verrig, eindig ware teologie in doksologie.Doctrine on God and doctrine on Scripture: Focus and challenge. The choice of the title for this article must be seen against a specific background. In the first place it had to do with the place and task of dogmatics, in which the doctrine on God and the doctrine on Scripture are most important. Dogmatics can be defined as the scientific system of the knowledge of God and God reveals Himself in particular in Scripture. Secondly, it had to do with the actuality of the topic. In the current debate there is an emphasis on a new view of God as far as his relationship with creation is concerned. The term used is panentheism. And as far as the doctrine on Scripture is concerned, the question of the authority of Scripture is always on the agenda. As far as the term panentheism (all in God and God in all) is concerned, distinguished from deism, pantheism and theism, it was concluded that in Scripture we do not find any identity or fusion between God and creation, as the advocates for panentheism (the New Reformers and Julian Müller inter alia in South Africa) plead. As far as the doctrine of Scripture is concerned, the focus is on the question whether the Bible is the Word of God or the experience of man. The author of this article found himself in full agreement with the Reformed confession as formulated in the Belgic Confession, Articles 2–7. On the other hand, the advocates for a new view about God (panentheism) deviate radically from the Reformed tradition. The focus and challenge for Reformed dogmatics lie in the maintaining of the Divine authority of Scripture. In his Word, God reveals Himself as both the transcendent and immanent God (theism). This truth has specific implications for the doctrine on providence inter alia. When Reformed dogmatics is practised in cooperation with other theological disciplines, philosophy, literature studies, et cetera, theology in the end becomes doxology.

The major concern in Islamic Philosophy, especially in the metaphysics is the reality of Being,that specifically studies about being itself. One of its purposes is to proof the existence of the Absolute Being, i.e., God. Regarding the proof for the existence of Absolute Being, arguments derived from pre-Islamic era were the argument about the first mover, which is not much valued. Much more powerful arguments have been advanced by the Muslim philosophers about these important issues. This doctrine which is widely known since the time of ibn ‘Arabi, basically is a view that states there is only one existence in this universe, i.e., God. Other beings, the world, and all other phenomenal existences do not really exist. That is, all of them do not separate from God. However, most people misunderstand this unity of Being (wahdat al-wujud) as pantheism, panentheism. The view (unity of being) does not equate everything (viewed as) other God with God, nor stating them are identical with God. Related to the unity of Being, other Muslim philosopher, Mulla Sadra conceives it in relation tothe multiplicity of existence as the rays of the sun in relation to the sun, which the rays of the sun are not the sun and at the same time are nothing but the sun. According to Sadra that existences are equal and the same for all objects, both concrete and abstract. However, the existence of God is pure, while the other has been added with the quiddity. This can be understood because, according to Sadra, the more perfect existence, the less essence would be shown. Here then comes the second principle, the gradation of being, which being not only one but is a hierarchy from the highest to the lowest level. The principle of the doctrine of unity is nothing but to proof that God is the Absolute Being, while the gradation of being is not other but as the principle of identity and difference among the beings.

Although the Heidelberg Catechism (HC) does not deal with a systematic doctrine on God and although there are not many sources available on the specific subject, it is a most important subject when dealing with the theology of the HC (W. van ’t Spijker). Due to the prescribed length of the article, it only focuses on two aspects of the doctrine on God, namely the Trinity and the relationship between God and the cosmos (reality). Futhermore, today there is an emphasis on a new concept of God, known as Panentheism. In this concept, God and his creation are identified with each other. In the South African context, the article deals very shortly with the viewpoints of Spangenberg, Van Aarde and Müller in this regard. The God confessed in the HC is the triune God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the closest and most logical coherence with this, the HC confesses the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. The HC also proceeds from the premise of the historical, bodily resurrection of Christ from the dead. As far as the relationship between God and creation is concerned, the HC, in agreement with the church of the first centuries, confesses and teaches a personal God, the Father of Jesus Christ, who for the sake of Christ is the Father of the elect. This God is the almighty creator of heaven and earth. He lives in a covenant relationship with his creation, which he sustains and governs at every moment. He is both transcendent and immanent.Alhoewel die Heidelbergse Kategismus (HK) nie ’n sistematiese Godsleer bevat soos sommige van die ander belydenisskrifte nie en bronne oor die spesifieke onderwerp betreklik skaars is, is dit tog een van die belangrikste onderwerpe wanneer daar oor die teologie van die HK gehandel word (W. van ’t Spijker). Vanweë die voorgeskrewe lengte, word daar in hierdie artikel slegs op twee aspekte van die Godsleer gefokus, naamlik die Drie-eenheid en die verhouding van God tot die kosmos (werklikheid). Hierdie twee aspekte is juis besonder relevant in die lig van standpunte wat die leer van die Drie-eenheid in gedrang bring deur onder andere die Godheid van Christus en sy liggaamlike opstanding te bevraagteken. Verder word daar vandag gepleit vir ’n nuwe Godsbegrip, bekend as Panenteïsme, waardeur die grens tussen God en sy skepping vervaag. In die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks word hier kortliks aandag aan die standpunte van van Spangenberg, Van Aarde en Müller gegee. Die God wat in die HK bely word, is die drie-enige God: Vader, Seun en Heilige Gees. In die nouste en logiese samehang hiermee bely die HK die Godheid van Christus en van die Heilige Gees. Wat die verhouding tussen God en die skepping betref, bely en leer die HK, in ooreenstemming met die kerk van die eerste eeue, ’n persoonlike God − die Vader van Jesus Christus wat ter wille van Christus die Vader is van die uitverkorenes. Hierdie God is die almagtige Skepper van hemel en aarde. Hy leef in ’n verbondsverhouding met sy skepping wat Hy elke oomblik onderhou en regeer. Hy is tegelyk transendent en immanent.

AbstractThere are various permutations of theism: henotheism, pantheism, panentheism, a/theism, and nontheistic divinity. There is debate whether the idea of OmniGod was ever achieved in India. R. C. Zaehner argued that an evolutionary transition from pratenaturalism of the Vedas to Upaniṣad’s monism, culminated in monotheism with Purāṇas and the Bhagavad Gītā. I argue differently, beginning with ancient ritualistic polytheism, followed by unifying One Brahman, toward monistic panentheism and later non-dualism of advaita Vedānta. Under the influence of Asaṅga, Buddhism elevated the Buddha as the Great Divine Replacement. As a response or reaction, Brāhmaṇism forged Īśvara as God with the World as his Body. By 13th century, theistic dualism separated Īśvara from his creatio. Even Nyāya rational philosophy was persuaded by monotheism as demonstrated in their teleo-cosmological argument for the existence of Īśvara. I attribute all this to sectarian and doctrinal shifts rather than to any evolutionary teleology and/or predestined historicist movement.