Daar word op die oomblik in die kerk meer gepraat oor self-ontplooiing as oor self-opoffering.-Anon.......As ‘n kerk haar woorde begin devalueer, dan word die kerk ‘n ramp vir die volk. - K Schilder

7/24/2009

Pan-enteisme

--Pan-enteisme is skynbaar die "nuwe insig" waartoe sekere hedendaagse toeloë gekom het, maar wat is dit? Vertel my asb.

10 comments:

Liza said...

Pan-en-teïsme
Die panenteïsme is ‘n oorkoepelende begrip wat die teïsme (God as die magtige heerser wat uit die hoogte op ons neersien) en die panteïsme (alles om ons heen is goddelik) verbind. God omvat die kosmos en hy deurdring en besiel die kosmos. Hy is tegelyk transendent en immanent. In die teïstiese denke word God te veel apart van die wêreld geplaas en in die panteïsme val God en wêreld weer saam.

“Pan-en-theïsme is een synthese van theïsme en pantheïsme: God heeft een eigen identiteit, waarmee hij onze wereld overstijgt én doortrékt of misschien kan men beter zeggen: begeleidt” (171). Die vryheid van die sisteme is ingebou in die wyse waarop die goddelike energie ruimte skenk aan die eie ontwikkeling van die verskillende lae in ons werklikheid.

Die saamdink van die primordiale natuur van God en sy konsekwente natuur, is die essensie van die panenteïsme. God is nie alleen ‘n oorkoepelende, grandiose teenwoordigheid nie, maar die Een wat homself gee vir die vernuwing en redding van die wêreld via mense.


Sjoe...wat'n Baälse-verwarring van teïsmes.

Hier is die skakel na die res van die artikel op die Teo-webwerf:
http://www.teo.co.za/wmprint.php?ArtID=639

Henrietta said...

Ja baie beslis "New Age". En dit lyk en klink tog so mooi, soos die duiwel wat homself soos 'n engel van die lig vermom... as ek reg onthou, is dit juis een van die geliefkoosde onderwerpe van een van Tukkies se teologiese professors?

Liza said...

Yf hoe meer ek oor die onderwerp van panenteïsme lees hoe meer wil dit voorkom asof die nuwe-liberale kult kerk die Emergent Church hierdie eeu-oue filosofie weer opgediep en afgestof het om die Bybelse konsep van God subtiel af te kraak en te verdraai om by hulle lasterlike doktrine in te pas.
Lees ook wat skryf Ken Silva predikant en lektor van Apprising Ministries oor die "Wordende Kerk" se panenteïtiese aanslag:
[...]Now There’s No Real Need For A New Birth As We’re Already Part Of God
As this antichrist doctrine is taken to its logical conclusion, there is now no actual need for the Biblical doctrine of regeneration; in this warped and toxic view, if all creation is already a part of God then at best Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross simply reconciled the Global Family and its body—the cosmos itself—back to God. For this would have to be the interpretation forced upon *verse 6 of our opening text by the panentheistic world view — one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
But this text is only speaking to those believers who have been born again by the will of the Father through acceptance of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ and now are indwelt by God the Holy Spirit. In fact, if we have one verse alone from the Bible that destroys this whole panentheistic New Light argument it would be Romans 8:9 — You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ.
We see here that this is a conditional statement, if the Spirit of God lives in you. Simple logic tells you that the possibilty then exists for the truth of the b part of this verse —if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. Therefore one is not in Christ, and if one is not in Christ then God is not in him. No, this New Light Quantum shift to panentheism by Emergent Church theologians is nothing new; it’s not light, and certainly isn’t Christian theology because it simply cannot be supported by the Bible.

So New Age as wat kan kom...

*There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. (Ephesians 4:4-6)

Gideon said...

Jammer ek gooi my stuiwertjie so laat in die beurs. Ek het (nog ) nie die skakel gelees nie, maar die aangehaalde gedeeltes hierbo kan nogal verwarrend wees vir die ou wat nie mooi konsentreer nie.
Net ‘n opmerking of wat:
Die woord is ‘n samestelling van 3 Griekse woorde:
PAN = alles
EN = in (“inside”)
THEO = God.
In Afrikaans spreekwyse sou ons dit (in Griekse woorde) gesê het: “THEO EN PAN”. = God (is) in alles – en dit is eintlik wat die term beteken. Panteïsme sê weer “alles (is) god”.
Die konsekwensies daarvan is natuurlik dat God nie meer God is nie, maar dat Hy in alles is. Hy is dan nie meer die Almagtige, Alwetende, Barmhartige, Genadige ens. nie. Hy is nie meer Gees, Waarheid, Liefde, Lig en Lewe nie. Hy is sommer net in alles rondom ons.

Groetnis vir eers.
Gideon.

Yf said...

Maandag more, Vriende. Lanklaas sulke sinvolle bydraes gesien. Dankie aan almal.
Jy's reg Henriëtta dis een van die geliefde onderwerpe van die professor van Praktiese Teologie by die Fakulteit Teologie by Tukkies. (Ek sê al lankal die NGK moet weer sy eie seminarie kry - dan sal dinge dalk beter gaan.)

As jy reg sal onthou lewer Adrio ook kommentaar hierop in sy boek "Die evangelie op die spel. "

Liza, dankie vir die sinvolle inligting wat jy opgediep het. Soos jy sê 'n babelse, New Age verwarring, veral as mens bietjie dink.

Vriend Gideon, ek is nog later as jy - maar hier is my bydrae. Soos ek dit verstaan sien hulle Skepper wat buite die skepping staan as 'n ongewensde dualisme. (Ons weet dat die Grieke, veral Plato ook lief was om in terme van dualismes te dink - maar in hierdie geval dink ek so 'n dualistiese siening is Bybels korrek) Hulle soek dus na 'n "enkel-isme" as daar so 'n woord is. Hulle besef dat panteïsme 'n te verre afwyking van die christelike leer sal wees en "settle" dus vir pan-enteïsme. Hulle verwerp "alles is God" maar sê "Alles is in God," die skepping is dus die Skepper se liggaam. So kan daar geen dualisme meer wees nie. Die skeppin is die Skepper se liggaam? Het die Skepper dan Sy eie liggaam geskep? En met respek gesê, almal erken die skepping is onvolmaak - waarom het die Skepper dan 'n onvolmaakte liggaam vir Homself geskep? Of as mens die sondeval erken hoe kon 'n volmaakte liggaam dan in onvolmaaktheid verval het?

Ek moet sê hulle formuleer hulle stellings so goed en dit klink so amper reg dat mens die "ou klein verskilletjies" met ons leer maar wou oorsien, maar dis groot verskille. So subtiel is die aardsvyand, die sielerower. En dit sal seker nog meer subtiel raak in die toekoms. Ons geslag is nog goed onderlê in die belydenisskrifte maar ek is bekommerd oor vandag se kinders wat nie meer die goed geleer word nie.

Ek sou pro-panenteïste uitnooi om met ons in gesprek te tree indien hulle voel ons doen hulle of hulle leer 'n onreg aan.

In vrede

Henrietta said...

Daar is sekere “verskynsels” op die godsdiensterrein wat in ‘n mate verbandhou met mekaar – dinge soos panenteisme, New Age en postmodernisme. Al hierdie dinge kalwe aan die fondamente van die eeue-oue Christelike waarhede, en gelowiges moet katvoet loop om nie meegesleur te word daardeur nie.

Die vooruitgang op wetenskaplike en tegnologiese gebied het ‘n postmodernistiese siniese gesindheid en skeptisisme ook in die godsdiens ingebring en gevolglik word vrae oor Bybelse waarhede gevra . Waar mense twee dekades gelede gedink het hulle kan tot die kern van die waarheid op elke terrein deurdring, het dit duidelik geword dat selfs die wetenskap en tegnologie nie al die antwoorde het nie.

Hierdie Postmodernisme toon sy invloed in die geloofsgemeenskap verder in die vorm van die sogenaamde “Emerging/Emergent Churches”, in Afrikaans genoem die “ontluikende kerke” wat uitdrukking gee aan die postmoderne mens se soeke na nuwe benaderings en nuwe antwoorde op geloofsvrae.

Verskuiwings en veranderings het plaasgevind: Waar alles konstant was, het veel verander: nuwe Bybelvertalings, kerklike kleredrag, die amp van die vrou. Dinge wat vroeër reg was, is nie meer reg nie, bv. apartheid. Daar is vandag in Suid-Afrika groter vryheid en reg van gelowiges as ‘n aantal jare gelede.

Ander vraagstukke is die aard van (Bybelse) waarheid; openbaringsbeskouing; onfeilbaarheid van die Skrif;die vraag of die Bybel die Woord van God is of bevat dit net sy Woord; uiteenlopende teksbenaderings en eksegetiese metodes.

Die gevolg is dat ‘n wasigheid en mistieke karakter hierdie konsepte omgeef... grense word afgebreek, jy kan nie die eintlik weet wat die waarheid is nie.....

Henrietta said...

‘n Paar opmerkings oor die sg. “emerging/emergent church” : ..... it seeks a post-Christendom approach to being church and mission through: renouncing imperialistic approaches to language and cultural imposition; making 'truth claims' with humility and respect; overcoming the public/private dichotomy; moving church from the center to the margins; moving from a place of privilege in society to one voice amongst many; a transition from control to witness, maintenance to mission and institution to movement.
In the face of criticism, some in the emerging church respond that this it is important to attempt a "both and" approach to redemptive and incarnational theologies. Some evangelicals and fundamentalists are perceived as "overly redemptive" and therefore in danger of condemning people by communicating the Good News in aggressive and angry ways.
A more loving and affirming approach is proposed in the context of post-modernity where distrust may occur in response to power claims. It is suggested that this can form the basis of a constructive engagement with twenty-first century post-industrial western cultures.

Liza said...

Thanx julle. Ek is so 'n bietjie wyser aangaande dié topic en dit laat my dink aan die volgende gesegde wat ek lank terug iewers gelees het - The devil preaches 99 truths to float one lie...

Liza said...

Om aan te sluit by Henrietta se pos, net 'n kort oorsig oor die ontstaan en oogmerke van die sg. 'Ontluikende Kerk' soos saamgestel deur Mike Clawson

"The emerging church started in the mid-nineties with a handful of evangelical pastors and authors who started noticing a shift in our culture and began asking themselves how the church needed to change and adapt to remain relevant to this new culture. Initially the conversation revolved around "generational" differences, in other words, how to reach out to the Gen Xers. But it soon became apparent that the shift was broader than just young people. Our entire culture (for the most part) had transitioned from a Modern to a Postmodern world over the past 40 years or so; so church leaders began asking themselves what church in a postmodern context would look like. Over the next decade three overlapping streams of the conversation gradually emerged:

1. One stream, labeled by Ed Stetzer as "Relevants", have focused on worship styles and ways of "doing church". It was assumed that to reach postmoderns we would have to make church "cool" (e.g. coffee, candles, fine art, hip music, ancient liturgical elements, etc.) However, the point wasn't to be "trendy" so much as it was the missionary impulse to contextualize the gospel and worship to the local culture - in this case, early 21st century postmodern culture [...]
2. Another stream, which Stetzer calls "Reconstructionists" has been more concerned with the structures and methods of church as a whole, not just with what we do in worship. There has been a lot of talk about the problems with big, institutional mega-churches and how they can become all about the show and the systems without encouraging authentic Christian community or spiritual transformation among its members. The reaction to this brand of contemporary Christianity has led many to look for smaller, more intimate expressions of church: house churches, cell churches, incarnational communities among the poor, etc.
3.The third stream, is what Stetzer calls "Revisionists". This stream focuses on theological dialogue that has much overlap with the first two streams (inasmuch as worship styles and church structures are themselves theological issues). There is an openness to diverse viewpoints, and a willingness to question traditional evangelical assumptions, though there is still a deep commitment to the historic Christian faith as expressed in the early ecumenical creeds (e.g. Apostles Creed, Nicene Creed, etc.)"

Liza said...

...en dan gaan die skrywer voort deur te sê wat ek dink die eintlike "crux" van dié kerk is:

"I would say that for me, a key shift in my understanding that has occurred thanks to the emerging church conversation is the recognition that the gospel is a lot bigger than just my own personal salvation (i.e. getting into heaven when I die). The gospel, rather, is about the kingdom of God, which is both a future hope and a present reality, and that "salvation" goes beyond forgiveness of sins to a radical transformation of my whole person as well as the whole world. This kingdom reality is about a way of life, the way of Christ, which we are called to begin following right here, right now as agents of the kingdom, working for justice, compassion, love and joy in the world around us. I have to say that this is a lot different than the gospel of personal salvation from hell, sin management, and dispensational (i.e. "Left Behind") eschatology that I grew up with. For instance, issues of social justice (e.g. care for the poor, fighting economic exploitation, overcoming racism, gender equality, care for the Creation, peacemaking, etc.) are no longer just "liberal" issues, but really are concerns that are central to the gospel message and to Christ's own mission on earth."

Hier is ‘n lys name van hierdie sg. Ontluikende of Wordende Kerk se vernaamste dissipels;
(Scott McKnight, Richard Forster, Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet, Rick Warren, Nelus Niemand, Stephan Joubert, Rob Bell, Thomas Bandy, Bob Buford, Ken Blanchard, Martin Buber, Tony Campolo, Chuck Colson, Mark Driscoll, Peter Drucker, Eddie Gibbs, Tony Jones, Dan Kimball, Thomas Keating, Erwin McManus, Thomas Merton, Donald Miller, Henri Nouwen, Doug Pagitt, Robert Webber……)

(Ek moes die pos opbreek in twee dele - het nie geweet dat Blogger 'n beperking het op die aantal woorde wat geskryf word nie.)