Yes, it’s certainly possible, its not unlikely (for any of us)… 
Yep, but unlike a computer though, this code becomes as* real* as real can be (other than God). The analogy minimizes the “realness” of what God thinks, what God’s “ideas” end up as. His ideas end up as the mountains that can erupt as Mt St Helens or Piniutubo. The seas that can devastate Thailand in a Tsunami.
Yes, I think we do exist within the mind of God. But God thinking it makes it* real*. 
GMac was fond of this, from Novalis: “Our life is no dream, but it should and will perhaps become one.’”
Yep, he quoted that in Phantastes, Lilith and The Portent.
Novalis influenced him profoundly and some day I’ll actually have to read Novalis myself. I may be at the point where I can actually understand him but have failed in the past…. 
Here’s a quick summary of Novalis and his influence on MacDonald:george-macdonald.com/resources/novalis.html
Hello Steve et al
This is a really interesting discussion, thanks for starting it, Steve. But for me, at least, it is fraught with difficulty. I’ll try and explain why, by asking two questions that are perplexing me:
My first fundamental question is whether or not the term panentheism really adds anything to ‘orthodox’ theological thought - by which I mean that I’m really struggling to see what distinguishes panentheism from trinitarianism.
As Dick says in his handy crib list (thanks Prof 
), panentheism is “based in the concept of God the Father as Creator and God the Holy Spirit as Sustainer of Creation (and God the Son as the one who comes to share in nature through becoming human)”.
From Wikipedia, panentheism: “is a belief system which posits that the divine interpenetrates every part of nature and timelessly extends beyond it.” Well, yeah, isn’t this Christianity?
Can somebody who subscribes to panentheism - Geoff? Steve maybe? - explain to me why you find the term useful, or perhaps spell out why you think orthodox trinitarianism and panentheism are not synonymous?
My second big question is to do with creation ex nihilo (and emanationism, I guess). I am a firm believer in creation ex nihilo. By which I mean that, when, in the beginning, God said “let there be light”, nothing material or physical existed until He said the words and spoke the Universe into existence - with Christ, the Logos, as His creative agent. But all this means, for me, is that God didn’t fashion the Universe out of any form of pre-existing matter. It seems like stating the bleeding obvious, as Basil Fawlty was fond of saying, that creation ex nihilo doesn’t negate the idea that God created the existence out of the stuff of his eternal mind - because there was nothing else it could possibly be made out of.
I don’t mean in a literal, physical sense - for mind is not physical. I mean that God thinking the Universe and then saying the Universe are merely different ways of expressing the same thing, ie His creative act in bringing the Universe into being. It’s not like God sat around for a few billion years thinking through all the possibilities of potential worlds, kicking them around in his head, toying with them, until finally settling on one and actuating it. No, God thinks, God speaks; the Universe is; shazaam! These three things happen instantaneously and contemporaneously. Methinks. (Although I have to say, I think we’re at the very limit of what our finite human language can articulate here.)
For me, emanationism is a nothing term, unless it means something completely different from what I have understood it to mean.
So I say a hearty amen to the MacDonald quote you gave, Steve (“I repent me of the ignorance wherein I ever said that God made man out of nothing: there is no nothing out of which to make anything; God is all in all”).
Help fellas please !
Love
Johnny
I’m really, really enjoying this discussion here.
I don’t have much to contribute of my own at the moment, but I wholeheartedly second all of Johnny’s questions. And I, too, love the GMac quote, “I repent me of the ignorance wherein I ever said that God made man out of nothing: there is no nothing out of which to make anything; God is all in all.” Such a beautiful realization!
Although I was previously unaware of the term “panentheism,” having only heard of pantheism and disagreeing with it as a whole. “Panentheism,” on the other hand, sounds strikingly similar to my little “Church of the Flowers,” which I refer to whenever I try to explain why I prefer a blade of grass to a church pew. So I’m excited to keep reading here! Keep up the wonderful thoughts, you guys!
Of course, my “Church of the Flowers” hasn’t existed for these past few months, having been replaced by the “Church of the Snowfall.” The view from my window looks exactly like yours, Steve!
Love to everyone,
Kate
Hi Johnny,
I’m working on wrapping my head around the idea of panentheism and trying understand the implications of this myself. As someone new to the idea and having found it in many of the works of GMac and the Romantic poets, the first thing I see would be the closeness of God. God is not only everywhere, but in everything, including me in some fashion.
The next implication would be recognizing the “spark” of the divine in everyone. Not only are our fellow humans fellow creatures, but they have God within them in some sense.
The last would be seeing God in Nature (as the Romantic poets and GMac did). Nature is not, then, an automatous process or dead stage for human action but a living organism imbued with the divine in some way, and thus , we can learn something of God, His nature and ways, by “reading” the book of Nature. The difficult part, though, is that being creations, Nature and humankind are not the divine themselves, so we can’t simply say a hurricane is reflective of the nature of God–showing his “wrath” for example–or a gorgeous sunset is simply “beauty” or “peace”. It’s not completely straightforward.
I think orthodox trinitarianism can include panentheism but panentheism is not part of some of the traditional “externalist” theologies where God creates a universe outside himself and then “dives in” every now and then to intervene. There are apparently philosophical problems with divine action in such models. The universe in such models is essentially self-sustaining and could “keep on ticking” even without God. We can imagine God or the Spirit surrounding ourselves and Nature, but He’s still outside and not within.
I agree with your definition of creation ex nihilo meaning he did not create the universe out of some stuff “lying around” (in his attic? )or out of “chaos” or what have you. I guess an emanationist would say what He created the universe from was from His own substance in some fashion.(I think?) Is creating from “thought” or “out of God’s heart” emanationism? Is God being* within* creation in some fashion emanationism? I don’t know… 
If so, is that “unorthodox”? I note that “emanationism” is a neo-platonic concept and Robin Parry is (or recently was) editing a book on Christian Platonism. I might have to read it when it comes out.
I’m linking to another article by Philip Clayton that’s worth reading: “Panentheist Internalism: Living within the Presence of the Trinitarian God” It’s very accessible and points out some of the strengths of a pantheist theology, especially in a world where scientific advances and evolution leave less and less of a role for an “external” God. He speaks quite a bit about Moltmann (who of course was a universalist) I do think panentheism is a very strong support for Christian Universalism as well. He also does a nice job discussing panentheism from a trinitarian standpoint. Here’s the link:philipclayton.net/files/papers/PanentheistInternalism.pdf
Edit: Hi Kate!
Glad you’re enjoying the thread! I’m learning a lot myself exploring these ideas. I like you “Church of the Flowers” very much, Kate, and I’m sure Wordsworth and GMac would as well. I happen to like “The Church of the Snowfall” as well…the only problem was with it so cold the last few days (-17 F this morning), we haven’t been taking the dogs out …
The ex nihilo makes sense to me as explored, above - there was no ‘stuff’ for God to mold into shape - He created the stuff. And He did not go looking for some ‘nothing’ - as if ‘nothing’ IS stuff - to make something out of. There was only Him, right? (Geez those are big thoughts to be throwing around, I hope we’re handling them in the right way.)
The difference between theism and panentheism? My take on it is that the difference is in the believer, not in the definition. (We had a short thread on polytheism that is somewhat akin: On "household gods" and polytheism)
Many modern people do not realize why they feel that nature is a machine; how that, for much of human history, nature was ‘peopled’ with gods and godesses, demi-gods, naiads, etc. - the world was ‘enchanted’, every brook had its minor god, the hearth, the bed, the table, everything was watched over and inhabited by spiritual and hopefully benign presences; the world was sacred, not profane. That image has been discarded, and most people now believe that what the ignorant once saw in nature was actually projected from within man himself. In fact, that was the point of the so-called Enlightenment - the proper study of man is man, and all that…
I am one of those who wants to recognize the truth of the re-enchantment of the world, (with God’s presence) so panentheism is a term that resonates emotionally with me, though I will admit that I cannot analyze the exact meaning of it, nor can I seamlessly weave it into my Christian thought. Yet!!
Wonderful thoughts, Dave, both here and on the other thread. I read the Kij Johnson’s short fantasy ‘At the Mouth of the River of Bees’ you linked to and enjoyed it immensely. Interestingly it takes place not far from where I live and I’ve been on that stretch of interstate many times.
These are big thoughts we’re throwing around and just as with the “Open Theism” ideas and discussions of time, I’m not sure we always know or understand what we’re talking about. Even “free-will” is easier in many respects.
I’m with you, brother! Your thoughts bring to mind the ‘Spaulding’s Farm’ passage from Thoreau you posted awhile back which I think was infused with Thoreau’s panentheism. I’ll have to read more of Clayton’s work and perhaps some of Arthur Peacocke’s…
My mind is not up to this in a big way at the moment – and I thank dear Allan for his sincere sympathies, but would just like to say that –
The Prologue to John’s Gospel which echoes the Wisdom texts in the OT seems to give some basis for panentheism (along with some of the Psalms etc). The Word/Logos is in all creation and is in all people also (which is the source of the Christian mystical doctrine of the divine spark).
And i guess there is a difference between pure emantionism which – if a positive doctrine instead of a Gnostic one - would seem to asset that the universe is simply an aspect of God and a more orthodox thought that the creation and indeed all souls exited in the mind of God before creation and therefore bear the divine signature in an intimate way. I think the later idea seems to have been what Gmac was hinting at.
Thanks Dick, that’s very helpful.
For those interested in exploring trinitarian panentheism, here’s another paper I came across. ‘The Promise of Trinitarian Panentheism’ by Christopher Layton.
academia.edu/2034343/The_Promise_of_Trinitarian_Panentheism Here’s the table of contents…
Hi Steve
Just a placeholder to say I’ve noted your reply, thanks. But this is such a challenging subject I need time to have a think about it before getting back to you.
All the best
J
is it a good idea, given McClymond’s crap attempts to link Universalism to Boehme (even if that’s shown to be false in a number of ways) to then start talking about a link between MacDonald (who influenced many current Universalists) and Boehme, even if Boehme wasn’t a Universalist?
Just not sure this is the greatest timing…Boehme could be the flavour of the month as far as attacks on Universalism go
Thank you for pointing us to Nelson’s article on MacDonald and Boehme. I had no idea that MacDonald had rejected the creatio ex nihilo. I confess I am disappointed by his departure from Christian orthodoxy on this point, but given the powerful presence of Deism in 19th century Britain, I suppose that the turn to romanticism seemed the only alternative.
From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, the creatio ex nihilo is a fundamental dogma of the Christian faith, separating the properly Christian understanding of God from all pagan understandings. Without it Christian theology would probably have been absorbed into Neo-Platonism.
It’s been asked whether Orthodoxy is properly described as panentheistic. If panentheism is defined as rejection of the creatio ex nihilo, then the answer is a categorical no. On the other hand, no Christian theological tradition surpasses Orthodoxy in its understanding of the intimate presence of the Holy Trinity throughout creation. As Fr George Dragas has written, God is transcendently immanent and immanently transcendent.
My understanding of Panentheism is that it recognises God’s presence everywhere in His creation. Not that everything is God (pantheism) but that God necessarily permeates everything in the universe.
i don’t know if this includes rejection of ex nihilo or not…personally i think ex nihilo, whether that means from God’s imagination or whatever, is necessary, unless the universe is co-eternal with God, and i find that to be hard to believe.
would MacDonald reject the idea that nothing exists unless it was created by God? he seemed pretty scriptural, so i find that hard to imagine.
Thanks so much for your input Akimel,
I think from our discussion above, that the issue in regards to MacDonald is" what does creation ex nihilo mean?" I think having read MacDonald more closely, he is actually pretty orthodox and is saying that Creation came from God, from the Word, which is Something. I think he’s emphasizing the Fatherhood of God.
i still think this is a bad idea, at least until McClymond is fully discredited
Well, it’s a bit late now…
As the article emphasizes, the direct connection to Boehme is pretty tenuous. MacDonald was definitely influenced by The German and English Romantics who McClymond would not be a fan of either, I’m sure, but I’m not sure McClymond is ready to tar and feather everyone influenced by the Romantics. (Then again maybe he is… ) I’m not sure keeping MacDonald “under wraps” is really necessary and exploring his theology has been helpful to me. Oh, and remind me again why we’re so afraid of McClymond…
Nothing to do with fear, and nothing to do with keeping things under wraps, but it’s perhaps not a good idea to on one hand say MacDonald and other Universalists owe little to nothing to Boehme (which is true, from what i’ve gathered in the other thread), while on a different thread start drawing parallels between them.
McClymond is full of smelly stuff, and is an awful, awful scholar…but average people aren’t going to know that. they’re just going to latch onto his buzz words and his rhetorical way of speaking, and it muddies the waters if on one hand we’re trying to say “no, he’s clearly wrong because of ALL OF THE DATA” and then say “actually, despite what we just said, a highly influential Universalist was in fact influenced by this Boehme character.”
I see what you mean, James, but it might be best to point out that the influences we see in McDonald have nothing to do with Boehme’s wackier aspects but are influences (like panentheism) that, as a proto-panentheism, was taught in many of the early Church Fathers and was actually Anti-Gnostic as well as being a standard doctrine (in one form) in the Eastern Orthodox church.(see the Layton article above)
True, so long as that is explicitly pointed out
it’s pretty clear that Boehme’s oddities were not what influenced universalism, and entirely possible his non-bonkers stuff influenced more Christians than universalists. focusing on that more widely spread influence (if it’s there) would be helpful.