Immensity and Omnipresence vs. Pantheism and Panantheism

Since the Bible teaches that God is omnipresent, are we to then take a pantheistic view of God, or a panantheistic view of God?

To frame this post, let’s start with some definitions. In his book Systematic Theology, Louis Berkhof defines immensity as follows: "That perfection of the Divine Being by which He transcends all spatial limitations and yet is present in every point of space with His whole Being. It has a negative and a positive side, denying all limitations of space to the Divine Being, and asserting that God is above space and fills every part of it with His whole Being. The last words are added in order to ward off the idea that God is diffused through space, so that one part of His Being is present in one place, and another part some other place." [p.60-61].

He goes on to say that omnipresence and immensity can be regarded as synonyms, but that whereas immensity emphasizes God's transcendence, omnipresence emphasizes His immanence ("denotes that He nevertheless fills every part of space with His entire Being" [p.61]).

Pantheism denies the transcendence of God, saying that the essence of the universe is the very being of God [p.61]. Panantheism is defined at wiki.answers.com as follows:

It is the belief that God's physical body is the universe and everything in it,
and that God also transcends this universe. Existence is a part of God, but God
is larger than existence. It is similar but different to pantheism, which says
that the universe IS God in totality. It is also a belief in a genderless God,
and God as the creator.

Now for the analysis. Though there are some common elements, God’s immanence/omnipresence should not be confused with pantheism or panantheism. Immensity and omnipresence hold that God is both transcendent and present in creation at every point with His whole Being. Pantheism holds that all of creation is all of God, and thus God is “spread out” throughout the universe as matter is spread out. Pantheism says that there is no more to God than the universe, so He does not transcend the universe. Omnipresence does not conflict with the transcendence of God; that is, omnipresence holds that God is not bound by space and time. Solomon, after building the temple of the LORD, said the following in 1 King 8:27:

"But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven
cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built!”

Pantheism is thus forced to say that God is always becoming, always changing as the creation takes on chang. However, in the Bible, God reveals Himself as never changing (Exodus 3:14; Hebrews 1:11,12; James 1:17).

So, what about panantheism? Those who believe in panantheism will at least have the transcendent attribute of God. However, they throw in the belief that the universe is God’s body. This cannot be reconciled with the Bible, for it clearly states in the second commandment that the Israelites were not to make any carved images of Him. If the image they made was (part of) Him, there would be no reason for God to make such a demand. Similarly, God would not have opposed those who “exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles” (Romans 1:23).

This is not to mention the fact that the Bible never speaks of God having the universe as His body. The Bible is the supreme revelation God has given us about Himself. Yes, the creation does tell us something of God, of His invisible attributes (eternal power and divine nature) can be seen in what has been created, but the problem is that we cannot rightly understand what it is telling us because of the sin nature in us. So, this means that we are utterly reliant upon the revelation God gives us of Himself in the Scripture. So, since the Scripture never says anything about God having the universe as His body, such a view has no authoritative basis.

Quotes from "God is the Gospel" by John Piper - Part 3

At a time when I was asking what the relationship was between the gospel (the central message of the Bible) and the other doctrines I also love, I read this:

"Gospel doctrine matters becasue the good news is so full and rich and wonderful that it must be opened like a treasure chest and all its treasures brought out for the enjoyment of the world. Doctrine is the description of these treasures.

... The gospel is not mainly about being explained. Explanation is necessary, but it is not primary.A love letter must be intelligible, but grammar nad logic are not the point. Love is the point. The gospel is good news. Doctrine serves that. It serves the one whose feet are bruised (and beautiful!) from walking to the unreached places with news: "Come, listen to the news of God! Listen to what God has done! Listen! Understand! Bow! Believe!"

- John Piper, God is the Gospel, Crossway, 2005; p.22

In the chapter titled "The Gospel - Proclamation and Explanation"

So, this explanation helps to reinforce a proper understanding of how we are to rightly interpret the Scripture. It is all about explaining the gospel. That is the true beauty of a teaching of the Scripture - it's explanation of the main message of the Bible. For instance, the beauty of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit is seen when that doctrine shows how the Holy Spirit and His gifts serve the make the gospel seen by God's children in conversion, sanctification, and glorification. The true beauty of our ecclesiology is seen when the church is the redeemed bride of Christ - redeemed by his blood, by the GOSPEL. The gospel truly does make every doctrine beautiful. But if we go off on tangents with our doctrine, removing the centrality of the gospel it is meant to explain, we cause that doctrine to lose its life-giving source.