Theists Misrepresenting Panentheism—Another Reply to Benedikt Paul Göcke

Abstract

Theologian Benedikt Paul Gocke claimed that ‘as long as we do not have a sound argument entailing the necessity of the world, panentheism is not an attractive alternative to classical theism’ (Benedikt Paul Gocke, 'Panentheism and Classical Theism', Sophia 52, no. 1 (2013):75). As much of my research considers the alternatives to classical theism, I published a damning reply essay (Raphael Lataster, 'The Attractiveness of Panentheism—a Reply to Benedikt Paul Gocke', Sophia 53, no. 3 (2014): 389–395). I comprehensively noted the many problems with his notion of ‘panentheism’, finding that it differed greatly from mainstream and earlier Eastern and Western interpretations, had little to do with the etymology of the term and differed only from his concept of theism in that the world is necessary instead of contingent. It is the latter point that led to Gocke’s ‘unattractive’ conclusion, though he had not demonstrated whether the world is contingent or necessary. Gocke responded to my essay (Benedikt Paul Gocke, 'Reply to Raphael Latester', Sophia 53, no.3 (2014): 397–400), and this is my further response, which explains that—and why—my criticisms still stand.