Just as [absolute perfection in some respects, relative perfection in all others] is the whole positive content of perfection, so CW, or the conception of the Creator-and-the-Whole-of-what-he-has-created as constituting one life, the super-whole which in its everlasting essence is uncreated (and does not necessitate just the parts which the whole has) but in its de facto concreteness is created – thispanentheistic doctrine contains all ofdeism andpandeism except their arbitrary negations.
What appeared here, at the center of thePythagorean tradition in philosophy, is another view ofpsyche that seems to owe little or nothing to thepan-vitalism orpan-deism (seetheion) that is the legacy of theMilesians.
1996, Bob Burridge, “God’s Decrees: Certainty and Contingency”, inSurvey Studies in Reformed Theology, Genevan Institute for Reformed Studies[1], published2016, archived fromthe original on12 June 2018:
All the actions of created intelligences are not merely the actions of God. Creatures act freely and responsibly as the proximate causes of their own moral actions. If God was the proximate cause of every act, all things would simply be “God in motion”. That is nothing less than pantheism, or more exactly,pandeism. The Creator is distinct from his creation. The reality of secondary causes is what separates Christian theism frompandeism.
2018, Raphael Lataster, “The Case for A-theism”, inThe Case against Theism: Why the Evidence Disproves God’s Existence (Sophia Studies in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Traditions and Cultures;26), Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing,Springer Nature,→DOI,→ISBN,→ISSN, section 3.5.3 (Case Study: Pandeism vs. Theism),page194:
It could also be argued that the god that no longer requires interaction with the creation is superior to the one that does, so that deistic concepts, includingpandeism, are again preferable. Similarly, concerning experiential arguments, the 'hidden' and possibly 'indifferent' god ofpandeism better explains why so many people do not experience god, internally, yet also can explain why some do.Pandeisms, and other pantheisms, particularly polytheistic forms, also better explain why it is not only the god of theism (and specifically, Christian theism) that is internally experienced by some people.
We hear men prophesy that this war means the death of Christianity and an era ofPandeism or perhaps even the destruction of all which we call modern civilization and culture. We hear men predict that the ultimate result of the war will be a blessing to humanity.
I first came across this extension of ecumenism intopan-deism among some Roman Catholic scholars interested primarily in the "reunion of the churches," [...] Thus they do not necessarily discern in Rome's ecumenism andpan-deism a project for world domination. Yet this danger certainly exists.
1991,J[ames] Sidlow Baxter, “Our Bible: The Most Critical Issue”, inProphetic Witness Movement International[2], archived fromthe original on22 February 2018:
If the Bible is only human lore, and not divine truth, then we have no real answer to those who say, "Let's pick the best out of all religions and blend it all intoPan-Deism – one world religion with one god made out of many".
^Christian Ferdinand Fleißbach (1849) “Pantheismus, Pantheistisch, n.”, inHeilmittel gegen einen Krebsschaden der Deutschen Literatur: Erläuternde Bemerkungen über die Deutschen Wörter von zweifelhafter Schreibart, den Schriftstellern zur Prüfung, den Schriftsetzern zur Beachtung empfohlen [Remedy against a Cancerous Damage of German Literature: Explanatory Notes on German Words of Doubtful Orthography, for the Examination of Writers, and for the Recommended Attention of Typesetters], Leipzig: Verlag des Correctur-Bureau, in Commission bei Ch. E. Kollmann,→OCLC,page31: “Pantheismus, Pantheistisch, n.Pandeismus, Pandeistisch. Gebildet aus dem Griech [Formed from the Greek].πᾶν undθεός.”; compare the use ofPandeisten(“pandeists”) inM[oritz] Lazarus andH[eymann] Steinthal, editors (1875), “Zur Religionsphilosophie”, inZeitschrift für Völkerpsychologie und Sprachwissenschaft [Journal of Social Psychology and Linguistics], volume VIII, Berlin: Ferd. Dümmlers Verlagsbuchhandlung; Harrwitz & Gossmann,→OCLC,pages262–263: “Man stelle es also den Denkern frei, ob sie Theisten, Pan-theisten, Atheisten, Deisten (und warum nicht auchPandeisten?) sein wollen: dem Volke aber predigt nichts von Gott und ja nichts von Unsterblichkeit.”
^See, for example,Gaius Plinius Secundus [i.e.,Pliny the Elder], Gottfried Große, transl. (1787) “Das sechs und drenzigste Buch [Book XXXVI]”, inNaturgeschichte: mit erläuternden Anmerkungen [Natural History: With Explanatory Notes], volume XI, Frankfurt: Johann Christian Hermann,→OCLC, § 1, footnote 1,page165:
Beym Plinius, den man, wo nicht Spinozisten, doch einenPandeisten nennen konnte, ist Natur oder Gott kein von der Welt getrenntes oder abgesondertes Wesen. Seine Natur ist die ganze Schöpfung im Konkreto, und eben so scheint es mit seiner Gottheit beschaffen zu seyn. [InPliny [the Elder], whom one could call, if not aSpinozist, then perhaps aPandeist, Nature is not a being divided off or separated from the world. His nature is the whole of creation, in concrete, and the same appears to be true also of his divinity.]
^Luigi Ferrarese (1838) “Dell’Applicazione della Fisiologia ed in Particolar Modo di Quella del Cervello e Sistema Nervoso allo Studio della Filosofia del Pensiero [Of the Application of Physiology and Particularly of the Brain and Nervous System to the Study of the Philosophy of Thought]”, inMemorie Risguardanti la Dottrina Frenologica: Ed Altre Scienze che con essa hanno Stretto Rapporto [Monographs Relating: And Other Sciences that have a Close Relationship with It], Naples:[Francesco del-Vecchio],→OCLC,pages15–16:
[...] costringe, come faceva osservare un dotto Critico, la rivelazione a cambiare il suo posto con quello del pensiero istintivo e dell' affermazione senza riflessione e colloca la ragione fuori della persona dell'uomo dichiarandolo un frammento di Dio, una spezie dipandeismo spirituale introducendo, assurdo per noi, ed al Supremo Ente ingiurioso, il quale reca onda grave alla libertà del medesimo, ec, ec.
