Unforunately, Silva's critique is quite deficient on a number of fronts. Firstly, his understanding of panentheism seems to be quite limited and detached from why there is interest in some "panen" principles. If one assumes God as a single subject with a deficient view of True Infinity, panentheism doens't make sense and is an attempt to equate God with creation. But if God is truly infinite and God isn't a single subject, but is actually the trinitarian relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, some "panen" principles make complete sense in light of Biblical understanding and does not diminish God's sovereignty and power, nor does it equate creation with God.

Secondly, Silva never addresses the biblical support for some of these ideas. He considers the argument that creation needs and will experience God's saving redemption foolish, yet Paul explicitly says such things in Romans 8. He doesn't even mention Paul affirming Greek poets in Acts 17:28 when he says "IN HIM we live and move and have our being" (and he isn't referring to 'children of god', but to all people).

Finally, considering theosis, he doesn't even bring up 2 Pet. 1:4, the central text in this discussion.

I'm not certainly suggesting we adopt some of the formulations laid out by some of the emergent folks, but if we put the walls up and resist our continual need to examine our understanding of God and how he relates to us, we will slowly become more and more irrelevant. Personally, I have integrated some "panen" principles in my understanding of the God-world relationship and I don't think my views are unbiblical at all.

Those are my two cents.