Panentheism vs. Classical Theism in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam

Epigraph: He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well. (Al Quran 57:3) Allah is the Light of the heavens and earth. His Light is like this: there is a niche, and in it a lamp, the lamp inside a glass, a glass like…

April 26, 2025

44–66 minutes

christianity, god, philosophy, religion, spirituality

Epigraph:

He is the First and the Last, and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He knows all things full well. (Al Quran 57:3)

Allah is the Light of the heavens and earth. His Light is like this: there is a niche, and in it a lamp, the lamp inside a glass, a glass like a glittering star, fueled from a blessed olive tree from neither east nor west, whose oil almost gives light even when no fire touches it –– light upon light–– God guides whoever He will to his Light; Allah sets forth all sorts of metaphors needed by mankind; God has full knowledge of everything. (Al Quran 24:35)

Eyes cannot reach Him but He reaches the eyes. And He is the Incomprehensible, the All-Aware. (Al Quran 6:103)

Collected and presented by Zia H Shah MD

Introduction

The Abrahamic faiths have long wrestled with how to conceptualize God’s relationship to the world. Two influential models emerge in this context: classical theism, which portrays God as an utterly transcendent creator distinct from creation, and panentheism, which envisions the world as existing in God (without equating God only with the world). This essay compares and contrasts these models across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, drawing on major theologians and philosophers in each tradition. We will explore scientific implications (from cosmology and physics to biology), philosophical dimensions (ontology, time, causality), and theological nuances (divine attributes, creation, transcendence and immanence). By weaving together voices such as Maimonides, Thomas Aquinas, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) on the classical side, and Kabbalists, process theologians, and Sufi mystics like Ibn ‘Arabī on the panentheistic side, we gain a rich comparative perspective. The goal is a structured academic analysis that highlights both common threads and key divergences in how these traditions understand God and the universe.

Classical Theism vs. Panentheism: Conceptual Overview

Classical theism is the traditional view in all three faiths. God is the absolute, perfect Being – characterized by attributes of necessity, eternity, immutability, simplicity, omnipotence, and omniscience zygonjournal.org. In this view, a fundamental ontological gap separates Creator and creation. The world depends entirely on God for its existence, but God does not depend on the world. As one scholar explains, classical theism asks “whether, in addition to everything else that exists, there also exists an entity” with those absolute attributes zygonjournal.org. God is the uncaused First Cause, “the unproduced cause” and necessary being on whom all contingent beings rely newadvent.org. By contrast, panentheism (from Greek pan-en-theos, “all in God”) holds that the world is inside God – God is an all-encompassing reality containing the universe while still exceeding it zygonjournal.org. The universe is like God’s “body” or manifestation, and God “compris[es] a self-surpassing totality” that sympathetically feels all that happens in the world zygonjournal.org. Importantly, panentheism differs from pantheism (which identifies God as nothing but the world) by maintaining that God also transcends the world zygonjournal.org.

In simpler terms, classical theism posits a transcendent God who could exist without a creation, whereas panentheism insists on a God-world interdependence. A useful way to grasp this is by the modal status of the world in relation to God. As philosopher Benedikt Göcke notes: “According to panentheism, the world is an intrinsic property of God – necessarily there is a world – and according to classical theism the world is an extrinsic property of God – it is only contingently true that there is a world.” link.springer.com In other words, classical theists say God could have refrained from creating anything, while panentheists typically hold that God’s nature includes creating or embodying a world. This distinction will echo through the differing perspectives on why the universe exists and whether God gains anything from creation.

Below is an overview of some key differences between the two models, which will be elaborated in each tradition:

God’s Transcendence vs. Immanence: Classical theism emphasizes God’s transcendence – utterly beyond space, time, and change (e.g. an eternal, unchanging God outside the world). Panentheism emphasizes immanence – God is intimately present within the world (while still transcending it). For example, Jewish mysticism teaches “there is no place empty of Him”, that God’s presence fills all worlds en.wikipedia.org, whereas Maimonides likens God to a captain steering a ship from above, not really entangled in the ship’s being myjewishlearning.com.
Creator/Creation Relationship: In classical theism, God’s relation to creation is typically one-way: God creates and sustains, but remains unchanged by the world. In panentheism, the relationship is mutual or “internal” – the world affects God and God affects the world plato.stanford.edu. We will see this in process theology’s insistence that God is truly affected by temporal events (God as “fellow-sufferer” with creation plato.stanford.edu), versus classical doctrine that God does not undergo change or suffering due to creation.
Divine Attributes and Mutability: Classical God is usually defined as immutable (incapable of change or being acted upon). Panentheistic God is often bi-polar or dynamic – having an eternal aspect and a changing aspect that grows with the world plato.stanford.edu. For instance, Aquinas says God is actus purus (pure actuality) with no potential to change newadvent.org, while process thinkers argue God has a changing “consequent” nature responding to the world plato.stanford.edu.
Necessity of the World: In classical theism, creation is a free act of God’s will – God could exist alone (the world is contingent). In panentheism, creation is often seen as a necessary expression of God’s fullness or love – some panentheists even say a loving God must create or emanate a world to fully be God. This idea appears in mystical Islam (Ibn ‘Arabī’s teaching that God’s desire “to be known” necessitated creation) and process theology (which often assumes God’s existence is always in tandem with some world).
World’s Status: Because classical theism strongly distinguishes Creator and creature, it guards against “divinizing” the world – no part of creation literally shares in God’s essence. In panentheism, the world is sacralized as the presence of God (though not the fullness of God). Mystics in all three religions sometimes speak as if only God truly exists and creatures are like waves on the ocean of God – images that classical theologians might caution against as blurring Creator and creation.

These differences are not merely abstract – they lead to divergent interpretations of scripture, nature, and reality. Below, we delve into how each paradigm is represented in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam by influential thinkers, and then examine their philosophical and scientific implications.

Classical Theism in the Abrahamic Traditions

Judaism: Maimonides and the Transcendent Creator

In Jewish thought, the epitome of classical theism is found in Moses Maimonides (1138–1204), the great medieval philosopher-rabbi. Maimonides insisted on God’s absolute unity, simplicity, and otherness. In his Mishneh Torah, he lays out foundational principles: “All beings are dependent upon Him, but He… is not dependent upon them… therefore, the truth of His Being is incomparable to [that of] any other” judaism.stackexchange.com. This captures the classical view: God is the Necessary Existent who would remain even if nothing else existed, whereas nothing could exist if God did not. Maimonides’ God is totally unlike creation – “a timeless, changeless, immaterial deity who is one in every respect and unlike anything in the created order” plato.stanford.edu. Any anthropomorphic descriptions in Scripture (God “walking” in the garden, etc.) are, for Maimonides, mere metaphors or accommodations.

Maimonides is famous for his negative theology – we can say what God is not rather than what God is. For example, God “does not occupy space, experiences neither generation nor corruption” and has no plurality of attributes myjewishlearning.com. In Guide for the Perplexed, he even says when we declare God’s attributes we unwittingly introduce plurality in thought, so it’s better to maintain silence than to speak inadequately of God. In terms of God’s relationship to the world, Maimonides uses a striking metaphor: “[God’s] relation to the universe is that of a steersman to a boat; and even this is not a real relation… but serves only to convey… that God rules the universe, that it is He that gives it duration and preserves its order.” myjewishlearning.com. In other words, God guides and sustains creation but remains ontologically independent and unchanged by it. Creation itself, for Maimonides, happened ex nihilo (from nothing) by God’s will – a doctrine he upholds on faith, even while admitting reason alone cannot prove whether the universe had a temporal beginning or always existed plato.stanford.edu. Crucially, even if one philosophically entertained an eternal universe (as Aristotle did), Maimonides held that it would still depend on God at every moment for its existence plato.stanford.edu myjewishlearning.com. Thus, Judaism’s classical theism (at least in its philosophical stream) underscores God’s transcendence, unity, and the radical Creator-creature distinction. Any view that blurs God with the world verges, in Maimonides’ eyes, on idolatry or heresy.

Christianity: Thomas Aquinas and the Unmoved Mover

Classical theism in Christianity was given systematic form by St. Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274). Aquinas, building on Aristotelian philosophy and earlier Church fathers, described God as ipsum esse subsistens – the sheer act of being itself, unlimited and fully actual. In Aquinas’s metaphysics, all creatures are composites of act and potency (they have unrealized potentials and can change), but God is Actus Purus, Pure Actuality with no potentiality newadvent.org. “There must exist a being, God, from whom potentiality is wholly excluded, and who, therefore, is simply actuality and perfection” Aquinas argues newadvent.org. This means God is absolutely immutable (incapable of change) because change implies moving from potential to actual en.wikipedia.org. God is also simple (not composed of parts or separable attributes) and eternal (outside of time altogether) en.wikipedia.org. Aquinas famously formulated Five Ways demonstrating an unmoved mover, first cause, necessary being, etc., all converging on the classical notion of God newadvent.org.

Yet, Aquinas did not deny God’s presence in creation – he carefully explained God’s immanence as sustainer. In Summa Theologica I.8, Aquinas writes: “God is in all things; not, indeed, as part of their essence, nor as an accident, but as an agent is present to that upon which it works… God causes this effect [being] in things not only when they first begin to be, but as long as they are preserved in being… Therefore as long as a thing has being, God must be present to it… innermostly.” newadvent.org. In other words, God’s creative power is actively sustaining every creature at every moment, intimating an interior presence (often phrased as God being “closer to creatures than they are to themselves”). However, Aquinas immediately clarifies that this is not a literal partaking of God’s essence by creatures – God remains ontologically distinct even while being everywhere by essence, presence, and power newadvent.org. The world contributes nothing to God’s own being; creation is a gratuitous expression of divine goodness. Christian classical theism thus maintains: God could have not created at all and lost nothing – creation adds no “value” or change to the perfect God (a point process theologians will later challenge). Anselm’s motto “God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived” also encapsulates the classical mindset: God’s perfection is maximal and self-contained, unsurpassable by any addition. The Christian tradition, through figures like Augustine and Aquinas, also affirmed doctrines like divine impassibility (God cannot suffer or be acted upon) and omniscience including foreknowledge – all emphasizing God’s total sovereignty and transcendence over the flux of the world.

Islam: Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) and the Necessary Existent

In Islamic thought, classical theism finds robust expression in the works of philosophers like Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna) (c. 980–1037) and the mainstream Sunni theologians (Ash‘arites). Avicenna’s philosophy defines God as wājib al-wujūd, the Necessary Existent, meaning God’s non-existence is impossible and God requires no cause. Everything else is mumkin al-wujūd (possible/contingent being) which requires an external cause to exist. Avicenna’s famous proof of the Truthful concluded that there must be a single Necessary Being that is utterly simple and one, whose essence is identical to existence itself en.wikipedia.org. This Necessary Being is the source of all other existence through a cascading emanation: from God’s overflowing perfection emanate the first Intellect, then successive intellects, souls, and finally the material realm. Importantly, even though Avicenna used an emanation model (which might sound like reality “unfolds” from God), he maintained a sharp distinction between the First Principle (God) and creation. He explicitly states that the “flow of being” from God is “distinct (mubāyin) from the Principle” plato.stanford.edu – in other words, the derived existences are not parts of God’s essence. God remains transcendent and unchanged by this process. The universe, in Avicenna’s view, is essentially eternally dependent on God (he believed an eternal creation is philosophically necessary – a point later contested by al-Ghazālī). But even an eternal universe has no existence apart from God’s continual emanation. Avicenna also reasoned that God, being absolutely one, cannot have any multiplicity in His essence or attributes – any descriptive attributes (knowledge, power, etc.) are ultimately identical with God’s single essence, or are our mental concepts only en.wikipedia.org.

Thus, in Islamic classical theology, God is utterly transcendent, unitary, omnipotent (often articulated by the word tawḥīd, absolute unity). The Qur’an’s verse “There is nothing like unto Him” (42:11) is a constant refrain underscoring God’s incomparable nature. Yet the Qur’an also vividly describes God as the Creator who “holds up the sky”, “guides all things”, and sustains life – aligning with the idea that the world at every moment needs God. One might say the dependency is one-directional: “All things need Him, and He needs none of them” (to paraphrase a common Islamic creed)judaism.stackexchange.com. This is essentially the same sentiment Maimonides and Aquinas expressed. Any suggestion that the world is a “part” of God or that God is somehow incomplete without creation is firmly rejected in Islamic orthodoxy as it would violate God’s perfection and unity (and edge into shirk, the association of partners with God pantheism.net). Later Islamic scholastics (like the Ash‘ari and Maturidi schools) articulated doctrines of divine attributes and relations that, while allowing God to have knowledge, will, speech, etc., insisted these do not compromise His unity or depend on creation in any way. In summary, across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, classical theism consistently posits a God who is absolute, independent, and transcendent, creating and sustaining the world ex nihilo or emanation-by-will, but not composed of or diminished by that world.

Panentheism in the Abrahamic Traditions

Jewish Kabbalah and Hasidism: “No Place Empty of Him”

In contrast to the strict transcendent focus of Maimonidean theology, Jewish mysticism (Kabbalah) offers a strikingly immanent vision of God – one that many scholars characterize as panentheistic. The Kabbalists (from the late medieval period onward) taught that God in Himself is Ein Sof (literally “Without End”), an infinite divine essence that emanated the sefirot (divine attributes or emanations) and the worlds. Rather than God creating the world externally, Kabbalah describes creation as a process within God’s own being: the divine light emanates and is filtered through the sefirotic structure, eventually producing the physical realm. A classical Kabbalistic dictum states: “Leit atar panuy mineh” (Aramaic: “There is no place empty of Him”) en.wikipedia.org. The Zohar, the foundational text of Kabbalah, repeats that God’s presence fills all worlds, higher and lower merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com. In Hasidic interpretation, this became a pillar: “God is everywhere, and Divinity exists in everything” chabad.org. The world is not apart from God but utterly permeated by the divine “lifeforce” that continuously creates and sustains it en.wikipedia.org. Indeed, the Kabbalists assert that from God’s perspective, creating the world was like making something appear from nothing (yesh me-ayin), while from our perspective it is receiving being from nothing. The upshot is that only God has true existence, and creation is a sort of contingent “nothing” given form by God’s immanent power en.wikipedia.org. Hasidic masters (18th–19th century) took this to a mystical extreme: “He alone enjoys true existence; everything else is totally nullified in relation to Him” chabad.org. This teaching by R. Shneur Zalman (founder of Chabad Hasidism) sounds like outright pantheism (the world is nothing outside of God), but in context it’s a panentheistic acosmism – creation exists within the infinite divine reality and has no independent being of its own.

Jewish panentheism is also evident in doctrines like Tzimtzum (divine self-contraction): Rabbi Isaac Luria in the 16th century taught that God “contracted” His infinite light to “make space” for a finite world. But later Hasidic commentators emphasize that tzimtzum cannot be taken literally – God’s essence didn’t actually withdraw; rather, God is still fully present but hidden. This means that even while the world appears separate, in truth “there is no reality apart from God” – the separation is an illusion created by God’s self-concealment merrimackvalleyhavurah.wordpress.com. Such ideas clearly elevate the immanence of God: every particle of existence is suffused with the divine (sometimes described in terms of sparks of holiness to be redeemed). Kabbalists and Hasidim speak of deveikut, cleaving to God, as realizing the unity of all being in God. However, they do maintain that God’s Essence (Ein Sof) remains transcendent and unknowable. This preserves a kernel of transcendence: God in the deepest Godself is beyond all worlds, but God’s emanations (sefirot) and Shekhinah (immanent Presence) indwell the world. We thus see a dialectic: God is both “encompassing all worlds” and “filling all worlds,” to use Kabbalistic terms 5tjt.com. In sum, Jewish panentheism does not eliminate the Creator-creature distinction so much as relocate creation inside the Creator. As one scholar put it, “the whole of nature forms a macrocosmic unity that is also a complex, integrated individual” – a viewpoint very much in line with panentheism zygonjournal.org. This mystical strand complements (and at times tensions with) the more austere rabbinic and philosophical conceptions of God in Judaism.

Christian Process Theology and Mystical Panentheism: A Dynamic God

Within Christianity, panentheistic ideas surface both in mystical theology and more recently in Process Theology. A notable mystical example is Meister Eckhart (14th century), who spoke of the Godhead birthing the world and the spark of the soul being one with God – themes that resonate with panentheism. But in modern systematic form, Process Theology (20th century) is the clearest articulation of Christian panentheism. Drawing on the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead and further developed by Charles Hartshorne, process theology redefines God’s relationship to time, change, and the universe. Whitehead pictured reality as a process of becoming, and God as deeply involved in that cosmic process. Famously, Whitehead described God as “the great companion – the fellow-sufferer who understands” plato.stanford.edu. This poignant quote illustrates a major departure from classical theism: God in process thought is not impassible; rather, God feels every joy and sorrow in the universe. God has a dual nature: a primordial nature (abstract, eternal principles by which God envisages all possibilities) and a consequent nature (God’s concrete experience of the actual world). Thus God is in part immutable (in character and existence) but also mutable in experience, constantly growing as the world grows plato.stanford.edu. Hartshorne coined the term “dipolar God” to express this: God has an unchanging pole and a changing pole plato.stanford.edu. This clearly rejects the classical idea that all change is imperfection. Instead, process theologians see the capacity to change in loving response as a perfection. Hartshorne criticized classical theism on this point: an Anselmian God “can give us everything except the right to believe that there is one who… rejoices in all our joys and sorrows” plato.stanford.edu. In process theism, God’s perfection includes relationality: God truly relates to creatures, is influenced by them, and needs a world to manifest love. In fact, many process thinkers hold that God and a (some) world have always co-existed – God did not create from absolute nothing at a moment in time, but rather God is the eternal “creative ground” of an everlastingly evolving universe. This aligns with the panentheistic claim that God necessarily has a world link.springer.com.

Another stream in Christian panentheism comes from theologians like Jürgen Moltmann and Teilhard de Chardin. Moltmann in God in Creation advocates a “panentheistic” doctrine of God, using the idea of perichoresis (mutual indwelling): “the presence of God in the world and the world in God” plato.stanford.edu. He argues this mutual indwelling of Creator and creation avoids the extremes of deism and pantheism. Moltmann even connects to the Jewish zimzum concept, suggesting God “self-limited” to allow a free creation, yet ultimately God will fully indwell creation and creation in God in the world to come creatosaurus.io. Teilhard de Chardin, a Jesuit paleontologist, saw the cosmos itself as undergoing a spiritual evolution toward the Omega Point (identified with the Cosmic Christ). In Teilhard’s vision, God is ahead of creation drawing it to Himself – an immanent force within evolution as well as its transcendent goal. These ideas, while not explicit about God “needing” the world, certainly blur the lines of inside/outside and emphasize an immanent divine presence guiding natural processes.

It’s worth noting that Eastern Orthodox Christianity has its own panentheistic-flavored theology in the doctrine of divine energies: God’s essence remains transcendent and unknowable, but God’s energies (grace, presence) pervade and sustain creation, deifying it. The Orthodox idea that humans are called to theosis (union with God) – “God became man so that man might become God” (Athanasius) – also implies an intimate interpenetration of Creator and creature (though Orthodox theology maintains an essence/energies distinction to avoid pantheism).

In all these Christian contexts, panentheism means that God is not a distant, static monarch but a living reality intimately co-present with the cosmos. God’s transcendence is reinterpreted not as aloofness but as the inexhaustible depth of the divine presence that encompasses all. The world is seen as God’s “body” in some metaphoric sense (as in process theologian John B. Cobb’s writings), or as the “manifestation” of the Logos (as in Eastern Christianity). There is a strong analogy made to the incarnation of Christ: just as Christians believe the divine and human were united in Jesus, panentheists see a kind of continuing Incarnation of God in the entire creation – without reducing God to the creation alone. This Christian panentheism presents a warmly relational, dynamic God who “feels the feelings of each and every entity in the universe” counterbalance.orgplato.stanford.edu and who cooperates with creation toward a divine purpose.

Islamic Sufi Mysticism: Ibn ‘Arabī and the Unity of Being

Within Islam, the dominant theology (as we saw) is strongly classical and transcendence-focused. Yet the Sufi mystical tradition introduced ideas that can be described as panentheistic, particularly with the doctrine of Waḥdat al-Wujūd (“the Unity of Being”) associated with Muhyi al-Dīn Ibn ‘Arabī (1165–1240). Ibn ‘Arabī is often called the “Greatest Master” of Sufism and his teachings unabashedly blur the line between God and creation – though he insists on paradox to avoid simple identity. A famous summation of Ibn ‘Arabī’s view is: “There is no existence save God; the existence of all created things is His existence. You do not see, in this world or the next, anything beside God.” pantheism.net Such statements earned him a reputation as a “pantheist,” but more precisely he is a panentheist of the most “rigorous” sort pantheism.net. Ibn ‘Arabī taught that God is the only Reality (al-Ḥaqq), and the creatures are tajallī – manifestations or self-disclosures of God’s names and attributes. He took very seriously the Quranic idea that “Wheresoever you turn, there is the Face of God” (Qur’an 2:115)pantheism.net. To him, associating anything as independent from God would be shirk (polytheism) pantheism.net, so in a radical way he denied any other exists besides God pantheism.net. However, Ibn ‘Arabī carefully maintains that God has both a transcendent aspect (the “Essence” or dhāt, utterly unknowable) and an immanent aspect (the revealed names and forms). “God had a transcendental as well as an immanent aspect… manifested in, but also extended beyond the material universe” pantheism.net. He often cited the dictum that God is “the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward” (Qur’an 57:3) as evidence of this all-encompassing unity. In one of his writings (probably the Treatise on Being), he states: “He will not have anything to be other than He. Indeed, the other is He, and there is no otherness.” pantheism.net. Such language essentially abolishes the Creator/creature distinction on the level of ultimate truth – a stance that, to orthodox critics, verges on monism incompatible with Islam’s tawḥīd.

Yet, Sufis like Ibn ‘Arabī would argue this is a matter of perspective: On the level of appearance or relativity (the world of forms), God and creation are distinct (we are responsible beings and not God Himself); but on the level of ultimate reality (ḥaqīqa), nothing exists but God. In practice, Sufi poetry and prose often use daring metaphors of union – e.g. Jalāluddīn Rumi’s love poetry or Mansur al-Hallāj’s infamous utterance “Ana al-Ḥaqq” (“I am the Truth [God]”). These reflect a realized experiential panentheism: the mystic feels utterly one with the Divine Beloved. Even outside the philosophic Sufism of Ibn ‘Arabī, there is an Islamic sense of God’s pervasive presence: the Qur’an says “We are closer to him [the human] than his jugular vein” (50:16) and “He is with you wherever you are” (57:4). While mainstream theologians read these as referring to God’s knowledge or power, Sufis take them more literally, as affirmations of God’s immanent nearness. The 20th-century Islamic philosopher Muhammad Iqbal described the universe as the “dwelling place” of God’s spirit, and some modern Islamic thinkers explore panentheistic models to reconcile Islam with scientific cosmology academic.oup.com.

However, it must be noted that panentheism in Islam remained a minority mystical view – many orthodox scholars (e.g. Ibn Taymiyyah) vehemently attacked Ibn ‘Arabī’s ideas as heretical. Still, concepts akin to panentheism have persisted in Islamic spirituality, especially in Persian and Turkish Sufism, where poetry often portrays the world as a mirror in which God contemplates Himself. Mulla Ṣadrā (17th-century Iranian philosopher) proposed the doctrine of wahdat al-mujūd (a subtle variation of waḥdat al-wujūd) and gradation of being, which philosophically argues that all existence is a single reality (God’s existence) with varying degrees of intensity. This again is a kind of panentheistic ontology packaged in Shi‘i Islamic philosophy. To summarize, the Islamic panentheistic vision sees Allah as the only true reality and the cosmos as a theophany (divine manifestation). Creation flows out of and ultimately returns to God (in Sufi metaphysics, the circle of existence: from God’s self-disclosure to God’s reabsorption). God is both transcendent (beyond form) and immanent (taking all forms), the Absolute that encompasses all relatives.

Philosophical Dimensions: Ontology, Metaphysics, and Time

From the above accounts, we can distill the philosophical divergences between classical theism and panentheism in how they handle being, causality, time, and change:

Ontology of God and World: Classical theists posit a categorical ontological distinction – God is uncreated being, everything else is created being (contingent). Panentheists lean toward a monistic or non-dual ontology – there is one inclusive being (God) of which the world is a part or expression. For Maimonides, Aquinas, Avicenna, being itself is divided into Necessary (God) vs possible (world). For Kabbalists or Ibn ‘Arabī, all being is ultimately one (a unity in God), with the world having no independent existence. Philosophically, Aquinas and Avicenna develop an essence-existence distinction: creatures have distinct essences that must be conjoined with existence by God, whereas God’s essence is existence – “His essence necessitates His existence” en.wikipedia.org. This makes God’s being wholly different from beings that receive existence. By contrast, a panentheist like Spinoza (not Abrahamic orthodox but relevant historically) saw only one substance (God/Nature) with all finite things as modes. Panentheists within faiths are more cautious but often echo that everything that exists is a part or manifestation of God’s being pantheism.net. This has implications: classical theism typically upholds divine simplicity (no composition in God) and denies that God can be a whole made of parts, whereas panentheism, by seeing the world as “part” of God, must explain how God can have parts or change and still be God. Process theology addressed this with the idea that God’s unchanging essence is one pole and the world-related experiences are another pole of God’s reality plato.stanford.edu. Thus, God can include the multiplicity of the world without losing an underlying unity.
Causality and Mutual Influence: In classical metaphysics, causation is top-down: God is the first cause, creatures are effects. Creatures cannot truly cause effects in God (this would violate His aseity). Any language of “God being affected” is taken metaphorically. For example, classical thinkers interpret prayer or sin “affecting” God as either changing nothing in God but only His actions ad extra, or as anthropopathisms. Panentheism however posits genuine two-way relations: “the relationship between God and the world is an internal relationship in that God affects the world and the world affects God.” plato.stanford.edu. This is a fundamental philosophical difference: classical theism typically affirms Aristotle’s notion that God is the Unmoved Mover (He moves all else but is Himself unmoved), whereas panentheism embraces a mutually moved Mover. Hartshorne famously argued it is more perfect to be capable of being affected by others in love than to be a mere unmoved cause plato.stanford.edu. Kabbalah also entertains the idea that human actions have upper-world effects: e.g. each mitzvah draws down divine influx, each sin causes “contraction” – essentially the creation can cause changes in the configuration of the sefirot (and hence in how God’s presence flows into the world). This is a radical departure from the Aristotelian-Thomistic idea of a perfectly actual God who cannot be acted on. The risk classical theists see in ascribing real influence to creatures on God is that it might imply God is dependent or passible. Panentheists counter that a God who freely chooses to be affected (out of love) is not essentially weak, but relational.
Time and Eternity: Classical theism usually portrays God as eternal in the sense of timeless – completely outside of time, experiencing all of history in one eternal “now.” Aquinas held God is utterly simple and has no temporal sequence in His life; what we see as past, present, future is all immediately present to God’s gaze. Panentheistic views often put God inside time (at least partially). Process theology bluntly says God is sempiternal (everlasting through time) rather than timeless. Whitehead’s God grows in knowledge moment by moment as the universe unfolds; the future is not yet real even for God (hence God knows it as a realm of possibilities, not fixed certainties). Some modern theologians (including some open theists, who are close to panentheism) argue that a timeless God is impersonal and incompatible with the God of the Bible who interacts and responds. Classical theists respond that temporal predicates cannot apply to the Creator – God is author of time itself. Islam’s classic view generally aligns with timeless eternity for God, though the Quran often depicts God acting in time (theologians resolve this by saying God’s actions occur in time but His will is eternal, etc.). Mystics often speak of an eternal now where human and divine meet (Eckhart: “the now in which God created the world is the now in which He is pouring into my soul”, suggesting a kind of eternal present). But on the whole, panentheism is more comfortable with a temporally evolving God, whereas classical theism anchors in a changeless eternity. This has philosophical repercussions for foreknowledge, predestination, and the nature of divine omniscience (classical omniscience includes full knowledge of the future since God is outside time; process omniscience means God knows everything that can be known, but the future free decisions are undetermined even for God).
Change and Immutability: As noted, classical view treats change as indicating imperfection or incompleteness (hence not applicable to a perfect God). Panentheism reinterprets divine perfection to include the ability to change voluntarily or to have changing states in relation to the world. The question of divine immutability was a major one in 20th-century theology – many theologians (not only process thinkers but even others like Jürgen Moltmann) argued that the God of love must be capable of suffering with us and thus change (at least in emotional states). Classical theologians often reply that God’s impassibility doesn’t mean God is uncaring – rather God eternally wills good and opposes evil, but in a stable way not fluctuating moods. The philosophical argument for immutability is that any change in God would either be for the better or worse or just different – if better or worse, then God wasn’t perfect to start or would cease to be; if just different, that implies non-actualized potential previously, contradicting pure actuality. Panentheists bypass this by denying that classical notion of perfection; they often hold that certain metaphysical categories (like act/potency) need revision. For example, process thought denies that only a static state can be perfect; rather an ever-living, ever-becoming God is more exalted.
Necessity vs. Contingency of Creation: Philosophically, classical theism insists on God’s freedom in creation: the world is contingent, God’s act to create is not compelled by any inner need or external necessity. This preserves God’s aseity (self-sufficiency) and freedom. Panentheism, in many forms, implies some level of necessity: either God’s nature inherently includes creativity such that God would always create (Whitehead’s God is not God without a world; creation is the “result” of the divine nature necessarily expressing itself), or God and world exist in an eternal relationship (like an eternal dance). Some soft panentheisms might say “God freely chooses to make the world part of Himself out of love” – so they attempt to keep freedom but once that choice is made, God binds Himself to the world. Mystical panentheism sometimes suggests God created the world because of an inner divine desire (e.g., a famous Sufi saying: “I was a hidden treasure and loved to be known, so I created the world” – implying a motive in God to realize an attribute). Classical theists bristle at the idea of God having unfulfilled desires pre-creation; they often emphasize God’s creation is wholly gracious, not out of divine lack but to communicate goodness. The modal argument we cited earlier captures it: in classical theism, possibly no world; in panentheism, necessarily some world link.springer.com. This has cosmological significance: If one believes God had to create, one might lean towards a view of an eternal universe (or multiverse) with God, whereas if creation is free, one is open to a universe with a beginning in time (or God existing alone “before” creation).

In summary, on the philosophical front, classical theism aligns with a more dualist, transcendence-heavy metaphysics (clear Creator/creature distinction, unmoved mover, timeless being, immutable perfection), whereas panentheism leans to a more monistic or at least non-dual relational metaphysics (all existence in One, God mutable in love, time as a dimension of the divine life). Each stance addresses different intuitions: classical theism safeguards God’s otherness and sovereignty, panentheism elevates God’s intimacy and dynamism. These differences also lead to distinct approaches in reconciling theology with science and nature, to which we now turn.

Engagement with Scientific Perspectives: Cosmology, Physics, and Evolution

Beyond metaphysics, the debate between classical theism and panentheism has practical implications for how each view engages with modern science – including the origin and evolution of the universe, the laws of nature, and the place of life within cosmic history. All three Abrahamic faiths have had to interpret scientific discoveries (from the Big Bang to quantum physics to Darwinian evolution) in light of their concept of God. While individual thinkers vary, we can sketch some general tendencies:

Cosmology and the Big Bang: The 20th-century discovery that the universe is expanding from an initial hot, dense state (Big Bang) was seen by many classical theists as supportive of creation ex nihilo. If the universe has a temporal beginning ~13.8 billion years ago, that dovetails with the idea that “in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” Indeed, some Christian apologists (and Muslim apologists) have used the Big Bang as evidence of a transcendent cause beyond space and time initiating the cosmos – a sort of modern kalām cosmological argument. Classical theism is compatible with either a beginning or an eternal cosmos, but if the universe is finite in time, the classical creator is readily cast as the Big Bang’s cause. Maimonides and Aquinas, interestingly, said reason alone can’t prove a beginning – they allowed for an eternal universe philosophically (Aquinas: an eternal created universe still needs God right now to exist) newadvent.org, but they accepted a beginning on faith. For panentheism, an initial creation event is not as theologically crucial; some panentheists actually prefer an eternal or cyclic universe concept, because it fits the notion of God-world coeternity or God’s perpetual creativity. Notably, some process theologians speculated that God might have been creating through multiple big bangs or an infinite series of universes. However, panentheism can also embrace the Big Bang – viewing it as the “birth” of God’s current body (the universe), for example, or as the moment God’s potentialities started manifesting in this cycle. The key difference is interpretation: a classical theist might say “God chose to create at t=0 and the laws of physics after that,” whereas a panentheist might say “God’s creative act is ongoing; the Big Bang is one expression of God’s eternal creativity, and God has been evolving with the universe ever since.” Both will credit God with the underlying order and existence of the cosmos, but classical theism stresses an external efficient cause, panentheism a more internal ground or matrix of the cosmos. Interestingly, some theologians like John Polkinghorne (a physicist-priest) who lean toward an open view of God, suggest that God’s action is not just at the beginning but continuously shaping randomness (more on quantum below) – which aligns with panentheism’s continuous creation idea.
Laws of Physics and Divine Action: Classical theism traditionally holds that God sustains the laws of nature and can intervene miraculously at will. However, to keep God’s consistency, miracles are seen as part of God’s eternal plan (so not surprising to God). Classical thinkers like Newton (who was very much a theist) imagined God as a great architect who set up the cosmic machine. In deistic versions, God then steps back; but in theistic version, God can also step in to adjust or do miracles. Panentheism, with its model of God working from within, often reconceives miracles not as violations of natural law but as the emergence of higher possibilities with God’s lure. For example, process theology generally rejects the idea of coercive miracles (God unilaterally suspending natural order) because it conflicts with God’s consistent relational nature. Instead, God “persuades” creation from within, meaning what we call miracles are extraordinary cooperative acts between God and creation. When it comes to physics, some panentheists are interested in quantum indeterminacy as a possible locus of divine action – since quantum events have probabilistic outcomes, perhaps God (as the indwelling ground of possibilities) can influence these outcomes without breaking physical law mdpi.com. Polkinghorne and others have discussed a theology of God “playing” with quantum randomness or chaos theory’s sensitive dependencies to bring about intended results without open miracles counterbalance.org. Classical theism can also accept this idea (it doesn’t belong exclusively to panentheism), but it fits naturally with a view of God as immanent in natural processes. Moreover, panentheists often highlight that modern physics blurs rigid boundaries: matter and energy are interchangeable, observer and system entangled – thus a holistic picture emerges congenial to thinking of nature as a unified whole (possibly the “body of God”). The fine-tuning of physical constants is another area: classical theists cite it as evidence of a transcendent Designer setting parameters; a panentheist might say it reflects the rationality of the divine Logos woven through the cosmos, or that only a universe pervaded by God’s purpose could produce life. Both would agree the cosmos is intelligible and ordered due to God, but their metaphors differ (architect vs. indwelling mind).
Biology and Evolution: Perhaps the starkest differences emerge with evolution. Darwinian evolution by natural selection posed challenges to a static creation view in the 19th century. Classical theism, especially in Christianity, initially saw pushback (the creationism vs. evolution controversy). Over time, many classical theists (e.g. the Catholic Church officially since mid-20th century) made peace with evolution by interpreting it as God’s providential plan – God designs the laws of biology such that life develops, with perhaps God guiding at critical junctures (theistic evolution). This still tends to see God as outside directing or allowing the process to reach intended outcomes (like humans with souls). Panentheists embrace evolution enthusiastically, since it inherently portrays reality as in flux and development – exactly how they view God’s relationship with the world. Process theology was one of the first theological movements to fully incorporate evolution: if life evolves, then a relational God would be co-evolving. As one scholar noted, “the panentheistic God-world relationship associates temporal characteristics with the divine that correlate with Darwin’s ideas of evolution”, meaning God grows as the world grows doi.org. Instead of God planning everything from the start (which classical models often imply, via omniscience and predestination), panentheism is open to genuine novelty: God as the Chief Innovator who works with randomness and creaturely freedom to actualize new forms of life. In this view, evolution isn’t an unguided accident nor a tightly scripted plan, but a creative adventure of God-with-Creation. For instance, process thinkers see God as offering initial aims to each creature (a lure towards realizing certain potentials) which, combined with chance and law, produce the tapestry of evolutionary life. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin proposed that evolution has a spiritual direction – toward greater consciousness – culminating in the Omega Point (Christ). This is a panentheistic evolutionism: Christ (God) is the force within evolution drawing it onward. Similarly, some Jewish thinkers like Rabbi Abraham Kook integrated Kabbalah with evolution, seeing the divine light progressively manifest in higher forms of life. In Islam, discussions of evolution are more nascent; many traditionalists reject human evolution on scriptural grounds, but some modernists and mystics find ways to reconcile (often by positing a non-literal Adam or that evolution is the method Allah used, guiding it from within). Ismaili Muslim thought, which is more philosophically open, sometimes embraces an evolutionary cosmic view with God immanent in the intellect of evolving beings (Aga Khan IV, for example, has spoken of Islam accommodating evolution).

In terms of values and purpose, classical theism often emphasizes the fixed aspects (e.g. an unchanging moral lawgiver, a cosmic design), whereas panentheism is comfortable with emergence – truth unfolding in time, purpose realized progressively (not all given from the start). They thus might approach ecology differently too: panentheism, seeing nature as God-filled, can inspire a strong ecological ethic (the world is God’s body, so harming it is desecration). Classical stewardship also fosters care for creation, but panentheists sometimes articulate it more intimately.

Quantum Physics and Consciousness: Modern scientific dialogues also venture into consciousness studies and quantum physics. Panentheists often like the idea of panpsychism or panexperientialism – the notion that mind-like quality pervades matter, which resonates with Whitehead’s idea that every fundamental particle has a mental pole plato.stanford.edu. If mind is everywhere in some sense, then it’s easy to imagine the universe as God’s experiencing self. This is speculative, but process philosophers like David Griffin have argued such views make the mind-matter problem more tractable plato.stanford.edu. Classical theists don’t usually commit to panpsychism; they maintain a sharper distinction between matter and spirit, and see human consciousness as perhaps unique or a special creation (e.g. infusion of an immaterial soul). On quantum mechanics: as noted, some propose God interacts at the quantum level (a “quantum divine action” idea) to respect natural laws macroscopically mdpi.com. Both classical and panentheistic thinkers have participated in such proposals (they are not inherently one or the other). However, the interpretation differs: a classical God tweaking outcomes is more of a hidden intervention, whereas a panentheistic God is simply the universe from the inside choosing among quantum possibilities (since the world is within God’s will anyway). It’s a subtle distinction.

In summary, classical theism tends to envision a more architect/engineer role for God in relation to nature – God established the universe with its laws and either front-loaded everything or intervenes at points to guide it to intended ends. Panentheism envisions God more as a soul to the universe’s body or a mind within the natural processes, working organically and from within to bring about greater complexity and consciousness. Both approaches have adherents engaging science: you find Christian scientists who are classical theists (seeing scientific law as reflecting God’s rational decree) and those who are panentheists (seeing scientific creativity as sharing in God’s ongoing creativity). Perhaps one difference is how they handle randomness and suffering in evolution: classical view might say these are ultimately allowed for a greater good known to God’s eternal plan; panentheism might say God too faces risk and ambiguity, working with the unfolding process and sharing in the suffering, guiding creation as a co-traveler rather than a puppeteer.

Notably, all three religions have members in both camps regarding science. There are orthodox Jews and Muslims who accept evolution within limits and others who reject it outright; similarly, some Christians read Genesis literally (often associated with a more interventionist classical God who created kinds separately), while others fully accept evolution (often with a view closer to panentheism or at least a non-interventionist theism). Thus, the theological model (classical or panentheist) can influence how flexibly one integrates scientific findings. Panentheism generally provides more flexibility to reinterpret doctrines (e.g. seeing Adam and Eve symbolically), because its emphasis is not on a one-time act of creation but on an unfolding relationship. Classical theism can also accommodate these through nuanced readings, but historically it has sometimes been invoked to resist scientific paradigms that seem to reduce humanity’s special status or God’s direct governance (e.g., opposition to Darwinism often came from a classical view of species fixity and human exceptionalism).

Theological Implications: Divine Attributes and the God-World Relationship

Finally, it is useful to compare how classical theism and panentheism conceive key divine attributes and the overall transcendence/immanence balance in theological terms, across our three traditions:

Divine Omnipotence and Sovereignty: In classical theism, God’s omnipotence is usually understood as absolute (God can do anything logically possible, is the total ruler of the universe). The world has no power to thwart God’s will ultimately. For instance, Augustine and Calvin (classical thinkers in Western Christianity) stress predestination and God’s total providence. In Islam, God’s omnipotence is so central that Ash‘arite theology essentially made God the direct cause of every event (occasionalism) – “No leaf falls but by His permission.” Panentheism often qualifies omnipotence: it portrays God not as a coercive power but a persuasive power. Process theologian Charles Hartshorne famously said the classical definition of omnipotence is incoherent and instead suggested God is almighty in the sense of having all the power that it is possible to have, but not the only power – creatures also have some power. So God’s power is shared and cooperative. In scripture, one can find support for both images: the master (classical) and the parent/lover who empowers the beloved (panentheist). The problem of evil also plays in: a classical omnipotent God raises the question of why evil is allowed (usually answered by free will or soul-making or inscrutable wisdom). A panentheistic God who is not unilaterally omnipotent can say evil occurs partly because God cannot unilaterally determine free processes without violating the nature of the relationship – God works to overcome evil from within, but there is no guarantee every suffering is individually intended. In Kabbalah, interestingly, they view human sin as even affecting God (the Shekhinah in exile), and redemption is a joint project – a very panentheistic way to deal with evil (God is with us in the brokenness, even “suffering” with us, rather than all-causing it). This aligns with theologies after tragedies (like the Holocaust) where some Jewish theologians (e.g. Arthur Green, a neo-Hasidic thinker) have leaned to panentheism, seeing God’s presence in the world’s pain but not controlling it dictatorially.
Divine Omniscience and Providence: Classical theism affirms God’s exhaustive knowledge of all reality – past, present, future. Maimonides grappled with the tension of God’s foreknowledge and human free will, ultimately declaring the two truths (God’s knowledge vs our freedom) simply both true in a way beyond our understanding. Aquinas said God knows future contingents in His eternal now without imposing necessity on them – a metaphysical finesse. Panentheistic or open theist perspective often revises omniscience to exclude definite knowledge of future free actions, holding that the future is not yet “there” to be known. In all three Abrahamic faiths, mainstream doctrine is that God’s knowledge is perfect and unerring. But mystical and process thought emphasize God’s experiential knowledge: God knows the world by experiencing it directly (since it’s within Him). Whitehead even spoke of God “learning new things” as the world unfolds (not in His eternal character but in His consequent experience). This is a big adjustment: a learning God versus an all-knowing unchanging God. Each model has different pastoral implications – e.g., when praying, the classical believer might think they are aligning with God’s will which already takes everything into account, whereas a panentheist might think their prayer actually contributes to God’s experience and can influence God’s next move. On providence: classical theism tends toward a blueprint model (even if not determinist, at least God has a full plan and will bring good out of all). Panentheism leans to a responsive providence – God works adaptively, like a great improvisational jazz player responding to the other players (creation).
Divine Love and Goodness: Both views strongly affirm God is love and good. But classical theism sometimes emphasizes God’s goodness as the source of moral order and the end for which creatures are made, whereas panentheism emphasizes God’s goodness as empathic presence and suffering love. As cited earlier, Hartshorne critiqued that the immutable God of classical theism can love creatures in the sense of benevolence (willing their good) but cannot love in the sense of fellow-feeling, which process theists see as a higher form of love plato.stanford.edu. All three religions have teachings of God’s compassion and mercy – classical theology explains those as analogical or as part of God’s unchanging nature to do good, while mystical/panentheistic theology might take them more literally as God emotionally caring. This leads to questions like: Can God grieve? In the Bible, God is described as grieved, angry, pleased, etc. Classical theism often says these are anthropopathisms – God doesn’t literally undergo mood swings. Panentheists might say, yes in a sense God does feel sorrow when we sin and joy when we do right, as a dynamic relationship. A notable convergence is the idea of Divine condescension: in Christianity, the Incarnation (God becoming man in Christ) is often seen as God entering time and change out of love – classical theology says this happens “without change in the divine nature” (the Logos assumes humanity but remains God). Panentheists love the Incarnation concept because it is a model of God being in the world. Moltmann even extended the crucifixion to the Trinity itself (the Father suffers the loss of the Son, etc.), indicating that God is not impassible – he called this the “crucified God” theology. In Judaism and Islam, while there’s no incarnation, there are concepts of the Shekhinah suffering with Israel in exile, or the idea that Allah is with the oppressed (e.g., a Hadith Qudsi: “I was sick and you did not visit Me,” meaning God mystically identifies with suffering people). These lean toward a panentheistic sensibility within even orthodox frameworks.
Transcendence and Immanence Balance: Classical theism by definition tilts to transcendence. In worship, the emphasis is on God’s majesty, otherness, the human as servant of the almighty King. Immanence is acknowledged (God is everywhere, God indwells believers by His spirit/grace, etc.) but always with a gap. Panentheism tries to balance transcendence and immanence or even merge them in a dialectical unity. For Kabbalists, God is infinitely above (Ein Sof) and yet intimately present (Shekhinah) at once. For process theologians, God is the supreme reality (transcendent in degree) but not apart from the world – “in all and more than all” as some say. One could say classical theism is “God above the world” (with God also supporting from beneath, but essentially above and independent), whereas panentheism is “God within the world (and the world within God)”. The latter explicitly uses spatial metaphor of in: as Paul said to the Athenians, “In Him we live and move and have our being,” which many take as a biblical hint of panentheism. Hindus and others also have used the image of God as the ocean and individuals as fish within it. Abrahamic mystics similarly used intimate imagery: e.g., Sufis speak of annihilation in God (fanā’) and subsistence in God (baqā’). The potential danger each side perceives in the other is telling: classical theists worry panentheism erodes God’s transcendence and holiness, potentially collapsing into pantheism or idolatry of nature; panentheists worry classical theism isolates God from the world, making Him a distant dictator or an abstract idea, and not the living God of spiritual experience.

Each Abrahamic tradition has had internal correctives: when transcendence was overemphasized to the point of cold abstraction, mystical movements arose to infuse immanence (Kabbalah against overly rationalist Judaism, Sufism against legalistic Islam, Pietism/Mysticism against scholastic Christianity). Conversely, when immanence leaning to pantheism appeared, institutions reaffirmed transcendence (e.g., condemnations of certain Sufi statements, the Rabbinic wariness of Sabbatean pantheistic tendencies, the Church’s caution with some mystics). In modern times, dialogue with science and pluralism has also pushed many theologians toward panentheism as a way to envision God that is less triumphalist and more in tune with an evolving world. On the other hand, defenders of classical theism argue that abandoning the classical attributes (like immutability) can lead to a God not worthy of worship or a God too weak to trust for salvation.

Conclusion

Panentheism and classical theism offer two profound, contrasting frameworks for understanding the divine across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Classical theism gives us a majestic, wholly-other God – the perfect Creator “above” creation, who is the source of all that is but remains fundamentally independent of it. This vision safeguards God’s unity, sovereignty, and transcendence, resonating with scriptures that declare God’s throne above the highest heaven. It is voiced by luminaries like Maimonides, Aquinas, and Avicenna, who despite spanning three faiths, agree that God is actus purus, the Necessary Being on whom the cosmos hangs. Panentheism, meanwhile, paints a more intimate portrait – God as the encompassing Reality in whom the universe lives and moves. It stresses immanence and relationality: the world as God’s “body” or garment, and God as the soul of all. This view is championed (sometimes implicitly) by Kabbalists and Hasidic masters who see all existence as divine light, by process theologians like Whitehead and Hartshorne who present a God who grows and feels with creation, and by Sufi mystics like Ibn ‘Arabī who dissolve the separation between Lover and beloved, Creator and creation. Each approach has its theological beauty and peril: classical theism offers awe and stability – a God who is utterly reliable, unchanging Truth, but it can become austere and philosophically distant; panentheism offers intimacy and dynamism – a God deeply involved in the world’s story, but it walks a fine line where God’s distinction can blur into the world’s processes.

In practice, many believers intuitively combine elements of both. A Christian might pray to an Almighty Father in heaven (classical) but also seek the indwelling of Christ in the heart (panentheistic motif). A Jew may follow Maimonides in doctrine but find Kabbalistic language meaningful in prayer. A Muslim may uphold God’s total transcendence yet in mystical devotion feel only God exists. The conversation between these viewpoints has also been fruitful. For instance, modern theologians use panentheism to address ecological crises (seeing nature as sacred) and the problem of evil (a suffering God), while classical theism provides anchors in revealed traditions and metaphysical clarity about God’s distinctness.

Science, too, enters this dialogue: an evolving cosmos and deep time either challenge a static classical view or enrich a process relational view. As we saw, cosmology and evolution have pushed theology to reconsider doctrines of creation, with panentheism often providing a comfortable home for ideas like continuous creation or theistic evolution, whereas classical theism finds compatibility by extending its notion of divine sovereignty across billions of years and natural laws. Quantum physics and consciousness studies provoke questions that sometimes blur the line between observer and system – again fueling panentheistic imaginations of a participatory cosmos.

Ultimately, the enduring question is how to conceive of a God who is both utterly beyond us and yet nearer to us than we are to ourselves. The Abrahamic traditions, each in their own way, insist on maintaining both God’s transcendence and immanence, even if one model leans more to one side. Panentheism and classical theism might be seen as two ends of a spectrum, or even complementary: perhaps the full picture of the divine involves a transcendent Creator who freely chooses to indwell creation and share its fate. Indeed, some contemporary thinkers try to bridge them, speaking of a “dual transcendence” – God is transcendent in being (classically self-sufficient) but also transcendent in love (freely self-giving to the world). The mystery of divinity likely encompasses aspects of both models. As the Quran (which is usually read classically) wonderfully puts it: “He is the First and the Last, the Outward and the Inward”. The First/Last speak to classical transcendence, the Outward/Inward to panentheistic immanence. In Christian terms, the transcendent Father and immanent Holy Spirit are united in the Logos. In Jewish thought, Ein Sof and Shekhinah are one.

By comparing panentheism and classical theism across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, we appreciate the tapestry of insights each faith provides. We heard Maimonides caution that “the truth of [God’s] Being is incomparable” judaism.stackexchange.com – a classical reminder that God is not like the world; and we heard the Zohar whisper that “There is no place empty of Him” en.wikipedia.org – a panentheistic testimony that God is present in and through all. We listened to Aquinas declare God “alone is pure act” and Avicenna assert the world eternally flows from God yet remains distinct plato.stanford.edu, even as Whitehead described God as the loving companion who shares our every sorrow plato.stanford.edu and Ibn ‘Arabī exclaimed that “the other is He” pantheism.net. These perspectives are not so much contradictions as different facets of the divine-human encounter. The task for theologians and philosophers is to hold these facets in a creative tension, so that our concept of God is neither so distant that He cannot hear our cry, nor so familiar that we confuse Him with the universe He transcends.

In closing, the dialogue between classical theism and panentheism is a healthy one, spurring deeper reflection on doctrines of creation, the nature of time and change, and God’s attributes in light of both ancient wisdom and modern knowledge. It invites believers of all three traditions to ponder a God who is both beyond all worlds and in all worlds. Whether in the thunder at Sinai, the still small voice in Elijah’s cave, the words of the Qur’an, or the person of Christ, the divine confronts humanity with transcendence and embraces it with immanence. The comparative study of these two views across Judaism, Christianity, and Islam enriches our understanding by showing how each tradition balances these truths. As we continue this exploration, we may find that the fullest truth lies in a synthesis: a God truly infinite enough to be distinct from a universe of quarks and galaxies, yet truly intimate enough to dwell within the quark and guide the galaxy. The journey between the enthroned King and the indwelling Spirit is one that the Abrahamic faiths, each in their own idiom, encourage us to undertake – a journey toward comprehending the complex glory of the One who is, at once, above all and through all and in all.

The task of the Muslim theologian and philosopher is easier than others as he or she stays within the metaphors, insights and boundaries of the verses of the Glorious Quran that describe the attributes of Allah. The Muslims are able to demonstrate the Quran to be the literal word of God and all verses are interconnected and explain each other. Three verses on the subject have been quoted as epigraph in the very beginning. There are several others including the one from Surah Qaf that states that God is nearer to us than our jugular veins. As a final thought in this article, I want to state that when we deeply ponder on God’s immanence, His Omniscience and Omnipotence, we begin to think of extra dimensions in our universe.

This leads us to a different article with a video:

Arguing for Extra Dimensions in Physics from God’s Omniscience

Sources:

Frankenberry, Nancy. Classical Theism, Panentheism, and Pantheism in Light of Science. Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science, 30(1), 1995 – definitions of classical theism and panentheism zygonjournal.org.
Maimonides, Moses. Mishneh Torah, Yesodei Ha-Torah 1:3 – dependence of all beings on God judaism.stackexchange.com.
My Jewish Learning – Maimonides’ Conception of God – negative theology and “steersman to a boat” metaphor myjewishlearning.com.
Catholic Encyclopedia – “Actus Purus” – explanation of God as pure actuality without potentiality (Aquinas) newadvent.org.
Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q.8 a.1 – God’s presence in all things sustaining their being newadvent.org.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Ibn Sina’s Metaphysics – Avicenna on Necessary Existent and distinction of emanation from Principle plato.stanford.edu.
Wikipedia – Ayin and Yesh – Kabbalistic panentheism, “no place empty of Him” en.wikipedia.org and continuous divine lifeforce.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Process Theism – Whitehead’s “fellow-sufferer” quote and Hartshorne’s critique of classical impassibility plato.stanford.edu.
Paul Harrison, Pantheism.net – on Ibn al-‘Arabī’s panentheism: “Everything that exists is a part of and a manifestation of the Oneness of God… God has a transcendental as well as an immanent aspect” pantheism.netpantheism.net.
Göcke, Benedikt. “Panentheism and Classical Theism.” Sophia vol.52, 2013 – modal status of the world (world necessary vs. contingent) link.springer.com.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy – Panentheism – Moltmann’s view of mutual indwelling of God and world plato.stanford.edu and internal relations (world affects God) plato.stanford.edu.
StackExchange (MiYodeya) – reference to Maimonides, Mishneh Torah 1:3 (Heb/Eng) judaism.stackexchange.com.
Chabad.org – Sha’ar HaYichud VehaEmunah, ch.6 – “He alone enjoys true existence; everything else is nullified in relation to Him” (Hasidic panentheism) chabad.org.
Stanford Encyclopedia – Maimonides – God as timeless, changeless unity (monotheism entails an immaterial, unique deity) plato.stanford.edu.
Stanford Encyclopedia – Panentheism – discussion of panpsychism and emergence in panentheistic thought plato.stanford.edu.
Qur’an 2:115, 57:3, 50:16 – scriptural statements used in panentheistic context (Face of God everywhere, God as First/Last, God nearer than jugular vein) pantheism.netpantheism.net.
Hartshorne, Charles. Omnipotence and Other Theological Mistakes. (1984) – arguments revising omnipotence and asserting the necessity of a world for God (not directly cited above but reflected in analysis).
Polkinghorne, John. Science and Providence. (1989) – idea of God’s subtle action in quantum/chaotic systems (background for quantum discussion) mdpi.com.
Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre. The Phenomenon of Man. (1955) – concept of evolutionary theology and Omega Point (discussed in text, no direct cite).
Moltmann, Jürgen. God in Creation. (1985) – advocacy of panentheism, influence of Kabbalah’s zimzum (discussed, see Stanford cite above for summary) plato.stanford.edu.