Abstract

Divine causation, which brings the world into existence according to most forms of theism, provides a pivotal framework for understanding God's immanence and transcendence. Three different models by which Divine causality has been described are examined in detail: panentheistic mutuality, emanation, and creation ex nihilo. Charles Hartshorne employs the first model, advocating a panentheistic view of the God-world relationship in which the immanence or dependence of God upon the world is the most notable hallmark. The second position examined is Plotinus's emanation theory in which the physical world emerges from God, who remains an utterly transcendent One, after a series of stages including Mind and Soul. The third option discussed is Robert Neville's creation ex nihilo theory which asserts that God creates the world out of nothing, allowing a conception of God as both transcendent and immanent. By means of dialogical exposition, I provide a resolution to the contradictory elements of these models and in place avow a transcendent panentheism. ;The main deficit in Hartshorne's theology is that the transcendence of God over the world is inadequately expressed, as it is nearly impossible for Hartshorne to offer a coherent meaning to the concept of God outside of the relationship of God to the world. In spite of Plotinus's assertion of a transcendent One, the relationship of that Highest Realm to the world is, in the final analysis, extremely opaque. Neville's position, which explicity critiques Harshorne's panentheism, develops a clear conception of God's transcendence as being-itself bringing determinate being into existence out of nothing but does not account well for God's immanent interaction with the world. ;I develop a transcendent panentheism in place of the immanent panentheism characteristic of process theology while maintaining its insight into immanence. Transcendent panentheism recognizes that the relationship of God to world is not one of mutual immanence and that there is an asymmetry between cause and effect. Taking key elements from all three philosophers, I conclude that the All that is in God is not independent of God, who remains transcendent in power of being and immanent in universal relativity