Hanegraaff concludes Esotericism and the Academy by arguing that the two principal points that Enlightenment scholars of philosophy labeled as pagan heresy—the rejection of creation ex nihilo and the belief in the uncreated, divine part of the soul (or nous)—are in fact the chief traits of what we might term Western esotericism.
Hanegraaff calls the rejection of creation ex nihilo, cosmotheism, which he sees as a counterpart of strict monotheism. Quoting the Egyptologist Jan Assman, cosmotheism is one where “a divine world does not stand in opposition to the world of cosmos, man, and society; rather, it is a principle that permeates it and gives it structure, order and meaning … The divine cannot be excluded from the world.” Such, Hanegraaff argues, is “the logical alternative to classic monotheism, where the invisible and eternal Creator is strictly separate from this visible and temporal creation.” Hanegraaff sees “a deep structural conflict between the dynamics of these two mutually exclusive systems and all that they imply” (371).
Barbara Newman also notes the clash between strict monotheism and what she calls “an inclusive monotheism” in her book, God and the Goddesses. “Broadly speaking, in an exclusive monotheism other deities—‘false gods’ or demons—are enemies of the true God, while in an inclusive monotheism, subordinate deities are emanations or emissaries of the One God” (319). Inclusive monotheism was a trait of Christian Platonism that allowed for belief in other divine beings like heavenly mother, that was common in the late middle ages. “With the Reformation, however, the clarion call of H. R. Niebuhr’s ‘radical monotheism’ rang out once more: ‘I and the Lord, and there is no other; besides me there is no God.’ Banished by the reformers and subdued by Rome—though sheltered in a secret conventicle here and a mystic brotherhood there—the goddess dwindled until they faded from common sight; and with them, a remarkable era in the history of Christianity came to an end” (327).
Of course, such ideas did persist, but my question is, what is a good term for this alternative to strict monotheism: inclusive monotheism? cosmotheism? Cosmotheism seems a little problematic because Hanegraaff draws on Jan Assman definition for the term but Assman defines cosmotheism as being the same as Spinoza’s pantheism, or the universe as God, which doesn’t seem very Mormon to me. I know biblical scholars note a clash between the strict monotheism of the Deuteronomists and earlier more dynamic forms. Do those scholars have a term for the alternative to strict monotheism? Or is cosmotheism good enough?
 Jan Assman, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western Thought (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), 8.