The core difference between theists and atheists is that theists perceive a need for an objective epistemic anchor point in order to operate epistemically. Classical atheists assert that no such point exists. Modern "agnostic" atheists assert that such a point may exist, but if so they are unaware of it, and need no awareness of it in order to operate epistemically. Furthermore, that if such a point exists, science will eventually find it.
The core difference between monotheists and pantheists is that monotheists assert that the anchor point must exist within the bounds of logic.
The core difference between monotheists and deists is that monotheists assert that continued interaction with the Creator either happens or probably happens.
The core difference between scriptural and non-scriptural monotheists is that non-scriptural monotheists need only a philosophically stable anchor point. Scriptural monotheists assert that historic evidence of the anchor point is necessary. Scriptural monotheists assert furthermore that historic evidence of interaction exists, but that it exists in only one of the worlds many sets of scriptures. Non-scriptural monotheists assert that such evidence need not exist, but may exist, and if it exists, it probably exists in parts of all scripture, and probably also exists outside of scripture.
All monotheists assert that the Creator may interact with man, not just in the past, but in the present. Monotheist disagree on the probability and efficacy of such interaction. A non-scriptural monotheist may choose to interact with his Creator, and assume that he is doing so. A scriptural monotheist thinks that he can interact with his Creator only in ways approved by his chosen scriptures.
Bottom line: Non-scriptural monotheists assert only what is philosophically necessary. Scriptural monotheists assert faith in much more than what is philosophically necessary.