Jay Dyer Debate: Classical Theist Refuted on Palamas & Thomas Aquinas - Uncreated Energies
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 бер 2019
- #god #bible #orthodox
Classical Theist has agreed to come on to begin our debate on the issue of the essence-energy distinction and the uncreated energies of God, contrasted with the Thomistic and later Roman-defined doctrine of absolute simplicity.
Resources: ADS refuted: jaysanalysis.com/2018/09/21/a/
All human predicates of God are identical in meaning and are His essence in the Roman Dogma: "but at the same time we recognize that this is not so - being repugnant to the Divine simplicity; and that while truth, goodness, wisdom, holiness and other attributes, as we conceive and define them express perfections that are formally distinct, yet as applied to God they are all ultimately identical in meaning and describe the same ultimate reality - the one infinitely perfect and simple being."
Letter 234 of St Basil: www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202...
Letter 38: www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202...
Energies in God and Christ - Book 3 of St John of D: www.newadvent.org/fathers/3304...
St Athanasius teaches the essence-energy distinction:
afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/11...
"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except the Causality [in the Godhead]" -St Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 34
His twitter is here: / classicaltheis
His Channel is here: / classicaltheist - Розваги
Here is a list of the first few statements from Ott on grace:
"1. Sanctifying Grace is a created supernatural gift really distinct from God. (Sent. fidei proxima.)
2. Sanctifying Grace is a supernatural state of being which is infused by God, and which permanently inheres in the soul. (Sent. certa.)
3. Sanctifying grace is not a substance, but a real accident, which inheres in the soul-substance. (Sent. certa.)
4. Sanctifying grace is really distinct from charity. (Sent. communior.)
5. Supernatural grace is a participation in the divine nature. (Sent. certa.)"
When going from memory and I said "infused substance," it should have been "infused accident," but it doesn't matter because the point of the argument is that if #1 is true, then the participation in #5 isn't real. It's not really a participation the divine nature, because the divine nature isn't created and cannot be participated in on the basis of ADS. THAT was the point and I made it forcefully in the essay no one seems able to actually read.
Furthermore, the argument is even clearer when we look at numerous other RC statements on the matter:
Fundamentals of Catholicism Vol. 3 by Fr. Barker. Vindicated. Exact same doctrine Ott lays out - Grace is a "created supernatural gift" "really distinct from God" - "infused in man" word for word making all my arguments - doesn't matter if it's a "substance" or an "accident.”
"It is something created, given to us by God... which gives us a created likeness of God's nature and life. It is a supernatural gift infused into our souls by God, a positive reality, spiritual, supernatural, and invisible." -Fr Hardon, Ch 8
books.google.com/books?id=3Gn0DAAAQBAJ&pg=PT42&lpg=PT42&dq=sanctifying+grace+is+a+supernatural+gift+really+distinct+from+God&source=bl&ots=12nu2YHwXc&sig=ACfU3U3g99-vBix1IIilAUqJ-MwR_l0HMw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8osblnqjhAhWKpp4KHVBRCzQQ6AEwEHoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=sanctifying%20grace%20is%20a%20supernatural%20gift%20really%20distinct%20from%20God&f=false
"Sanctifying Grace is a created reality.
"created grace is something distinct. So, as Trent says, it can be increased, and received within us, each according to his own measure, which the Holy Spirit distributes.."
Even the grace in the Incarnation in Christ's humanity Rome heretically says is created: "By reason of His endowment with the fullness of created habitual grace, Christ's soul is also accidentally holy. (Sent. certa.)"
www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/churchdocuments/dogmas.html?fbclid=IwAR30-gc1usyKGy6z-n3LqsAZwm4PNZCrpU0ZUVKNDOR23DiW3N4PUWH-GFU
I think it is the Wisdom of Sirach which says how the people long for a holy man, and when he is gone, they lament.
Every now and then, fiery teachers of the Church come and the people rush towards them. But some times the teacher is persecuted and conspired against by hierarchies (Church and State ones). I just hope no hierarchy, especially the Church one, makes a strong effort to supress Jay's work
Oh man you are truly legend, I cannot believe how had nicely decorated u home with Orthodox Icons and living in pure faith oddly being such deep in philosophy and Theology.
✝️ Seeing you as worthy successor of Holy Father Seraphim Rose, born and raised in USA fascinating! Greetings from Serbia
18:53 -are the divine attributes identical with divine essence?
35:11 - if we are distinguishing attributes from essence then it would imply and adherance of atrributes in substance. -> only if we accept aristotilian pressupositions
37:00 - palamas quote in the Triads
If the RC church is wrong about the essence/energies distinction of God, then the RC church cannot possibly be the true Church of Christ since the true Church would not, nay cannot be wrongabout something so fundamental.
This was a much better discussion than yesterday with the Pagan dude. It seemed like it actually got somewhere and perhaps CT will reevaluate his presuppositions.
Good talk. This guy knows his stuff. JD did set the record straight. Learned something about the “Nous” and “uncreated energies”. I have to agree with St. Gregory of Palamas.
This is timely, since we recently celebrated Saint Gregory Palamas' feast.
I agree that the writings of Fr Staniloe are great for people who are into theology, especially in helping former Thomists understand the Orthodox position. His writings about the experience of God in true relationship can bring one to tears after years of believing the best we are offered is an intellectual beatific vision. I wonder what St Thomas Aquinas thinks about these discussions. Like St Augustine, he was a man that legitimately loved God and wanted to understand Him. However, he was born in a time and place where the West was "rediscovering" Aristotle, so he did his best to bring Aristotelian reasoning to an Augustinian theology that many saw as overly Platonic. I do not think Aquinas ever meant for his theology, and his person, to become idols. Unfortunately, there always seems to be people in positions of power that are willing to push for the dogmatization of theology for reasons other than sound coherent theology. I don't know if the Catholic Church will ever undogmatize some of its bad theology, but we can pray that its members develop a better understanding of theology through these discussions. Keep up the good work Jay, God bless!
Went to your channel and checking your old videos. Love it, good stuff. Keep up the good work 👍❤️
Jay, keep up the debates, good stuff.
This is a good one. I like this guy's channel. Catholics are our lost brothers we need to bring them back Compare to any other religious group they are closest to us but not on this. Absolute divine Simplicity and Essence Energies cannot be reconciled. The Greek Fathers talk about other sorts of simplicity, but nothing compatible with Thomas or Vatican I
You can have five fingers, but one hand :P
Yes, but does the fact that there are five fingers have metaphysical primacy, or the fact that there is one hand?
At least, that's what the Hellenists would ask.
Great Debate, would love to hear a fleshed out response to Classical Theist’s postulation that ‘created grace’ is the ‘presence of God as received by the creature, in the creature’s capacity’. In my opinion, such a distinction regarding the doctrine of Created Grace is ultimately worthless because ADS doesn’t allow for God’s Grace, seeing as energy=nature in this scheme, to enter the world as uncreated. In other words, this distinction only muddles the water because you still don’t have a direct experience of God. Would love to hear your thoughts on the proposition, Jay!
Trevor Binning the response is all this confused nonsense was already solved at the 6th council which said the uncreated energies that deify us is what deified His human nature.
Nice job bruh ❤️😘
Great video!
6:41 Greek/Hellenic and Arians understanding of simplicity leads them to thinking distinction in God means there has to be some division
21:33 Logical/virtual distinction
22:17, 22:33 For Orthodoxy it is a real distinction and not a conceptual distinction.
23:19 CT claiming that the minor virtual distinction has some foundation in reality and is not purely conceptual
23:43 CT is saying that imperfect and finite conceptions have the ability to say something real about God. Furthermore, he says that conceptions are not able to capture the entirety of divinity.
25:07 Catholic encyclopedia on the divine nature and attributes
26:00 CT diverges from the catholic encyclopedia posiiton
26:20 Jay says they’re committed to experience God in created effects as a result of holding to ADS.
26:42 Jay says that all the Catholic experiences are the created effects which is then used to reason back to God. CT agrees. Jay then says created effects never get us to God. Since Orthodoxy has the doctrine of the nous, the Orthodox is able to have a direct experience with God.
30:17 CT recognizing that Jay is calling him out on how the Themistic scheme holds to contradictions.
30:35 CT saying the divine ideas don’t exist in their plurality in the divine essence. The plurality is the result of God’s essence as inimitable through finite ways.
30:56 Jay asks how do you imitate in finite ways something that is inimitable? CT doesn’t know and doesn’t see a way around it.
31:19 Jay says the way you get around this is with St Dionysius where he talks about the logoi. St Greggory of Nyssa, St John of Damascus. St Maximus articulates in Ambigum 7 at great length about how the logoi are uncreated energies and are not the same thing as the essence of God. Many logoi are one in the logos.
32:17 The Orthodox don’t hold to the Greek and Hellenic presupposition that real distinctions necessitates division. And so real distinctions don’t lead to compositions.
33:04 Most Thomists and Roman Catholics will admit to holding to the Greek/Hellenic presupposition that distinction implies composition and division.
35:13 CT thinks Aquinas is not committed to the idea that the presence of a distinction implies distinction but rather focusing on the difference kinds of distinctions.
35:29 CT then says if we distinguish attributes from essence, then that would imply an adherence to attributes in substance. (Just admitted to holding to the Greek presupposition that Jay is calling him out on) 35:53 CT thinks it’s rationally absurd to deny this presupposition.
35:57 Jay says that if this is rationally absurd, then you are committed to saying the Trinity is rationally absurd if you were to maintain consistency.
37:03 CT brings up Palamas.
38:56 God is not irrational but transcends logic and logical categories and syllogisms.
39:36 CT thinks article 4 question 13 has the same mapping. He says we received it under a plurality of concepts because we are composed and because of the multiplicity of discursive reasoning. So he concludes we have to understand it in a multiplicity of concepts.
40:53 Jay points out that the position doesn’t make sense because it doesn’t allow for real distinctions in the thing itself, God. So it doesn’t allow for the direct experience of God Himself. if only allows for the experience of created effects.
41:50 CT agrees with Jay’s last point.
42:03 Jay recognizes that CT agrees with this but points that this agreement is a contradiction as CT’s position doesn’t allow with him to say this if his position was consistently held.
46:39 Created for CT is received according to the creature’s capacity.
correct but they are inconsistent because they allow it for the Persons jaydyer.substack.com/p/distinctions-and-capacities-in-god
Jay's glasses won the debate, obviously🤓
Roman Dogma - grace is: a “created supernatural grace”
And a “participation in divine nature.”
If ADS is true, which is it?
Solution: ADS isn’t true, essence-energy is, and it’s already defined as uncreated energy
DUDE,
What’re you talkin’ about?
I’m I Really dumb or is this almost impossible to understand
No you're not.
I thought so I only have a basic catholic/ orthodox Theological understanding
''We admit a distinction between the persons, but we don't admit a distinction between the persons and the essence''....Everyone heard of the transitivity of equality/identity (i.e. if X≡Y and Y≡Z then necessarily X≡Z)? How is one's elementary sense of logic not immediately infuriated by such an aberrant statement?
This is silly
This is something I've been discussing with a oneness Pentecostal who insists this shows the Trinity is illogical. Can you expand more on this?
@@andys3035 I'm not sure of what "this" is which your oneness Pentecostal interlocutor insists upon being indication that the Trinity is illogical. What I meant to say is that as long as one is adamant about not admitting any distinctions between the persons in the Trinity and the Divine Nature (i.e. as long as one considers the persons to be identical to the Nature), then one can no longer hold the claim that "there are distinctions between the persons themselves": by simple transitivity of equality/identity, all the three persons being identical to one and the same entity - which would be the Divine Nature in this case - are automatically identical to each other. One can go as far as saying that as long as the operating premise is that "the persons are identical to the Divine Nature" then there is absolutely no need to use the apparently distinct terms "persons" respectively "Divine Nature" to refer to ultimately one and the same entity. To conclude - once again in hopefully simple and clear terms - what is to be predicated of the persons is not that _they are_ identical to the Divine Nature but that *they share* an identical Divine Nature. "To possess" is of course not the same predicate as "to be identical to/ontologically the same entity as".
@@poincareseifert1673 Apologies if I wasn't clear. I meant the person I was speaking with was using the law of transitive identity to "disprove" the Trinity. This area of study is new to me so forgive my ignorance. Are you using this argument against the Trinity? Or are you saying there is no distinction between nature and person? I'm also not sure who you are quoting as that was 4 years ago where you said "'We admit a distinction between the persons, but we don't admit a distinction between the persons and the essence''....Do you recall who said that in this video? Are you Trinitarian? Sorry for all the questions. I'm trying to wrap my brain around this topic.
You stated: "by simple transitivity of equality/identity, all the three persons being identical to one and the same entity - which would be the Divine Nature in this case - are automatically identical to each other." If I can better understand your point here. If we collapse person and nature, then we violate transitivity? And that to share the divine nature is how we distinguish the persons?
@@andys3035 No need to apologise for anything! Allow me to clarify matters:
1. My original comment refers to a quote most likely coming from the video at hand here (I am not sure at what point of time the quote occurs and I'm afraid I have little patience to try find it; I think it is one possible rendering of the Aquinian _absolute divine simplicity_ view, paraphrased in form more or less close to the original papist dogmatic formulations). My intention is to make a logical criticism of the quote - for clarity let me restate it: _"We admit a distinction between the persons, but we don't admit a distinction between the persons and the essence"_ (the plural "we" here being the generic congregation of papist dogmatists).
Anyone who adopts such a position regarding the Holy Trinity will run into an immediate contradiction stemming from the principle of transitivity of equality/identity: if two entities are equal/identical to a third, then they are equal/identical to one another, and this would apply in particular to the Persons of the Holy Trinity _were it the case that_ they are identical to the Divine Nature (which they are emphatically *not* ). In other words, as long as one admits no distinction between the Persons of the Holy Trinity and the Divine Nature, such a one no longer has any distinctions to admit between the Persons themselves (once again -- and may I highlight the role of the italics -- _were it the case that_ the Persons and the Nature coincided; once again may I also restate that this is *not actually* the case).
In even simpler terms, if a generic Joe believes the Divine Persons are the same thing (entity) as the Divine Nature then it is foolish and pointless for him to _admit distinctions between the Persons themselves_ since -- according to his faulty premise and by way of silogism via the transitivity of equality/identity -- it would follow that the Persons are equal/identical to each other and therefore there were no real distinctions to be made between them (and this is where we get to the _nominal_ distinctions that papists profess and which Jay sometimes mentions; starting from the premise of "Persons identical to Divine Nature" any distinctions between the Persons could only be nominal/purely terminological/a contentless blabber, so to speak...).
2. Being that I am cradle Orthodox, my view regarding the Holy Trinity is Orthodox, conforming to the Theology of St. Gregory of Palamas (and, of course, the other Fathers of the Church): the Persons of The Holy Trinity are to be distinguished from the Divine Nature; the Persons _share_ the Divine Nature - common to All of them - but are not equal/identical to the Divine Nature.
3. To be crystal clear, if we collapse person and nature then it follows via transitivity of equality/identity that with logical necessity the Persons are collapsed between themselves (so essentially Jesus Christ God the Son would end up being identical to God the Father and also to God the Holy Ghost, all of these being _different_ names to refer to one and the same entity which were also identical to the Divine Nature; a very strange position...).
4. It is not by the fact They share the Divine Nature -- nor in fact ultimately by applying any forms of human reasoning regarding this fundamental doctrine -- that we distinguish the Divine Persons but we do so first and foremost by humbly submitting ourselves to the Divine Revelation that They are in all reality distinct, while at the same time sharing the exact same Divine Nature! :)
I can’t decide if I’m joining EO or ROC. These conversations are fascinating but are getting far too technical for me to comprehend. Almost autistic. For me, absolute divine simplicity makes sense to me, yet obviously I want to avoid modalism. Are you arguing that the trinity contradicts absolute divine simplicity?
“Blessed” Augustine, Jay. Don’t you now lead astray on us brother…
EDIT: jkjk ofc, lol :D
Oh, you mean like the "unreason and theology" vlogger and his slandering pitbull wife moderator?
Good debate. Jay plz unblock me on Twitter, :((((
I wonder if these two would roll their eyes with similar frequency listening to Muslims debate Sunni Islam versus Shia Islam as I just did listening to them.
I'm sorry to have to say that this is a profound waste of mental energy by two otherwise intelligent people.
@viktor colbert which, of course, is an unevidenced premise. Given that it's an assertion that's been around for millennia, having zero evidence to support it renders it indistinguishable from a delusional belief at this point. This is what makes it a futile endeavor. Say one unambiguously wins the discussion. Now what? We're still left with this imaginary hell for all unbelievers to purportedly face after they die. It's mind-forged manacle and nothing more.
One proves God and faith.
The other leads to atheism.
That’s not a waste of energy to debate.
@@Val.Kyrie. aren't they simply debating about certain ideas within theism? I watched this over a year ago so I'm not fresh on it, but I didn't think this debate was theism vs atheism. Rather, certain unevidenced propositions within Christianity.
@@BowlerScott no, Jay is proving that the god of the west is created and has lead them into the ditch.
You really need a certain base level understanding to perceive the importance of this and if not outright belief, at least sincere curiosity and openness.
Besides, they didn’t really have a choice to do something else with their thoughts, beliefs, and lives, did they? Why bemoan something they had no choice over, they couldn’t have done anything else, yeah? Seems meaningless.