Basic Introduction on the Essence-Energies Distinction
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 лип 2019
- Orthodox Terminology:
jaysanalysis.com/2010/04/12/d...
Bible Verses that use the word "Energies":
biblehub.com/text/1_corinthia...
biblehub.com/text/1_corinthia...
Taylor Marshall's argument: taylormarshall.com/2010/01/sa...
#Orthodox #Theology #EssenceEnergies
![The Essence-Energies Distinction and the Knowability of God [Eastern Orthodox Theology]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EUWRgotmeF4/mqdefault.jpg)
I took a class at Columbia University in the 70's with John Meyendorff. He pointed out that many Latin/Greek problems come from starting points. He noted that the Latins tend to begin Theology around the Oneness of God while the Greeks start from the Trinity. Seems to be played out here.
Presuppositions indeed. Dumitru Staniloae always began and developed his theology and inquiries into ecumenism (the good kind) with and through the Doctrine of the Trinity.
I'm just beginning to learn about Orthodoxy, and your videos have been tremendously helpful.
Thank you
How is it going?
I'm thankful that some Orthodox people are reaching out to the West. I was a Protestant for over 55 years. I had to work very hard to rid myself from the false paradigm of Protestantism. My question would be how can I live for 55 years and not once did an Orthodox Christian come to my door and share his faith. The Mormons and JW's were there. I worked out at a gym for three years and I talked to an Orthodox priest who came to the gym. At the time I was a Presbyterian. Not once did that Orthodox priest attempt to articulate Orthodoxy to me. It was because I read a book on Orthodoxy that I ended up seeking it myself. It seems to me that if Orthodox Christians are participating in the divine uncreated energies that they should be the force tearing down the heresies of Western culture? Orthodoxy is very deep and complex and it sounds strange to most people. Pentecost teaches that you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit cones upon you. Is this not the uncreated energy of God? So where is this power working? Because American materialism seems to be more powerful to me.
It is sad. I think the reality is that Orthodox do evangelize, but perhaps maybe in America they just don't do it that well. Not to mention Orthodox Christians number only about 3 million in America. We are absurdly outnumbered by Catholics and Protestants.
Randy Churchill I agree sir! I suggest you read Volume 1 of St Symeon the New Theologian’s ‘Ethical Discourses’
@@dikaioskyrios Thanks for the recommendation, Brother. I'll make sure to read it as well.
@@dikaioskyrios I will check it out.
@Mark Smith The term God Morher is highly problematic. The Virgin Mary (in Orthodoxy often called Theotokos, translated as The God-Bearer) is the Mother of God.
To see The Holy Spirit as a female archetype isn't heretical per se, but let's not forget that there are heretics who claim that Mary is the third person of the Trinity. Another problem is that it is by the Holy Spirit that Mary is impregnated with the fuit of Jesus, so the Mother analogy doesn't work.
Was a messianic jew/evangelical becoming Orthodox with the antiochian jurisdiction in north America
Changed my life and opened the eyes of my heart
Essence = What makes a being or person what it is.
Energy = The actions of that being.
Thank you for this! I was raised as a non denominational Christian. Recently I've been learning about orthodoxy and have been so encouraged to find that many of the conclusions I've come to from the holy spirit and scripture are orthodox doctrine.
Beautiful explanation that we are to become one with his energies but are not the same essence.
Great video, Brother. We need more content creators like you, Glendalough Orthodox and Jay Dyer.
3:00 This is a good point against absolute divine simplicity because if God was absolutely simple there wouldn't be a "face" or a "back" because there wouldn't be a real distinction in Him. Moses would have had to have been looking at a created hologram
Anno Domination which is precisely what Augustine claimed, of course
Very good pointing out the biblical distinction between God's face and back. Thank you Moses, and thank you Anno
Larry Cera if I remember correctly St. Dionysius also believed that the Angel of the Lord were holograms so the idea of God using “holograms” is not foreign to the East.
@@rambles1789 cant find in the original language text of Dionisius what you claim
@@rambles1789 I’ve never read that in St Dionysius.
Thank you for this. I am Augustinian in my thinking and I have been doing research and buying books on how to understand this and how it ties into theosis and psychotherapy. This video explained it in easy terms and the reference to Paul helps! May the Lord continue to bless you
Thank you for making videos, I'm learning a lot.
This is a really good summary.
It is also helpful to understand that the Essence-Energy distinction has extremely deep roots in the language Aristotle developed to discuss metaphysics. Much (most) of the confusion arises from misunderstanding what these terms are intended to refer to.
It is further helpful to note Fr Andrew Louth’s suggestion that ἐνέργεια is best translated as “activity” in most circumstances, and not inaccurately transliterated into modern English as ‘energy’ as is usually done in modern theology. The modern connotations of ‘energy’ are usually unhelpful for understanding the distinction as used in ancient Greek philosophy and the Church Fathers.
I suspect that much of the theological argumentation on this topic is at least in part determined by tribal loyalties, and translation away from the Greek even as these concepts already push human language to the limits of its descriptive capacity. That is why the essence-activities distinction has always been associated with mystical practice, beyond human language.
Amazing video ! God bless you, thank you
Very good video! God Bless from Kenya!
@Mark Smith No, energies are not a person. In fact, they're actions of a peroson. In Koine Greek, energia means "action". Energies of God aren't some sygils and magic circles, but the actions of God.
To make it simple, if you were to place your hand on someone, you would feel warmth, but that's not their will to create warmth, it's part a product of their being. Therefore, God doesn't create Grace, he acts it, as you don't create warmth, it eminates from your nature (essence).
True, in Orthodox vocabulary we have the phrase: "divided indivisibly." So the one energy of God which naturally proceeds from His essence is multiplied without being divided. This phrase is literally a smack in the face to those bound by the RC and ancient Greek definition of the word 'distinction'.
That is a profound concept, divided indivisbly.
The energy, however, is the essence of God in action, or God's essence acting upon us under a certain mode, as St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. John of Damascus teach, and is not something not of God's essence, for the Son proceeds from the Father as substance from substance, and the energy so called is the essence acting under a certain mode upon the one whom God is reaching out to or indwelling. Otherwise, if God's energy alone is acting upon us, and it is not His substance or nature per se acting upon us under a certain mode, it is something that is insubstantial that is acting upon us, or as Palamas puts it, an inferior deity operating as a gift of the superior deity (i.e. the essence) upon us, which I submit is an unorthodox statement. For if the energy is not the essence acting under a certain mode, the energy is actually "divided divisibly" from the essence.
@@thomaspalmieri6038 I was not saying the energy is divided indivisibly from the essence, but that the one energy of God is itself divided without becoming parts.
@@dikaioskyrios Is the divine energy substantial or insubstantial? That is to say, is it the divine essence acting upon us under a specific mode, or is the divine energy something that is not God's nature that somehow acts upon us without itself being substantial? And if it is not substantial nor an operating mode of the divine essence acting upon us, how does it have power to act upon us? But if the energies are God's power acting upon us, and power is proper to God's essence, then we are acted upon by God's essence or nature acting under a certain mode. That is the point I was getting at, to wit, what is the ontological status of the divine energy? Is it the divine essence acting under a specific mode, or is it insubstantial, or is it substantial but not the divine essence? The latter two possibilities threaten the unity and simplicity of the divine nature.
@@thomaspalmieri6038 Hang on a second. Do you realise that your first comment under my post was not regarding the issue my post pertains to, but concerns another question? If you realise that, why did you comment what you did in the first place?
Thanks!
An important point also is to understand that the Ancient Greek term Energeia means in general
‘power’ and more specifically ‘to work’. The scientific term energy is rooted in the understanding of distinction as difference.
Thx for explanation keep up the good work!
I just bought this book. Amazing.
Wonderful video
Appreciate it!
Sooooo interesting thank you so much!
Good video. Thanks!
Great video
Question, Would the Theophanys carry the divine nature and the properties, therefore having having the essence? Very new to this topic
Correct me if I'm wrong:
Essence = What something is, the substance it's made of. Nature.
Energy = What something does, how it manifests.
Essence =/= Energy because I am not the same thing as what I do. If I drive a car, I am not the same thing as driving a car.
Very interesting.
I feel the use of the word energy in scripture to justify the distinction is a bit of a stretch; however great video I learned a great deal from it.
I love David The Magic Midwife!
Undivided energy may seem to be bordering on modalism. Am I correct?
It is said to be multiplied without being divided. So this protects God’s unity (undivided) but does not let us go to the extreme of saying God is so simple that He cannot directly interact with creation.
Dear David,
I would have a question if you please, which is indirectly related. How could Jesus' divine nature be contained in space and time when He walked the earth? Jesus being the 2nd Person, fully God and fully man, can we conclude that the divine essence was present or located on earth with the incarnation? Is this correct? If so, how could the divine essence 'fit' inside creation? Can God's essence enter or be located inside space and time?
Thank you.
That sort of mystery, stretching the bounds of human understanding and capacity to talk of God, is exactly why the Church frequently uses paradoxical language, aptly described by St Dionysius as “incongruous dissimilarities”.
Hence, a human such as the Theotokos is described as “wider than the heavens” through her role in birthing God.
Ultimately, that language points to the mystery of the Incarnation, the mystery of how Christ is one yet fully divine and fully human, without confusion.
Divine essence is not bound by space and time so it coexists with space and time without being confined by it.
One quibble: It is claimed that the Western Catholic Church teaches that theophanies are merely phenomena. That is not true, to my knowledge. I have to doubt that there are any plausibly infallible documents that assert a specific position the theophanies.
BERNADETTE ROBERTS: NOW AVAILABLE - RECORDED TALKS
Im confused how if in God there are no distinctions, including between Essence and Energies, how the distinction isnt something like a Scotist Formal distinction rather than a real (ontological) distinction. Or am I wrong in assuming that when Orthodox means "real" distinction they dont actually mean an ontological one? Cause i feel like if there was an ontological distinction there would be an interaction problem very much akin to ontological dualism. While with a scotist formal distinction it feels like you can still have a deep distinction between Gods essence and energy without asserting another uncreated ontological entity other than God.
Ontological separation between Essence and Energies does not result in Polytheism, as both are united back into ONE God under the auspice of ONE Divine Nature. Similar concept applies to Christ's dual natures that are through Hypostatic Union brought back to a single personae.
the papal quote is about christology
So The act of creating is an energy of God not The essence of God Much like heat is an energy humans produce but they are not in and of themselves heat?
Can you make a video on uncreated grace?
Do energies of God have their essence/nature?
They are essential from God's essence .
Although I understand the point, I always shake my head when theological arguments are presented that endow god with properties that make the properties greater than God. Whether that's some aspect of perfection or indivisibility, giving God characteristics makes the characteristic something greater than God and that clearly isn't God. Consequently, I would be much more comfortable if the presentation were phrased that this is our imperfect human understanding of God rather than the essence of God or the energy of God as an actual noumena.
That is implied in every Orthodox theological work either written or spoken, that we theologize about the God insomuch as He revealed Himself to us.
What is the difference between God's energies and his attributes?
@Ioannis Grivas So is Gods power distinct from his knowledge?
@Ioannis Grivas So the attributes of God are many and distinct. So Gods power is really distinct from his knowledge, but how can God be all powerful if he isnt all knowing?
@Ioannis Grivas The attributes are identical with the essence and when we interact with his grace it's a created effect distinct from the essence and therefore not God
There is no meaningful difference. This "essence-energies distinction" is a false teaching invented in the 1300s. It sounds like something from Hinduism.
@@T_dog1 Get a real argument, there's more theology of the EE distinction and hesychasm then Purgatory or the IC
This video made me sub to you.
"Distinction does not imply a division in God!"
@JL-XrtaMayoNoCheese The Eastern Orthodox do not seem to understand the difference that Roman Catholic theologians make between seeing or encountering the essence of God and knowing the essence of God. Aquinas was well aware that we cannot know the essence of the infinite, while maintaining that we definitely encounter it in the beatific vision. If a man is engulfed in the Atlantic Ocean, he may not know exactly what is the length and depth of the ocean, but he is surely encountering the ocean in its substance or nature. He is not merely encountering the energies of the ocean, which seems to be the position of Palamism.
@@thomaspalmieri6038 there is no such thing as palamism in the orthodox church .we dont have this and that scholl of theology as catholism has. Simple the orthodox church theology is what saint Greogory Palamas says
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f That's your opinion, but it is belied by the facts.
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f So let's compare the teaching of Gregory Palamas and the Synodikon of Orthodoxy with that of St Athanasius and the Council of Nicea with respect to the doctrine of the divine light. All I have to do is show you a few areas of divergence to refute your belief that Palamas and the Synodikon accurately reflect the whole of Eastern Orthodox tradition. I have already done this throughout the course of our dialogue, but so far you have not been honest enough to admit to this on any point whatsoever, to your own demerit. Palamas and the Synodikon teach that the divine glory is the divine energy, not the divine nature. What does St Athanasius say about this? St Athanasius in his Four Discourses Against the Arians makes numerous arguments demonstrating that the divine light and radiance is none other than the divine essence. In Discourse 1, 13.60 he distinguishes between the created flesh of Christ which becomes, and the essence which is ever existing when he says: "let them know that Paul does not signify that His essence has become, knowing, as he did, that He is Son and Wisdom and Radiance and Image of the Father." Under the category of the divine essence he lists Son, Wisdom, Radiance and Image as proper to it. Again in Discourse 2 Athanasius adduces a number of Scriptural passages to prove that the Son is proper to the Father's essence (brightness of glory, Word, Wisdom), and then he says in regard to these Scriptural citations: "All these passages proscribe in every light the Arian heresy, and signify the eternity of the Word, and that He is not foreign but proper to the Father's Essence. For when saw any one light without radiance?" (Discourse 2, 18.32) And: "God has a Son, the Word, the Wisdom, the Power, that is, His Image and Radiance; from which it at once follows that He is always; that He is from the Father; that He is like; that He is the eternal offspring of His essence." (Dis. 2, 18.34) Here Word, Wisdom, Power, Image and Radiance are all ascribed to Essence. And: "God is...existing and is ever; therefore also His Word is existing and is everlastingly with the Father, as radiance of light." (Dis, 2, 18.35). God's existence refers to His essence not His energy, as does that of the Word, and the existence of the Word with that of the Father is referred to by Athanasius as that of radiance to light, that is, the Word exists with God as radiance of light. This can only refer to God's being or essence and not to His proceeding energy (so called). And: "God's Word is...His Son...as radiance of light, so is He perfect offspring from perfect." (Dis. 2, 18.35) Observe here that God's only begotten Son and Word are each referred to here by Athanasius as radiance of light, which once more references essence not energy, for whoever has referred to the Son as the only begotten energy of the Father? And: "the Son is in the Father as the radiance in the light" (Dis 2, 18.41). Again Athanasius tells us that the person and the essence of the Son is in the Father as radiance in the light. How could he be referring to the divine energy here? And: "when he [Christ] speaks or His servants declare anything of His Godhead, all is said in simple diction, and with an absolute sense, and without reason being added. For He is the Father's Radiance; and as the Father is, but not for any reason, neither must we seek the reason of that Radiance." (Dis. 2, 20.53) Athanasius declares here that the Father's radiance (apaugasma, i.e. the Son) refers to His Deity (theotetos), not to His energy proceeding from His theotetos, as Gregory Palamas and the Synodikon teach. And we can be certain that theotetos refers here to nature not energy because in Discourse 2, 21.70 Athanasius refers to the "nature of His (i.e. the Son's) Godhead" (physin tes theotetos"). For if we read this phrase of Athanasius that is spoken in regard to the Son "tou yar Patros estin apaugasma" in light of the doctrine that is taught by Gregory Palamas and the Synodikon, this can only mean that the Son is the energy of the Father, which as Gregory of Nyssa pointed out in Against Eunomius II.12, would make the Son "the similitude of the impersonal" and reduce Him to non existence, as being neither only begotten person, radiance or image of the Father, but merely His impersonal energy. And: "the apostle proclaims the Son to be the radiance and (engraved) image of the Father's own essence (o apostolos…autes tes patrikes ousias idion 'apaugasma kai charaktera’ ton Yion keruttei), saying 'who is the radiance of His glory and the image of His hypostasis' (legon ’os on apaugasma tes doxes kai charakter tes hypostaseos autou’." (Dis. 3:65) In this passage Athanasius identifies the Father's glory with His very own essence, for of what is the Son the brightness, that is said to be ‘the Father’s own essence? Verily He is brightness of the Father’s glory, and the divine glory of the Father here is said to be the Father’s very own essence. Now let us examine certain passages from Athanasius's De Decretis: "the Saints...all preach of Him as Radiance, thereby to signify His being from the essence, proper and indivisible, and His oneness with the Father.” [De Decretis, 23] And: “...if the Son is Word, Wisdom, Image of the Father, Radiance, He must in all reason be One in essence.” [De Decretis, 23] And: "let every corporeal reference be banished on this subject; and transcending every imagination of sense, let us, with pure understanding and with mind alone, apprehend the genuine relation of son to father, and the Word's proper relation towards God, and the unvarying likeness of the radiance towards the light: for as the words 'Offspring' and 'Son' bear, and are meant to bear, no human sense, but one suitable to God, in like manner when we hear the phrase 'one in essence,' let us not fall upon human senses, and imagine partitions and divisions of the Godhead, but as having our thoughts directed to things immaterial, let us preserve undivided the oneness of nature and the identity of light; for this is proper to a son as regards a father, and in this is shown that God is truly Father of the Word….For by this Offspring the Father made all things, and extended His Providence unto all things; by Him He exercises His love to man, and thus He and the Father are one, as has been said; unless indeed these perverse men make a fresh attempt, and say that the essence of the Word is not the same as the Light which is in Him from the Father, as if the Light in the Son were one with the Father, but He Himself foreign in essence as being a creature.” [De Decretis, 24] Observe here that Athanasius refers to "perverse men" who deny that the Son, in the words of the Council of Nicea, is "light from light", in the sense of being 'homoousian to patri'. But the Synodikon teaches on the contrary: 'to those...who do not confess that the supremely Divine light is not the essence of God, ANATHEMA!' But St Athanasius declares on the contrary: “And concerning the everlasting co-existence of the Word with the Father, and that He is not of another essence or subsistence, but proper to the Father's, as the Bishops in the Council said, you may hear again from the labour-loving Origen also:...’If there be an Image of the Invisible God, it is an invisible Image; nay, I will be bold to add, that, as being the likeness of the Father, never was it not. For when was that God, who, according to John, is called Light (for 'God is Light'), without a radiance of His proper glory, that a man should presume to assert the Son's origin of existence, as if before He was not?’” [De Decretis, 27] Here Origen identifies the Son of God the image of the Father as radiance of light, and this divine image, this radiance of light, is declared to be the image of the Father's hypostasis or person (cf. Heb 1:3); and Athanasius cites this passage from Origen as confirming the teaching of the fathers of the Council of Nicea that the Son is proper to the Father's essence, inasmuch as the Son as the radiance of the Father's glory is the very image of His person or hypostasis. Now go ahead and prove to me that Gregory Palamas and the Synodikon teach the exact same doctrine with respect to the divine light and radiance as did St Athanasius and the Council of Nicea. The passages above demonstrate that St Athanasius and the Council of Nicea identify the divine light and radiance with the divine essence, while the Synodikon of Orthodoxy pronounces this teaching to be ANATHEMA!
@@thomaspalmieri6038 nowhere saint Athanasius says the light at the transfiguaration of Jesus Christ is the essence of God .No father ever claim such thing.can you read saint athanasius original language text or you read translations??? No father says the ουσία essence of God can be commiunacatable at any point the fathers use the word υπερoυσια κρυφιωτης for the essence.
You don't seem to understand the nature of our debate. I am not making the claim that no father ever taught the essence-energies doctrine, so you will not win the debate by citing this or that father such as St Basil who might have taught it. Gregory Palamas and the Synodikon are the ones making the extraordinary claim that the essence-energies distinction as taught by Gregory Palamas represents the whole of Eastern Orthodox and patristic tradition. All I have to do to win our debate (that is to say, to prove that Palamas and the Synodikon are wrong), is to cite ANY father who teaches contrary to the Synodikon. Now I have cited Sts Augustine and Pope Gregory the Great from the West, as well as St Athanasius (De Decretis 23 and 24, and Discourse 3 Against the Arians 65), St Gregory of Nyssa (Against Eunomius II.12) along with Gregory Nazianzen (Oration 28.17), as doctrinal authorities who have written things with respect to the ontological status of the divine light (to wit, that it is the very essence of God and not merely His proceeding energy) or our capacity to know the nature and essence of God that are ANATHEMA according to the Synodikon. Your tactic is to simply ignore these citations as if they had never been written, even when I have provided you with the Greek text. The fact that you will not engage with any of these texts, but simply ignore them, proves that you are profoundly uncomfortable with what they have to say, and all you can do is dance around them or ignore them completely, in hopes of avoiding what is taught therein, and yet you expect me to engage with texts that you bring up which might appear to support your position. All right, I'll make a deal with you, I will respond to what St Basil says in Letter 234 about the essence of God remaining above us and only the energies coming down to us, when you have acknowledged and dealt forthrightly with what St Athanasius has to say in De Decretis 23 and 24 and in Discourse 3 Against the Arians about the divine radiance being the divine essence itself, and likewise with what Gregory of Nyssa says in Against Eunomius II.12 where he makes the same argument, and when you acknowledge and deal forthrightly with what Gregory Nazianzen says about our discovering the nature and essence of God in sentences 2-3-4 of Oration 28.17. If you will act in good faith, you will be extended the courtesy of an honest debate. If you continue to act in bad faith, and ignore the texts which I have brought up in my posts, as if I had not cited them or their authors had not written them, I will not debate with you any longer, and I will consider your refusal to engage with these texts as ample proof that you have no answer for them, and that you are tacitly admitting that you have lost the debate between us in regard to this matter.
then come to the discord and debate
@@user-vn7ip5kp7j I have no idea what that refers to.
@@thomaspalmieri6038 join the main EO Discord, and debate your views. That is fastest way to get hold of Dyer and debate via Voice Chat.
@@thomaspalmieri6038
Against Eunomius II.
To pass on, then, to what remains. He brings forward once more some of the Master's words, to this effect: And it is in precisely the same manner that we are taught by Holy Scripture the employment of a conception. *Our Lord Jesus Christ, when declaring to men the nature of His Godhead, explains it by certain special characteristics, calling Himself the Door, the Bread, the Way, the Vine, the Shepherd, the Light.* Now I think it seemly to pass over his insolent remarks on these words (for it is thus that his rhetorical training has taught him to contend with his opponents), nor will I suffer myself to be disturbed by his ebullitions of childish folly. Let us, however, examine one pungent and irresistible argument which he puts forward for our refutation. Which of the sacred writers, he asks, gives evidence that these names were attributed to our Lord by a conception? But which of them, I reply, forbids it, deeming it a blasphemy to regard such names as the result of a conception? For if he maintains that its not being mentioned is a proof that it is forbidden, by a parity of reasoning he must admit that its not being forbidden is an argument that it is permitted.
Is our Lord called by these names, or does Eunomius deny this also? If he does deny that these names are spoken of Christ, we have conquered without a battle. For what more signal victory could there be, than to prove our adversary to be fighting against God, by robbing the sacred words of the Gospel of their meaning? But if he admits that it is true that Christ is named by these names, let him say in what manner they may be applied without irreverence to the Only-begotten Son of God. Does he take the stone as indicative of His nature? Does he understand His essence under the figure of the Axe (not to encumber our argument by enumerating the rest)? *None of these names represents the nature of the Only-begotten, or His Godhead, or the peculiar character of His essence.* Nevertheless He is called by these names, and each appellation has its own special fitness. For we cannot, without irreverence, suppose anything in the words of God to be idle and unmeaning. Let him say, then, if he disallows these names as the result of a conception, how do they apply to Christ? For we on our part say this, that as our Lord provided for human life in various forms, each variety of His beneficence is suitably distinguished by His several names, His provident care and working on our behalf passing over into the mould of a name. And such a name is said by us to be arrived at by a conception. But if this is not agreeable to our opponents, let it be as each of them pleases. In his ignorance, however, of the figures of Scripture, our opponent contradicts what is said. For if he had learned the Divine names, he must have known that our Lord is called a Curse and Sin Galatians 3:13, and a Heifer Hebrews 9:13, and a lion's Whelp Genesis 49:9, and a Bear bereaved of her whelps Hosea 13:3, and a Leopard Hosea 13:7 and such-like names, according to various modes of conception, by Holy Scripture, the sacred and inspired writers by such names, as by well-directed shafts, indicating the central point of the idea they had in view; even though these words, when taken in their literal and obvious signification, seem not above suspicion, but each single one of them, unless we allow it to be predicated of God by some process of conception, will not escape the taint of a blasphemous suggestion. But it would be a lengthy task to bring them forward, and elucidate in every case how, in the general idea, these words have been perverted out of their obvious meanings, and how it is only in connection with the conceptive faculty that the names of God can be reconciled with that reverence which is His due.
But to return. Such names are used of our Lord, and no one familiar with the inspired Scriptures can deny the fact. What then? *Does Eunomius affirm that the words are indicative of His nature itself? If so, he asserts that the Divine nature is multiform, and that the variety which it displays in what is signified by the names is very complex.* For the meanings of the words Bread and Lion are not the same, nor those of Axe and Water , but to each of them we can assign a definition of its own, of which the others do not partake. *They do not, therefore, signify nature or essence,* yet no one will presume to say that this nomenclature is quite inappropriate and unmeaning. If, then, these words are given us, but not as indicative of essence, and every word given in Scripture is just and appropriate, how else can these appellations be fitly applied to the Only-begotten Son of God, except in connection with the faculty of conception? *For it is clear that the Divine Being is spoken of under various names, according to the variety of His operations, so that we may think of Him in the aspect so named.* What harm, then, is done to our reverential ideas of God by this mental operation, instituted with a view to our thinking upon the things done, and which we call conception, though if any one choose to call it by some other name, we shall make no objection.
I am Roman Catholic, and I am not here to defend Aquinas' doctrine of Absolute Divine Simplicity, which I have never rendered a judgment upon, but I think it is fair to point out the difficulties which attend to Palamas' Essence/Energies distinction. Whereas St John of Damascus had taught that God's energy is simple, and energizes in various ways, Gregory Palamas taught that the energies of God are enhypostatic, that is to say, a form of subsistence or hypostasis which is dependent upon that of another, which in this case would be none other than that of God's essence. Indeed, he wrote in a letter to John Akindynos that “the deifying grace of the Holy Spirit is an inferior deity, a gift of the superior deity." But John of Damascus for his own part refers to 'enhypostatic' in relation to the Son of God, whose person is derived from that of the Father; hence that which is properly enhypostatic is a person, and not an energy. This would appear to be a gross theological error on Palamas' part. More importantly, his doctrine is contrary to Sacred Scripture as understood in light of the dogmatic definitions of Nicea, for he equates all of the divine attributes with the so called divine energies. For example, St. Paul refers to Christ as the Son of the Father's love (Col 1:13), which in Palamas' system would make him the Son of the Father's energy. Moreover, Christ Himself teaches that "as the living Father has sent me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me shall live by me" (Jn 6:57). Since according to Palamas we live (spiritually) by partaking of Christ's divine energy, so then Christ Himself lives by partaking of the Father's divine energy, for Christ does not distinguish here between essence and energy, but sets forth the impartation of life between Father and Son and Son and believer to one and the same life transmitting principle. Again, Gregory reads 2 Peter 1:4 as to say that we are made partakers of the divine energy, but the apostle, inspired by the Holy Spirit, says that we are made partakers of the divine nature. Now whom are we to believe in regard to this matter, the Holy Spirit speaking through the Apostle Peter, or Gregory Palamas? Lastly, in regard to the attempt on the part of certain Eastern Orthodox fathers to distinguish the divine energies from the divine essence by referencing Exodus 33:18-23, and taking God's face to mean His essence, which no man can see and live, it is quite clear that Moses means by "face" God's glory--which Palamas understands to be God's energy, not His essence, whereas St.Paul distinguishes between that which we see through a glass darkly in this life, and that which we will see in the life to come, when we will indeed see God face to face (1 Cor 13:12), or, as St. John says, when "we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn 3:2). It is for this reason that St. Gregory Nazianzen, honored within the Eastern Orthodox Church as the Theologian, that is to say, as a superior eminence even to that of Gregory Palamas in matters of theological import, while in one place in his Theological Orations does liken God's unknowable essence to God's face as it is spoken of in Exodus 33:18-23, goes on to admit that Holy Scripture does not declare that we will never encounter God's essence in the age to come, for he says the following: "What God is in nature and essence, no man ever yet has discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question which he who will may examine and decide. In my opinion it will be discovered when that within us which is godlike and divine, I mean our mind and reason, shall have mingled with its Like, and the image shall have ascended to the Archetype, of which it has now the desire. And this I think is the solution of that vexed problem as to We shall know even as we are known. But in our present life all that comes to us is but a little effluence, and as it were a small effulgence from a great Light. So that if anyone has known God, or has had the testimony of Scripture to his knowledge of God, we are to understand such an one to have possessed a degree of knowledge which gave him the appearance of being more fully enlightened than another who did not enjoy the same degree of illumination; and this relative superiority is spoken of as if it were absolute knowledge, not because it is really such, but by comparison with the power of that other." [Oration 28:17] Here Gregory Nazianzen makes the proper Biblical distinction between seeing through a glass darkly in this life, and seeing God face to face in the age to come. Palamism, on the other hand, does not found its distinction of divine revelation between that which we know while we are in this mortal body, when we see through a glass darkly, and that which will be revealed in the age to come, but rather in making a dogmatic claim which distinguishes between God's essence and His energies, not in terms of His activities, but in terms of His very being, as I showed above from his letter to John Akindynos. Palamas for his own part had sought to refute Barlaam of Calabria by resort to the Neoplatonic elements which were embedded within the theological writings of the Pseudo-Dionysius, which 'Dionysius' had himself derived from the writings of the Neoplatonic Philosopher Proclus, the so called 'produoi' of God. To sum up, the Eastern Church's dogma regarding the divine essence/energies distinction can ultimately be traced to the thought of the Neoplatonist Proclus, and cannot be established from the text of Sacred Scripture itself, which is contrary to it in a numuber of respects.
Its quoted from maximus the epistles and John of Damascus whom fatboy Aquinas went against
@@user-du2nv7md5m You say the Son is "the product of an energy of God" but not the transformative energy of theosis. Gregory of Nyssa teaches on the other hand that Eunomius, in making the Son a product of the Father's energy, "makes Him third after the Father, with that non-existent energy mediating between them, or rather moulded at pleasure by non-existence." (Against Eunomius, II.12) St. Augustine by way of contrast accounts for the generation of the Son not by working from the Palamite assumptions about love being one of the energies of God, but he notes, rather, that Christ as the "Son of His own love, mean[s] nothing else than His own beloved Son - the Son, in short, of His own substance. For the love in the Father, which is in His ineffably simple nature, is nothing else than His very nature and substance itself - as we have already often said, and are not ashamed of often repeating. And hence the Son of His love, is none other than He who is born of His substance." (On the Trinity, XV.19.37)
The point here is not to reduce the attributes of God to energies, for although grace is indeed 'the energization of divine power' (cf. Eph 3:7) within us, and love indeed is one of God's graces, this does not mean that we only encounter God in the realm of His energies, for the energies of God, properly speaking, are His nature operating within us under a particular mode. We are said to be the temple of the Holy Spirit Himself (1 Cor 6:19), not merely of His energies, for as I said above in response to another commentator, the energies are properly speaking the essence of God acting within or upon us under a certain mode, not "inferior dieties", as Palamas was wont to call them.
@@thomaspalmieri6038 the essence cannot be upon is without us knowing the father fully since having the essence of God truly in us makes it physical and breaks simplicity yet the energy of God worketh in us that we partake by this energizing. The oration from Nanzianzus you provided shows against your favorite because he speaks of us experiencing God in this life but not by becoming God by true nature which your view would necessitate
@@shiningdiamond5046 The energy of God is His power (which is His nature) at work in us (Eph 3:7), so His nature can be in us.
@@thomaspalmieri6038
I found this quote attributed to St. Mark of Ephesus:
"We must not be surprised if we do not find among the ancients any clear and defined distinction between the Essence of God and His Energies. If, in our time, after the solemn confirmation of this truth the partisans of profane wisdom have created so much trouble in the Church over this question - and have accused Her of polytheism - what mischief would not have been perpetrated in earlier times against this truth by those puffed up with vain learning. This is why our theologians always insisted in the simplicity of God more than the distinction which exists in Him. It would have been inopportune to exhibit the teaching concerning the essence and energies before those who had enough trouble admitting the distinction of hypostases. Thus, by a wise economy this sacred teaching has become clarified in the course of time, God using for this purpose the foolish attacks of heretics."
If this doctrine of God is a later clarification, we *cannot* read it back into the Creed; That wouldn't make sense.
The Creed says nothing explicit about Jesus Christ having two wills and two energies, or operations, yet that is also upheld by a later council.
Why make something more complicated than it needs to be? One Being, three Persons... God is One, but the Father is not the Son nor the Holy Spirit etc. To say that the back of God is God's energies, and the face of God is His essence seems rather like making a esoteric riddle where a riddle does not exist. People with good intentions can often use analogies that do not help but rather hinder the understanding. God uses language in ways that we can understand. God uses face, hand, and back idiomatically and metaphorically, using "anthropomorphisms." In other passages it says that Moses spoke with God "face to face," and here too God was using a figure of speech. Moses, and the Israelites overall, could not have a full understanding of God and His glory at that time. It was to be in God's timing that He would fully reveal Himself in and through Jesus. By the faithful exposition of Scripture, using and understanding historical grammatical contexts, the intented meanings can be understood. Not all early Church leaders and Councils had a full understanding. Councils were not and are not infallible. This truth is plainly evident in that The EO as well as the RCs "choose" which Church Councils they agree with (and label "ecumenical") and those that they do not agree with.
There is only one thing that is uncreated: God. God’s energies are nothing more than his essence existing in contact with the universe
Gregory Palamas essence/energy distinction is heresie. The Bible teaches a distinction between the 3 persons of the Godhead, not between God essence and his Energy. The father(with his divine essence and energy) is the cause and the source of life of the Trinity, and he is the one inaccessible that was never seen by human eyes(gospel of John 1:18 and john 6:46). The son of God(with whom the father share his divine essence) was seen and touch, before and after the incarnation, and is the perfect representation of his father(Hebrew 1:3). Since the father was never seen, The son of God(the essence and energy) is the one who was walking with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and the one talking face to face with Moses before the incarnation. In Jesus : "in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily"(colossien 2:9-10). So in Jesus was the essence with all the energy of God when he was walking here on earth, there is no separation between the energy and essence. The holy spirit is the mode of operation of both the son and the father. Accordingly, the holy spirit is also the essence and energy of God acting in his creation.
Especially that the hesychasm esoteric/mystical practices are paganism in disguise! The light of Mont Tabor (the beatific vision of Christ in glory that saw the apostles) was seen from the outside of themselves shining through the body of Christ, not inwardly (inside their inner self). Psychosomatic meditation, breathing techniques, mantra (the Jesus prayer), and body postures with the intention to explore the "inner self" or experience the energy of God "inwardly" to worship him or become one with him inside your belly is not Christianity at all… it is paganism in disguise with a Christian vocabulary. Be aware!
What are you talking about paul says ενεργηματα n 1 cor 12:6 saint john the damascian show that as what it means in greek energies
What is the front of God we cant ever see and what is the back of God we can see exodus 33
@@thefaiththatenduresfirst what is the front of God in exodus 33 that no one can experience and what is the back that people can experience?
@@thefaiththatendures paul writes ενεργηματα in 1 cor 12:6 what are those? Actually it is διαιρέσεις before meaning distinctions How you say scriptures does not show other Distinctions in God accept the three persons .
@@thefaiththatendures where Paul says the energies are the essence ??? By the way in scripture power and energy δύναμις and ενέργεια are synonyms.1cor 6:14 and col 2:12.so going your logic δυναμις power that got out of Jesus Christ was that his essence? Mark.5:30 luke 6:19
B A S E D
Gregory says we cannot discover the nature and essence of God in this body in the first sentence of Oration 28.17. In sentences 2-3-4 he speculates that we will be able to discover it in the age to come. When are you going to address what he says in sentences 2-3-4 of Oration 28.17? Did you just cut that part out of the text? You are an absolute clown.
Realize the Krishna consciousness within
Lmao we don’t do that new age stuff here
Subhuman religion