The Essence-Energies Distinction - Fr. Deacon Ananias Sorem & Christopher Tomaszewski
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 бер 2021
- Patreon: / intellectualconservatism
Podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
Podcast: intellectualconservatism.libs...
Facebook page: / intellectualconservatism
The purpose of Intellectual Conservatism is to defend the true, good and beautiful things of life that are jeopardized in mainstream academia and society. On this page, you will find artwork, music, satire, academic papers, lectures and my own projects defending the duty of conserving these true, good and beautiful things.
David Bradshaw is an expert on the essence-energy distinction. He’d be a cool person to have on for future discussions!
Working on that as we speak.
Not likely
Not likely
It's ironic that many EO criticize the west for putting too much emphasis on God's transcendence, yet the EO view being presented here is stronger
What Orthodoxy is differs depending on which Orthodox you ask
@@bastionofthefaith92 there is one orthodox church theology .dont confuse orthodox church theology with any western christian faith theology
Really enjoyed this discussion! Thank you for having Father Deacon on. Was interesting to hear both sides hash it out respectfully
This was a wonderful conversation.
Good discussion, difficult to grasp what they're talking about sometimes 😂😂 but Chris was great, really appreciate it.
Great talk; Suan maybe you could Mark Spencer on this topic as well.
Great discussion!
Wow! Did not expect this! 🙏
Is it fair to say that the Orthodox understanding of God can be summarized as follows?
1. However God reveals himself to creatures through his energies, it is not a false or faulty revelation. Therefore, God's essence is present in his energies.
2. However God reveals himself to creatures through his energies, it is a revelation that is accommodated to a creaturely understanding of the divine, albeit by the aid of divine grace. Therefore, even though God is truly present in his revelation, we cannot associate our understanding of that revelation with what God actually is, in essence.
Chris made a point that I found quite interesting.
There is the Divine Essence Ad Intra which we know absolutely nothing about, and there is the Divine Essence Ad Extra, which we can predicate of (it was unclear whether the divine essence ad extra falls under one of the usages of energy but it's not important for my question here, forgive my ignorance).
Now Chris basically asked, ok putting aside this divine essence ad extra business, we can say absolutely nothing about the divine essence ad intra. At least that is what Fr. Deacon was maintaining. Now Chris asked sort of the obvious question, how do we know that there even is a divine essence ad intra, that sentence already uses a form of the verb to be (is) and means that we are in fact saying something about the divine essence ad intra.
Perhaps even if we wanted to avoid a statement like "There is a divine essence ad intra", obviously the alternative statement "There is not a divine essence ad intra" is equally impermissible due to this absolutely uncompromising apophaticism of Gods essence ad intra.
So Fr will want to say something like "The Divine Essence ad intra neither is or is not but transcends those categories entirely."
Fair enough, but how does "Divine Essence Ad Intra" even mean anything whatsoever. Fr responded that we know about it from Divine Supernatural Revelation, and fair enough, but Chris asked the obvious (I think) follow up question. How is a sentence in scripture for example that speaks about the divine essence ad intra even coherent? It already presupposes law of identity for you to grasp it, and what are the letters divine essence ad intra" being identified with?
What is the point in even knowing God has an essence ad intra. It just seems that we are railing so hard on the utter transcendence of God to the extent that we don't even know what transcends.
It's like "This transcends so much cant even predicate anything positively or negatively about this" and the response of Chris is "except that it utterly transcends" which seems to refute itself?
Another way of putting it, this divine essence ad intra is in fact named. It is unnameable. That is apophatic predication in the western use of apophatic.
Like it just seems law of identity and law of excluded middle are just thrown out the window. I don't know, thoughts?
Ya, it was an excellent point. It seems that this discussion is going to point us back to the historical context and the debate that the "fleshing out" of the E/E distinction took place in. I think that when EO say "the essence," they are essentially trying to maintain the prohibition on naming (eg, G-d) but use "essence" only in the context of discussing that which can be named (ie, the Energies). I've understood "essence" to be, as you stated, indistinguishable from or synonymous with terms like "ineffable," "unknowable," "unnameable." However, Chris's point about the specific term "essence" does seem important as those "in-" or "un-" terms directly point us back towards 1) the prohibition on naming and our finitude and limitations and 2) our *relationship* (this seems to be the point Maximus was bringing up with the appropriateness of "pure act"), while "essence" seems different.
It's also important to point out, though, that E/E distinction is supposed to make clear the ineptitude of exactly things like "law of identity and law of excluded middle," not simply as useless in such a discussion; but as the grounds for *prohibiting* such discussion in the first place.
Then again, when Chris asked "But we know God through the intellect, right?" I thought Fr Dcn would emphatically claim "No, we certainly do not;" but he didn't.
This should also help as there is a major difference in the anthropology of East and West that directly leads to some of the questions you ask and relates to the confusion about the role of the intellect referenced in the last line of my post:
ua-cam.com/video/cseroK1n4rs/v-deo.html
Scripture uses the word ενέργεια ενεργηματα energy energies
@@differentt4188 essence is God energies are God. The energies are actually God Allmighty operating in each energy is all God.
Chris is, let’s just say, dressed very comfortably.
nice to see sorem on here. Is Chris a thomist? I know he is pro divine simplicity.
I think I wrapped my mind around it finally, essence is God himself, his true nature, while "energies" is everything we can see and know as humans about it, Gods representation to us
Just roughly something like that
The energies are not some representation of God in the sense that it is something other then God himself the energies are actually God himself personaly they as beeing God are allways Uncreated.
Very insightful conversation. The best point was when Chris pressed the issue of the implications of having no ability to even predicate negations to the Divine Essence Ad-Intra. Predications such as, "the Divine Essence is not composed of parts ad-intra" is impossible, since according to the EO position that would be a predication of the Divine Essence Ad-Intra, which is not allowed. To even state that the "Divine Essence Ad-Intra exists" is a predication one can't make since the EO hold that God transcends those categories.
The Thomist position of only being able to predicate affirmations by analogy and being able to predicate negations univocally, synthesizes Scripture and reason. We can say positive attributes analogically about God which allows us to know He is Good, yet prevents idolatry by saying that His Goodness is just mere created goodness. We can also univocally say that God is not evil, thus upholding truths revealed by in scripture.
The logical conclusion of the EO position would not allow us to say the Divine Essence Ad-Intra is not evil, since that is a predication. The extreme apophatic route seems to cause even more problems with Scripture, especially when it comes to Exodus 3:14. God reveals His name to us. Aquinas' demonstration in the De Ente et Essentia shows that God as Ipsum Esse Subsistens completely matches God's name in Exodus 3:14. Knowing God's name in no way means that creatures can fully conceive the Divine Essence. However, by knowing that God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens and Pure Act, by way of negation, we are drawn closer to who God is.
The Scholastics are right when they say that logical axioms are reflections of God's nature, since God IS and will never cease TO BE. Thus the principle of identity and non-contradiction must hold, not because God is conditioned by these things, but because these laws of logic reflect Who He Is. Although the Divine Essence cannot be conceived by created finite effects, The Father eternally generates the Word through an eternal intellective act, which shows us that God is not opposed to reason. The Divine Essence grounds the intelligibility of creation, even though the Divine Essence is not conceivable by creation, since the Divine Essence is infinite. The only thing that could possibly conceive of the Divine Essence is an Infinite unconditional act of intellect, which is how the Son is generated. This was a great talk, and I think the Thomistic school prevails. Both speakers did well explaining the motivations of the EO position and fleshing out the implications.
2:05:42 bookmark
1:14:48
I wonder how much DBH would agree with both guests.
afaik DBH is critical of essence-energies, at least as a full-blown metaphysical proposition.
Qualify what it sense to be eternal? What other sense other than that they don’t begin to exist 24:57?
Also on the format. Was this supposed to be a debate or interview? If it was to be a debate I wish it was more structured where each side had certain time to present instead of just Chris just asking questions.
I myself don't hold to the thomistic conception of DS since I allow for God to have accidents that are grounded in his will (like his contingent knowledge of particulars grounded in his will to create them), tho I hold to divine immutability, timelessness (in a boethian sense) and I don't think that God is a hylomorphic composite of any sort nor that he has any divisible parts since his attibutes are mutualy entailed.....
My main two problems with the essence-energies distinction is that 1) I don't see its necessity, I think that the thomistic account of grace and of the divine relation to creation is much simpler and better, and 2) I am confused about particular energies not being accidents of the divine essence. I get that the capacity to "energise" is essential to the essence, but I don't get how the denial of accidentality and/or contingency of the energies does not lead to some form of pantheism.
I appreciate father Sorem for his take! And I agree with him that there being some real distinctions in God does not mean that God is composed of parts in any meaningfull way, pace st. Thomas. But I am more simpathetic to Chrostopher's concerns regarding the essence-energies distinction
Col 1:29 says Paul there that the ενέργεια energy of God is in him. So is that the essence of God something created or uncreated ?
@@user-pj7sq7ce1fI wouldn't see a problem with saying eighther as neighther would imply an identification, but an indwelling presence and some kind of union, but not such that his creature hood on the one hand or God's transcendance on the other would be compromised.
So if the essence is beyond all words and names, why call it an essence?
I think to elaborate on Chris’ final point, the Orthodox (or Protestant) theologian, if he is too apophatic, may not end up in the Thomist boat but rather the atheist/pantheist boat of denying PSR or denying the need of a potential to be actualized by something already in act. If you say the Divine Essence is so transcendent that we cannot ascribe causality or even explanation to it (which seems to be the case if you cannot ascribe transcendentals like “being” to it) even analogously, then the Divine Essence serves no explanatory function. Then you are basically left with the Divine Energies as serving the sole explanatory role. And in that case you are in something like the Theistic Personalist boat which comes very close to atheism or panentheism.
That would only follow if East and West share the same anthropology, which they do not. As in, the West says that the only form of "knowing" comes from Man's physical senses mediated by the intellect; while the EO's possess the doctrine of the Nous.
UA-cam filters won't let me link it in this post, but there is a timestamped link in a reply to Michael Donohue's comment on this page that gives an overview of this anthropological difference and why Westerner's don't understand.
If you want to revisit essence-energies, it would be interesting to have an Orthodox discuss the concept with a Scotist (if you can find one).
Edit: Another interesting topic would be the phenomenon of Thomistic Palamism (e.g., Gennadios Scholarios). Marcus Plested or Fr. Christian Kaapes come to mind.
Edit 2: I'm not sure if the deacon presented the concept in the best way. He seems very tired. This presentation by Plested is much clearer: ua-cam.com/video/OjjxPT6Mjv8/v-deo.html
There is an ontologicall difference between orthodox doctrine of essence energies and scotism. In orthodoxy the doctrines are allways a matter of experience from Theosis .They never are from philosophical methodologies and thinking.you experience God in his divine uncreated majestic Glory then you can as possible talk about that with words and say...
actually after a lot of thinking: catholics say, there is the internal god, uncreated therefore "non-existent" in here. from there comes the notion "god is pure actuality" and all the effects being "created" . the orthodox with uncreated mostly mean "an eternally true thing" , so all the energies point to the true nature of reality, which is god, but infinetely more than that, so unreachable (a positive view of infinity,still totally unreachable we could say). on the contrary as for our relation to that god, god thinking himself eminates being reaching back to him in aquinas and in palamas , creation and god are "conected" through "the energies around god" but still this experience is not exaclty god as like in his true simplicity. christian theology is beautiful in any form IMO
The experience of God is actually God himself in his Energies that are uncreated . That is the orthodox church theology
I don't know how we can know that God exists at all if we can't know anything about God as He is in himself (God's essence), but only as He appaears to our limited cognitive faculties (God in relation to creation and us). He has a too negative view of reason so much so that it could led to epistemological idealism.
Protestantism: appeal to scripture
Orthodoxy: appeal to Tradition (and scripture)
Catholic Church: have a living teaching authority.
Unfortunately, the Orthodox model is flawed precisely because it looks back to the fathers as determinative of orthodox teaching. Where is the modern teaching authority? Who can settle these questions? Is it just a matter of past consensus.
And somehow your living teaching authority weirdly (infallibly) states that heathens have the same Deity as you. Great model you guys.
@@piscagherila9981 The fact that Muslims and Jews worship the same God is not problematic. Even saint Paul says that pagans can know the true God. The existence of God is knowable by reason, not only by Christians.
@@vituzui9070 who the hell are you
@@piscagherila9981 Just a Catholic in youtube.
@@vituzui9070 natural reason is argued by Paul as A God but never THE GOD. Muslims and Jews are disqualified by not knowing the son of God which according to the epistles and Gospel of John are very indicative of the trinitarian model being the difference of salvation.
Good to finally see a traditionally-minded Thomist drill into this topic. The amount of “yes and no” responses from the EO interlocutor is telling.
Is Christ God?
@@heinrich3088 Yes
@@SammyJ.. So he also has a Father distinguished from his own hypostasis which is co-essential with Him? And when you offer any form of worship to Christ which is per nature God, you do not offer this worship to God the Father and the Holy Ghost as a hypostasis because if you do, you will collapse the distinction between person and nature, falling to sabellianism. But you wouldn't commit idolatry since the divine nature and its operation is what define God. Am I correct?
If you agree with paragraph above, what I can say to you is: distinction doesn't imply composition. When you worship Christ alone in a determined context, you are not worshipping the Father simultaneously; but as I said before, this will not posit different entities because they share the same substance. Hence, I'm not worshipping the "Father", when referring to Christ, but I'm adoring him (the Father) because the honor payed to the image pass to the prototype (St. Basil). So where is the "yes and no"?.
@@heinrich3088 He literally said “yes and no” several times in the discussion, not sure what you’re going on about
@@SammyJ.. Read my comment carefully. You will note that 'yes and no' doesn't apply to Trinitarian concepts. If we stick with the strict principle of identity, we will affirm three different entities in our theology. But we don't: God the Father, is not God the Son, and not the Holy Spirit as well. However, we worship one God because they share the same divine nature.
Listening to Jay Dyer debate philosophical noobs gave me the impression Eastern theology is superior but now listening to an high caliber Thomist I’m not so sure anymore :)
Has Jay ever debated a serious catholic thinker? Jay would much rather just rant for hours by himself. Total grifter
@Ioannis Grivas does Paul say there is a real distinction between Essence and energies and that it’s shared among all three hypostases?
@Ioannis Grivas Colossians is not regarded as an authentic Pauline epistle but regardless how do you infer the energies are uncreated from col 1:29? The question is can you find a verse that directly or indirectly supports a real (versus formal or virtual) distinction in God?
@Ioannis Grivas Catholics believe the only “uncreated grace” is God himself, the rest are created effects that take hold in the person, as far as I understand
@Ioannis Grivas I think many Catholics could adhere to a formal distinction between Essence and energies but you go further, you say it’s a real distinction
Only RC is overly concerned with what they can't know.
Well, yes and no
In about a year or two Suan Sonna will convert to Orthodoxy. 😉
I'm always open to going where Christ calls me. Although, I am quite convinced that Catholicism is true, especially given my work on the papacy.
@@intellectualcatholicism Hi. Will you be willing to debate Ubi Petrus or possibly address his arguments made against the papacy? I have not seen a single Catholic who's able to refute his videos and it is honestly discouraging.
@@pt3521 Ubi and I will be talking next month about the papacy. Although, he approaches the issue more from the councils whereas I approach it more from scripture and early Christian history. The intricacies of the synods have not yet been my focus.
@@pt3521 is that the best you have? A robot reading documents on the screen?
@intellectual conservatism I'd recommend the works of St Robert Bellarmine regarding the Councils in his work on the papacy, I think I brings it up a lot. He uses the councils to argue for the filioque as well and proves it. If you want I could send you the part on the filioque, it's translated into English and published for free online.
Oh man, the Orthodox priest's statements is very very confusing. Have a hard time pinning him down, let alone trying to understand him.
Catholic position is more rational and coherent.
@@Kane-cw1zh appeal to personal credulity
Paul say in greek in col 1:29 the ενέργεια energy of God is ενεργουμενην operating in him... So i ask is that energy of God his essence something created or something Uncreated that is not the essence of God.
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f "energea" also means "activity."
@@namapalsu2364 i read the original language text of the New Testament there is the word ενέργεια energy if by the word activity you mean energy no problem
With all due respect to Fr. Deacon, he comes across as attempting to defend a position that isn't well thought-out. He seems to hold some axioms he perceives as being non-negotiable by the Fathers, but stumbled when he attempts to think through the implications and make any type of coherent synthesis.
Unfortunately, I've found this all too frequently among Eastern Orthodox who are overly allergic to "Western logic." They do disservice to their own tradition by a vague appeal to mystery that hides inconsistent thinking.
I know for some Orthodox this all speaks to some type of mysterious, experiential beauty, but it really is just so much hand-waving and an unwillingness to really engage.
I suggest having on David Bradshaw.
This is rather misrepresentative, brother. Saint John of Damascus(who Thomas Aquinas cites, but explicitly rejects his teaching on essence-energy distinction) explains in his "An Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith(which is a sum of the Patristic teachings, or at least that's what he attempted to do)":
"But observe that energy and capacity for energy, and the product of energy, and the agent of energy, are all different. Energy is the efficient (δραστική) and essential activity of nature: the capacity for energy is the nature from which proceeds energy: the product of energy is that which is effected by energy: and the agent of energy is the person or subsistence which uses the energy. Further, sometimes energy is used in the sense of the product of energy, and the product of energy in that of energy, just as the terms creation and creature are sometimes transposed. For we say all creation, meaning creatures.
Note also that energy is an activity and is energised rather than energises; as Gregory the Theologian says in his thesis concerning the Holy Spirit : If energy exists, it must manifestly be energised and will not energise: and as soon as it has been energised, it will cease.
Life itself, it should be observed, is energy, yea, the primal energy of the living creature and so is the whole economy of the living creature, its functions of nutrition and growth, that is, the vegetative side of its nature, and the movement stirred by impulse, that is, the sentient side, and its activity of intellect and free-will. Energy, moreover, is the perfect realisation of power. If, then, we contemplate all these in Christ, surely we must also hold that He possesses human energy." - Book 3; Chapter 15
We can also cite Saint Basil the Great in regards to essence-energy distinction:
"To the same, in answer to another question.
Do you worship what you know or what you do not know? If I answer, I worship what I know, they immediately reply, What is the essence of the object of worship? Then, if I confess that I am ignorant of the essence, they turn on me again and say, So you worship you know not what. I answer that the word to know has many meanings. We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.
2. But, it is replied, if you are ignorant of the essence, you are ignorant of Himself. Retort, If you say that you know His essence, you are ignorant of Himself. A man who has been bitten by a mad dog, and sees a dog in a dish, does not really see any more than is seen by people in good health; he is to be pitied because he thinks he sees what he does not see. Do not then admire him for his announcement, but pity him for his insanity. Recognise that the voice is the voice of mockers, when they say, if you are ignorant of the essence of God, you worship what you do not know. I do know that He exists; what His essence is, I look at as beyond intelligence. How then am I saved? Through faith. It is faith sufficient to know that God exists, without knowing what He is; and He is a rewarder of them that seek Him. Hebrews 11:6 So knowledge of the divine essence involves perception of His incomprehensibility, and the object of our worship is not that of which we comprehend the essence, but of which we comprehend that the essence exists.”" - Saint Basil Letter 234
Sorry for the wall of text, but it is perfectly understandable what is meant by essence-energy distinction and just because some proponents of it may have a difficult time expressing it, doesn't mean there's no clear teaching on it. Essence is what God is in Himself and the energies are what flow out of His being, but are not identical to Himself, because in knowing the energies, you don't know the Divine Essence itself(for "No one has seen the Father, but the Son alone" and "No one has seen God and lived", but Moses saw His back, and so did Jacob wrestle with Him. What each righteous person experiences are the energies of God. And just like the operations you do are not identical to the human essence, so are the Divine Operations not identical with the Divine Essence. Your house is not you, or the human essence. You lifting up a weight is not "you". These are activities, energies your essence is capable of, but aren't the essence itself.
@@yavorangelov1601 Why can't the operations (energy in these texts) be created?
Honestly I don't think it contradicts Aquinas.
Aquinas also holds the idea of having an unknown essence however he doesn't believe that there's an uncreated divine operation which is God himself but at the same time is in a less position (?)
I don't really understand the position of the distinction between the divine essence and energy.
Seems like when you have this idea of uncreated divinity leads to a fragmentation in God?
@@Lay-Man because as Saint John of Damascus says "Energy is the efficient (δραστική) and essential activity of nature; the capacity for energy is the nature from which proceeds energy", so since God's nature is uncreated, so are His operations. He doesn't learn "new skills", as if He never had them, so now He has "created energy".
It doesn't lead to fragmentation. Just like both the Father, Son and Spirit have the Divine essence, thus are Divine and "One"; so are God's energies Divine in that same way, without leading to fragmentation.
So, the effects of God's energies may result in "creatures"(if He wills so), but the energy itself is not a creature, but uncreated. For example: when God created, it resulted in "creatures", but His Power to create didn't begin to exist: He's always had it.
@@yavorangelov1601 Ah, I see. He did say that it's uncreated.
Interesting.
@@Lay-Man actually saint john the Damascian shows as synonymus power and energy .can you say the power of God created? Ch 37
Get Jay Dyer on here. That guy is way too cocky and needs to be put in his place
Chris is a legit philosopher. Jay Dyer is a pseudo-intellectual narcissist who dishonestly seduces tough-guy losers into his online fantasy land of muh “Based” Ancient Faith. Jay poses like he’s well-read to impress fools like you but he’s a midwit.