Get 17 hour lecture set "Answering Protestantism from the Bible" here: buy.stripe.com/dR62bz6Y467KdfGcMM Sample lecture here: ua-cam.com/video/spQOreW8EDk/v-deo.html Or bundled with the 6.5 hour course "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" (24 hours total) for a discount here: buy.stripe.com/9AQ8zX4PWeEg1wYeUY To just get "Answering Calvinism from the Bible", see here: buy.stripe.com/aEUeYl4PW0Nq5Ne7su See also "Answering Judaism's Rejection of Jesus" at seraphimhamilton.com/ Here's the topic list: 1: Why Answer Protestantism from the Bible? 2: The Arc of Biblical Theology: Creation, Covenant, Redemption, Glorification 3: How Does Christ Purchase Salvation? 4: Justification, Deification, and Imputation 5: Justification, Deification, and Imputation (2) 6: Liturgical Worship in Biblical Theology 7: What Happens in Baptism and the Eucharist? 8: Apostolic Succession, the Holy Priesthood, and the Visibility of the Church 9: The Communion of Saints: Veneration and Intercession 10: The Woman: The Virgin Mary in Scripture 11: Now Mine Eyes Have Seen: Iconography and Idolatry 12: The Biblical Doctrine of Tradition
If you are thinking about the essence-energy distinction as a real distinction that exists uncreatedly in God himself, then you have to know that this is a heretical novelty, that is neither taught in the Bible nor by any of the Church Fathers.
@@the4gospelscommentary How could a pure essence God interact in a fallen creation? Either A He couldn't or B He could but this creation would die or burn everytime it came in contact with that all perfect God. Neither of these describe reality. This why St. Palamas warned that the view of Barlaam and his cohorts (the view that prevailed in the scholastic west) would lead to mass atheism.
Seraphim, not only is this by far the single best video on this platform clarifying the EE distinction, but it is one of your most lucid and concise videos ever. As someone who has been watching your videos since your days uploading hour long marathons with a simple, static image, it’s wild to me how this channel has aged like fine wine. I’m sure it’ll keep getting better, God willing! Keep it up! Glory to Jesus Christ!
From 9:42 approx. It seems that the economic analogy of God's ontology is Christ's baptism, so creation itself at that time was a witness of that shadow of ontology, an icon of it.
@Seraphim-Hamilton Very good video! I think, among online voices, you give the best explanation of the essence-energies theology, and I look forward to the next video. However, I have a question about this section 14:55-15:07 Of course creation is gratuitous, that was not what was actually at issue between Bulgakov and Florovsky (despite how it gets portrayed that way). The issue on this specific point was that Bulgakov conceived of creation as the gratuitous fullness of God's actualization of Himself in the finite beyond Himself because God is love, whereas Florovsky thought the gratuity of creation hinged on its being radically contingent, that is, God "could" have not created at all. This introduces a deliberative and arbitrary principle into the divine will, shown by Florovsky's having to use language of different levels of eternality and God needing to "think up" and decide on the pattern of creation to then lock it in and bring it into being. Now to be clear, I have been and am a fan of Fr. Georges Florovsky, especially his thought on ecclesiology, importance of historical hermeneutics, etc. But on issues like the above I have come to think Fr. Sergius Bulgakov was clearly the better man, and I would point out that you would likely also accept this on certain points. For example, Florovsky conceives of created nature as "complete dissimilarity and otherness" to God and denies logos spermatikos in opposition to Bulgakov's belief that created beings are the "hypostatized rays of God's glory." But Staniloae (who read Bulgakov) agrees with Bulgakov and not Florovsky, as Staniloae says the Logos is in the world as its own substance and inner reasons as well as being their Prototype and that created beings are incarnated images of the divine energy (glory) that is their substratum. To my knowledge from watching previous videos, you affirm the same thing as Staniloae and Bulgakov (who Florovsky misunderstood in his veiled accusations of the divine logoi developing). And seeing as this was also a key point of their disagreement then Florovsky, at the very least, was not completely right in the argument. Now to the question, how does Florovsky's hinging of creation's gratuity on an arbitrary deliberative process in God's will jive with your explanation of the divine energies and God's actuality? I'll demonstrate the conundrum. As you explained, the divine energies are God's full actualization as who He is as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This full actualization, of course, is not just God's powers in first act (what He is), it is the fullness of the Trine Hypostases' glorification through and in one another from eternity (what He does and how He is). Creation is then not just God's activity terminating in finitude, it is God's glory and love returned back to Himself as the fullness of His Son's Body. In sum, creation is not just an arbitrary act, it is God's own necessary (by His character as Love) manifestation of His nature in loving beyond Himself which is itself part of or swept back up into Himself as Love again (Creation-Incarnation). The creation is contingent from the creature's side (as finite being's progression from potency to actuality) and from God's side (as gratuitous self-expression of who and what God is, which reality is logically and causally prior to this expression). The above logic of creation, I think, follows from your explication of the energies in Trinitarian communion. If it does not then please let me know if you decide to respond to this long post of mine, but as is I do not see how your explication can jive with Florovsky's view of divine freedom constructed polemically against Bulgakov. If God could have not created at all that means He could have not actualized His power as creator in the Son and Spirit, never actualizing it for Himself at all, and thus in God's transcendant eternity there is some strange dark moment of potentiality, even arbitrariness in God Himself. When put as a question in light of Orthodox theological personalism it has even darker implications (human persons being created arbitrarily and as dispensible to God, rather than subjects of His absolute love). Thanks for your time!
How God has free will if creation is ' as the gratuitous fullness of God's actualization of Himself '? Maybe I do not understand your question or Bulgakov theology. I think it is wrong to say that creation is fullness of God's actualzation of Himself, since it means that without creation God did not have full actualization of Himself. Then God does not have free will, and he is not perfect without creation, so here we go to Origen and Plato's wrong ideas about God and creation.
@@emilbrusic6032 The answer to your question is in the quote you gave, "gratuitous... actualization." God is fully actualized as who and what He is within the Trinitarian communion, and creation is the full expression or actualization of this reality outside of Himself. It is not that God needs creation to be perfect, but rather that God by His very character and reality as Love/the Good cannot not create out of love. And this creation, aka God's love for and glory in the finite, is part of God's own loving and glorying in Himself (which is why creation is Incarnation, the procession out from and return into God of the logoi in the Logos). And lets not rag on Origen, who was considered a saint and father of the Church by Athanasius, the Cappadocians, etc. Read Fr. John Behr's translation of On First Principles to actually understand what he says.
@@mynameisjeff6516 Noah, brother, there’s a few issues here and I have some questions. Firstly, Fr Staniloae does not agree with Bulgakov on the necessity of creation (and, as I will address below, I will use this phrase even if you don’t agree with it to describe your position). Staniloae agrees with Florensky, and (I believe) the only time he cites him in The Experience of God is in the section on the absolute contingency of the creation on account of the Trinity’s inner perfection/completion. Secondly, that is not my reading of Florovsky whatsoever, which I will boldly argue even though I know you are much more read on him than me. If you read Creation and Creaturehood, Florovsky explicitly affirms the traditional understanding of creation as God’s image with the terminology of St Maximus. By “complete dissimilarity and otherness” he is simply emphasizing the absolute contingency of creation and it’s distinction in respect of nature. This is simply Patristic theology my friend. God’s nature is not our nature, and the “complete dissimilarity” consists of our ex nihilo creation, which cannot in any respect be attributed to the nature of God. Thirdly, I really don’t understand your use of the word “gratuity” here. If God could not have created (which is what it means to say it is “necessary”), than it is no more gratuitous than the generation of the Son. God necessarily generates the Son out of Love, so what is the difference between the Son and creation if we’re using the exact same logic to argue for the necessity of the latter? I don’t buy your proposed solution with the Son being causally prior, as the Father is causally prior to the Son. It seems that in every way the arguments you’re using collapses created hypostases (not merely the eternal logoi) into the hypostasis of the Son. You know I’m down for a good antinomy, but as Palamas once said, our “antinomic” doctrines (Trinity, incarnation, etc.) should not be actual contradictions “lest we play the role of nitwits, thinking and speaking inconsistencies.” I simply do not see how creation is contingent if it is necessitated by God’s love. In fact, this undermines the usefulness of Trinitarianism in the context of creation, as the whole point is that the full revelation of the Father ALREADY OCCURS in the hypostasis of the Son! Every “fourth hypostasis” is absolutely contingent AND other in respect of nature, as Florensky so eloquently demonstrated. Lastly, I will quote a section from your article and then ask you a question: “If the Father’s full actualization of Himself is precisely in the Son, and the Son not only actualizes the fullness of God’s own proper being but also the putting of that being into act outside and in return to the Father, that is, the procession into creation and the return into deification of St. Dionysius’ providences and St. Maximus’ logoi, can any divine power not be actualized in this total process of creation? Put in Scriptural terms, can the Son who is the fullness of God not create precisely of this fullness which he then converts and submits as His Body to the Father? I argue the answer must be negative…” My question is how does this not necessitate the creation of every possible being and every possible universe? Unless you want to say God’s mind in respect of possible created world’s is limited to what we actually have, then you have to bite the bullet and go full Joe Rogan multiverse craziness. Using this logic, there is a universe where for a single microsend God gave me three ears and then took it away. It’s not impossible, it isn’t evil (so it doesn’t contradict the nature of God), so it necessarily happened using this logic. That universe does exist within God’s mind/power, but I will bet you several quid it doesn’t actually exist the way our world does.
@@mynameisjeff6516 I am Orthodox so anathema for Origen on Edumenical Council of the Church is still valid and will be for ever. i don't listen to theologians who contradict teaching of the Church.
So I’m not sure if I’m 4 months late to the party, but I had a question and im not sure where I can find an answer. I’ve been reading and listening concerning essence energies distinction and was wondering about the Eucharist. I’m a Roman Catholic and obviously we have the doctrine of transubstantiation, under the latin and more so thomistic approach we would probably say that we are eating the essence of God in relation to His simplicity (I think). Is this the same for orthodox theology on the Eucharist? Since it’s the substance of Christ body blood soul and divinity are we actually able to commune with God and partake of His essence? Or are we only partaking of His energies? And if we are able to partake of his essence is this a verifiable way to say we can know God in essence as it pertains to the Son and his person? Seeing as how we approach the persons of the trinity in relation to their “occupation” (?) ie. We approach the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit? I’ve been reading Gregory of Nyssa against the Macedonians and He seems clear that we can’t fully participate with the Holy Spirit by way of “knowing Him” but by his effects or energies apophatically speaking . Is this a relation specific to the Spirit? I’ve come from a charismatic low church background and their view of the Holy Spirit is that they can know Him, though they don’t have a language for this, we can know His effects, for instance they would say “we feel the Holy Ghost on us” or “He’s with us now in the room I can feel His presence”. Though they seem to not be able to make a distinction with His essence and energies. But the Eucharist seems as the person of Christ to be able to translate to us His essence according to RC theology. Though, I feel if we were able to actual commune with the essence of Christ in this way the ineffable glory of God would crush us. Can the essence energies distinction be an argument against transubstantiation in this way? I’m slowly understanding it (maybe) but it seems much more likely that this is the crux and lynch pin in RC theology. If essence energies is true, the filioque is false, and transubstantiation as Latin Theologians understand it is false as well. I know I spewed a lot out. And if you don’t respond I understand. But in any case typing all this out helped me get it out of my head and conceptualized. Great work! Can’t wait to learn more on this subject.
It’s a way of talking of the means by which creatures participate in the one Activity(energy) of God, his essential activity is to be who he is (God), and the true metaphysical bifurcation happens because God’s act it’s participated by created essences (limitations of participation in the one God) having thus “little acts” which are simple the one act participated in the limited manner of the essence of the creatures. In God there are not many uncreated energies/activities, since his only act is to be who he is namely God. It’s sad that Catholics don’t truly study true thomistic theology on Participation.
energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2022/10/22/the-four-horsemen-of-palamism/ These books are heavy! They will take time and sustained attention to process, but it will be a rewarding endeavor.
Orthodox inquirer here… how does the essence/energies distinction work in light of the incarnation? If Jesus is one in essence with the Father and is fully God and man in one person, doesn’t that eliminate such a distinction? Follow up on this as well… in the Eucharist if we receive Jesus in the Eucharist, wouldn’t that mean in some sense we are receiving into ourselves God’s essence since Jesus is of one essence with the Father?
How does your use of the term "modes' (when referencing the triad Father Son and Spirit) differ from the various forms of Modalism? Perhaps you mean it differently than I perceive it, because I found it a little distasteful. Curious to know. Also sidenote, Book 11 and especially 12 of St. Hilary's De Trintate, mentions the Acts and Works of God.
Replace the word "mode" with "subsistence". Subsistence (mode) is similar to hypostasis. Subsistence pertains to the mode (way, system, process, fashion, means, method, type) of existence within the divine essence, and hypostasis refers to the distinct persons of the Trinity. For example, the subsistence of the Hypostasis of the Son is that He is eternally generated (begotten) of the Father. The subsistence of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is eternal procession from the Father. (hypostatic modes = filial, paternal, spiritual)
Hello I'm a Catholic watching this video, I've recently been exploring eastern theology and thinking about conversion. I just have a question about what you said in this video. You talked about the father having a paternal characteristic or energy and for that energy to exist you have to have the son. So in order for the father to give himself to the son the Holy Spirit is necessary. Does that make the Son necessary for the cause of the Holy Spirit? How does that affect divine procession? I'm just trying to understand the debate between absolute divine simplicity and essence-energy and im trying to translate what I learn to figuring out the whole filioque controversy. Anything helps. Thank you God Bless!
The father does not need the Son to exist To beget the Son does not mean a need to be . To beget is not the same when God operates to create .the beget is from the essence of the Father eternal ,to create is from the will by the energies that are for all the three persons of the Trinity .
Wouldn't really distinct eternal energies still imply composition in God. If it cannot be implied about the essence because it would violate simplicity then how can kicking the can a bit further down the road/just adding an extra step of passing it all onto the energies really (pun intended) solve anything? I truly have come to believe that what Joshua Sijuwade has elucidated is correct about simplicity, but that might be a bit problematic for both traditionalists in Catholicism & E.O. because it means neither side had it right (unless it might be shown to be equivalent to Scotus' DDS which i think is likely), and of course even more problematic for Palamas allegedly seeing the divine light (still a saint for his holy living & pious life don't great me wrong of course).
An essense is "what" a being is. An energy is "how" a being exists in relation to another being that it interacts with. Those are two really distinct things because the one is self subsistent (the essence), the other is dependent on the object to which the being in question is responding to. In other words, an essence is a "thing", an action is not. For there to be a cause and effect (and those two are really different), there needs to be also an action, but that action is neither the cause nor the effect. In the case of God creating the world, if we collapse His actions into His essence this means that either the effect of His creating action (the world) is by nature divine (because God gives existence to all creation and is constantly mainting that), or that there is no actual contact with God and the world (because God is trascendent in nature), meaning God did not create the wold and has no relationship to it. If neither of those scenarios is true, then the energies must be of the essence, but not identical with the essence. Generally speaking, there is no reason to assume that the real distinction between essence and energies needs to rest on whether a being is composite or not. God is one, yet He exists as three Persons. Unless we want to go Sabelianists, why should the real distinction between essence and energies would make God composite, if the distinction between the three persons doesn't?
@@ThruTheUnknown No. Energy can produce matter, if that's what you mean, but that's the same as me saying my kneating produces bread. It does, but on a very different way from the one you are inferring. There is always an underlying essence behing each energy. In order to actualise you have to be actual. In other words in order to act you have to be, and those aren't the same thing. Inertia and non-existence are definately not the same thing, otherwise everytime you were lying in bed you would be (even partially) non-existent. And by the way I wouldn't advise to use science to explain theology. For one you have to grasp what the relevant theory is trying to say (which most of us don't), and on the other hand scientific theories (and all science, if we are to take Godel's second incompleteness theorem to it's logical conclusions), are incomplete. So trying to infer with absolute certainty an idea about God based upon that, not a good place to start.
@@bradspitt3896 Wisdom, Love & Power etc may all be verbs but they are also all nouns. In learning languages I believe it is what is called a participle, but Seraphim Hamiliton should already know that and be connecting those dots that he isnt quite yet connecting.
Why do you write" the loci of these relations are the hypostases - three different modes in which the nature subsists" ? Doesnt this smack of the modalist heresy? The three Divine hypostases are not "modes" of the Godhead, but individual Persons within the Godhead.
I think it depends on what you mean. The Father is the first cause, and the relationship between the Father and the other two persons is masculine or feminine depending on where your starting point is, but we can't confuse the relations for the persons. I would think you would say masculine and feminine are themselves eternal energies. Not sure.
I mean that we seem to have a need to gender God as Father, but argue not to gender the Holy Spirit (see comment by @Ladymaria). Jesus Christ is obviously male for obvious reasons. While we accept there is no confining of the Holy Spirit or God into simplistic categories we always default to the masculine. So then why do we not categorize the Holy Spirit, often referred to as wisdom/Sophia, as feminine? After all both man and woman were made in the Image of God. Is it simply a discomfort with the term? if the language isn't important then why are we insistent on it being only masculine? @@bradspitt3896
@@davidicke7638 destroyed/gotem If you are going to ping me with a comment, at least engage with the theological issue at hand. The video was more of a (random and seemingly without many conclusive points) reflection on Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic metaphysics. If you can provide an actual short, direct explanation of the dogma which you are positively affirming, I am all ears.
Get 17 hour lecture set "Answering Protestantism from the Bible" here:
buy.stripe.com/dR62bz6Y467KdfGcMM
Sample lecture here: ua-cam.com/video/spQOreW8EDk/v-deo.html
Or bundled with the 6.5 hour course "Answering Calvinism from the Bible" (24 hours total) for a discount here:
buy.stripe.com/9AQ8zX4PWeEg1wYeUY
To just get "Answering Calvinism from the Bible", see here:
buy.stripe.com/aEUeYl4PW0Nq5Ne7su
See also "Answering Judaism's Rejection of Jesus" at seraphimhamilton.com/
Here's the topic list:
1: Why Answer Protestantism from the Bible?
2: The Arc of Biblical Theology: Creation, Covenant, Redemption, Glorification
3: How Does Christ Purchase Salvation?
4: Justification, Deification, and Imputation
5: Justification, Deification, and Imputation (2)
6: Liturgical Worship in Biblical Theology
7: What Happens in Baptism and the Eucharist?
8: Apostolic Succession, the Holy Priesthood, and the Visibility of the Church
9: The Communion of Saints: Veneration and Intercession
10: The Woman: The Virgin Mary in Scripture
11: Now Mine Eyes Have Seen: Iconography and Idolatry
12: The Biblical Doctrine of Tradition
^highly recommend
What is the spelling of Flurovsky (sic) and in what work did that quote come from?
When I was protestant I had no place for the essence-energies distinction but now its the only way to make sense of scripture ☦️
It's kind of like putting on the sunglasses from They Live. All of creation, the Church, scripture, it all makes sense finally.
@@NavelOrangeGazer💯
If you are thinking about the essence-energy distinction as a real distinction that exists uncreatedly in God himself, then you have to know that this is a heretical novelty, that is neither taught in the Bible nor by any of the Church Fathers.
@@NavelOrangeGazerHow so? How does essence-energy distinction help to make sense of creation?
@@the4gospelscommentary How could a pure essence God interact in a fallen creation?
Either
A He couldn't
or
B He could but this creation would die or burn everytime it came in contact with that all perfect God.
Neither of these describe reality.
This why St. Palamas warned that the view of Barlaam and his cohorts (the view that prevailed in the scholastic west) would lead to mass atheism.
Seraphim, not only is this by far the single best video on this platform clarifying the EE distinction, but it is one of your most lucid and concise videos ever. As someone who has been watching your videos since your days uploading hour long marathons with a simple, static image, it’s wild to me how this channel has aged like fine wine. I’m sure it’ll keep getting better, God willing! Keep it up! Glory to Jesus Christ!
Invincible champion of the theologians, pray for us, sinners
St. Gregory Palamas ❤🙏🏻☦️
Thank you for the shorter video length. It makes it much easier to share these to interested parties without giving them the hour long deep dives
This video is astonishing, thank you! And praise God!
Thank you Seraphim!
Great video 🎉
From 9:42 approx. It seems that the economic analogy of God's ontology is Christ's baptism, so creation itself at that time was a witness of that shadow of ontology, an icon of it.
Startling similar conceptions to Sufi metaphysics. Let us within ourselves find love and mercy for one another.
Excellent presentation.
Nice video
2:18 bookmark for reading material
wow this is crazy....i felt like my mind exploded with multiple realizations at the same time lol
@Seraphim-Hamilton Very good video! I think, among online voices, you give the best explanation of the essence-energies theology, and I look forward to the next video. However, I have a question about this section 14:55-15:07
Of course creation is gratuitous, that was not what was actually at issue between Bulgakov and Florovsky (despite how it gets portrayed that way). The issue on this specific point was that Bulgakov conceived of creation as the gratuitous fullness of God's actualization of Himself in the finite beyond Himself because God is love, whereas Florovsky thought the gratuity of creation hinged on its being radically contingent, that is, God "could" have not created at all. This introduces a deliberative and arbitrary principle into the divine will, shown by Florovsky's having to use language of different levels of eternality and God needing to "think up" and decide on the pattern of creation to then lock it in and bring it into being.
Now to be clear, I have been and am a fan of Fr. Georges Florovsky, especially his thought on ecclesiology, importance of historical hermeneutics, etc. But on issues like the above I have come to think Fr. Sergius Bulgakov was clearly the better man, and I would point out that you would likely also accept this on certain points. For example, Florovsky conceives of created nature as "complete dissimilarity and otherness" to God and denies logos spermatikos in opposition to Bulgakov's belief that created beings are the "hypostatized rays of God's glory." But Staniloae (who read Bulgakov) agrees with Bulgakov and not Florovsky, as Staniloae says the Logos is in the world as its own substance and inner reasons as well as being their Prototype and that created beings are incarnated images of the divine energy (glory) that is their substratum. To my knowledge from watching previous videos, you affirm the same thing as Staniloae and Bulgakov (who Florovsky misunderstood in his veiled accusations of the divine logoi developing). And seeing as this was also a key point of their disagreement then Florovsky, at the very least, was not completely right in the argument.
Now to the question, how does Florovsky's hinging of creation's gratuity on an arbitrary deliberative process in God's will jive with your explanation of the divine energies and God's actuality? I'll demonstrate the conundrum. As you explained, the divine energies are God's full actualization as who He is as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This full actualization, of course, is not just God's powers in first act (what He is), it is the fullness of the Trine Hypostases' glorification through and in one another from eternity (what He does and how He is). Creation is then not just God's activity terminating in finitude, it is God's glory and love returned back to Himself as the fullness of His Son's Body. In sum, creation is not just an arbitrary act, it is God's own necessary (by His character as Love) manifestation of His nature in loving beyond Himself which is itself part of or swept back up into Himself as Love again (Creation-Incarnation). The creation is contingent from the creature's side (as finite being's progression from potency to actuality) and from God's side (as gratuitous self-expression of who and what God is, which reality is logically and causally prior to this expression).
The above logic of creation, I think, follows from your explication of the energies in Trinitarian communion. If it does not then please let me know if you decide to respond to this long post of mine, but as is I do not see how your explication can jive with Florovsky's view of divine freedom constructed polemically against Bulgakov. If God could have not created at all that means He could have not actualized His power as creator in the Son and Spirit, never actualizing it for Himself at all, and thus in God's transcendant eternity there is some strange dark moment of potentiality, even arbitrariness in God Himself. When put as a question in light of Orthodox theological personalism it has even darker implications (human persons being created arbitrarily and as dispensible to God, rather than subjects of His absolute love).
Thanks for your time!
How God has free will if creation is ' as the gratuitous fullness of God's actualization of Himself '?
Maybe I do not understand your question or Bulgakov theology.
I think it is wrong to say that creation is fullness of God's actualzation of Himself, since it means that without creation God did not have full actualization of Himself.
Then God does not have free will, and he is not perfect without creation, so here we go to Origen and Plato's wrong ideas about God and creation.
@@emilbrusic6032 The answer to your question is in the quote you gave, "gratuitous... actualization." God is fully actualized as who and what He is within the Trinitarian communion, and creation is the full expression or actualization of this reality outside of Himself. It is not that God needs creation to be perfect, but rather that God by His very character and reality as Love/the Good cannot not create out of love. And this creation, aka God's love for and glory in the finite, is part of God's own loving and glorying in Himself (which is why creation is Incarnation, the procession out from and return into God of the logoi in the Logos).
And lets not rag on Origen, who was considered a saint and father of the Church by Athanasius, the Cappadocians, etc. Read Fr. John Behr's translation of On First Principles to actually understand what he says.
@@mynameisjeff6516 Noah, brother, there’s a few issues here and I have some questions.
Firstly, Fr Staniloae does not agree with Bulgakov on the necessity of creation (and, as I will address below, I will use this phrase even if you don’t agree with it to describe your position). Staniloae agrees with Florensky, and (I believe) the only time he cites him in The Experience of God is in the section on the absolute contingency of the creation on account of the Trinity’s inner perfection/completion.
Secondly, that is not my reading of Florovsky whatsoever, which I will boldly argue even though I know you are much more read on him than me. If you read Creation and Creaturehood, Florovsky explicitly affirms the traditional understanding of creation as God’s image with the terminology of St Maximus. By “complete dissimilarity and otherness” he is simply emphasizing the absolute contingency of creation and it’s distinction in respect of nature. This is simply Patristic theology my friend. God’s nature is not our nature, and the “complete dissimilarity” consists of our ex nihilo creation, which cannot in any respect be attributed to the nature of God.
Thirdly, I really don’t understand your use of the word “gratuity” here. If God could not have created (which is what it means to say it is “necessary”), than it is no more gratuitous than the generation of the Son. God necessarily generates the Son out of Love, so what is the difference between the Son and creation if we’re using the exact same logic to argue for the necessity of the latter? I don’t buy your proposed solution with the Son being causally prior, as the Father is causally prior to the Son. It seems that in every way the arguments you’re using collapses created hypostases (not merely the eternal logoi) into the hypostasis of the Son. You know I’m down for a good antinomy, but as Palamas once said, our “antinomic” doctrines (Trinity, incarnation, etc.) should not be actual contradictions “lest we play the role of nitwits, thinking and speaking inconsistencies.” I simply do not see how creation is contingent if it is necessitated by God’s love. In fact, this undermines the usefulness of Trinitarianism in the context of creation, as the whole point is that the full revelation of the Father ALREADY OCCURS in the hypostasis of the Son! Every “fourth hypostasis” is absolutely contingent AND other in respect of nature, as Florensky so eloquently demonstrated.
Lastly, I will quote a section from your article and then ask you a question:
“If the Father’s full actualization of Himself is precisely in the Son, and the Son not only actualizes the fullness of God’s own proper being but also the putting of that being into act outside and in return to the Father, that is, the procession into creation and the return into deification of St. Dionysius’ providences and St. Maximus’ logoi, can any divine power not be actualized in this total process of creation? Put in Scriptural terms, can the Son who is the fullness of God not create precisely of this fullness which he then converts and submits as His Body to the Father? I argue the answer must be negative…”
My question is how does this not necessitate the creation of every possible being and every possible universe? Unless you want to say God’s mind in respect of possible created world’s is limited to what we actually have, then you have to bite the bullet and go full Joe Rogan multiverse craziness. Using this logic, there is a universe where for a single microsend God gave me three ears and then took it away. It’s not impossible, it isn’t evil (so it doesn’t contradict the nature of God), so it necessarily happened using this logic. That universe does exist within God’s mind/power, but I will bet you several quid it doesn’t actually exist the way our world does.
@@telosbound
Yes, creation is contingent, not some "fullness of God".
@@mynameisjeff6516
I am Orthodox so anathema for Origen on Edumenical Council of the Church is still valid and will be for ever.
i don't listen to theologians who contradict teaching of the Church.
knowledge not being a euphemism blew my mind.
So I’m not sure if I’m 4 months late to the party, but I had a question and im not sure where I can find an answer. I’ve been reading and listening concerning essence energies distinction and was wondering about the Eucharist. I’m a Roman Catholic and obviously we have the doctrine of transubstantiation, under the latin and more so thomistic approach we would probably say that we are eating the essence of God in relation to His simplicity (I think). Is this the same for orthodox theology on the Eucharist? Since it’s the substance of Christ body blood soul and divinity are we actually able to commune with God and partake of His essence? Or are we only partaking of His energies? And if we are able to partake of his essence is this a verifiable way to say we can know God in essence as it pertains to the Son and his person? Seeing as how we approach the persons of the trinity in relation to their “occupation” (?) ie. We approach the Father through the Son by the Holy Spirit? I’ve been reading Gregory of Nyssa against the Macedonians and He seems clear that we can’t fully participate with the Holy Spirit by way of “knowing Him” but by his effects or energies apophatically speaking . Is this a relation specific to the Spirit? I’ve come from a charismatic low church background and their view of the Holy Spirit is that they can know Him, though they don’t have a language for this, we can know His effects, for instance they would say “we feel the Holy Ghost on us” or “He’s with us now in the room I can feel His presence”. Though they seem to not be able to make a distinction with His essence and energies. But the Eucharist seems as the person of Christ to be able to translate to us His essence according to RC theology. Though, I feel if we were able to actual commune with the essence of Christ in this way the ineffable glory of God would crush us. Can the essence energies distinction be an argument against transubstantiation in this way?
I’m slowly understanding it (maybe) but it seems much more likely that this is the crux and lynch pin in RC theology. If essence energies is true, the filioque is false, and transubstantiation as Latin Theologians understand it is false as well. I know I spewed a lot out. And if you don’t respond I understand. But in any case typing all this out helped me get it out of my head and conceptualized. Great work! Can’t wait to learn more on this subject.
It’s a way of talking of the means by which creatures participate in the one Activity(energy) of God, his essential activity is to be who he is (God), and the true metaphysical bifurcation happens because God’s act it’s participated by created essences (limitations of participation in the one God) having thus “little acts” which are simple the one act participated in the limited manner of the essence of the creatures. In God there are not many uncreated energies/activities, since his only act is to be who he is namely God. It’s sad that Catholics don’t truly study true thomistic theology on Participation.
Hi, I want sturdy this topic, you have recommendations of books to start, God bless you
energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2022/10/22/the-four-horsemen-of-palamism/
These books are heavy! They will take time and sustained attention to process, but it will be a rewarding endeavor.
Is it true that James Jordan is a Palamite?
He has identified that way and reviewed a translation of Palamas' 150 Chapters!
@@Seraphim-Hamilton covenantal theosis 🔥🔥
There is no such thing as palamites. The theology of saint Gregory Palamas is the theology of the orthodox church.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληναςthis!
@@ΓραικοςΕλληναςSure, but in terms of the phrasing of the question “Palamite” was more clear.
Orthodox inquirer here… how does the essence/energies distinction work in light of the incarnation? If Jesus is one in essence with the Father and is fully God and man in one person, doesn’t that eliminate such a distinction?
Follow up on this as well… in the Eucharist if we receive Jesus in the Eucharist, wouldn’t that mean in some sense we are receiving into ourselves God’s essence since Jesus is of one essence with the Father?
Inquirer here as well, really interesting question
How does your use of the term "modes' (when referencing the triad Father Son and Spirit) differ from the various forms of Modalism? Perhaps you mean it differently than I perceive it, because I found it a little distasteful. Curious to know.
Also sidenote, Book 11 and especially 12 of St. Hilary's De Trintate, mentions the Acts and Works of God.
Replace the word "mode" with "subsistence". Subsistence (mode) is similar to hypostasis. Subsistence pertains to the mode (way, system, process, fashion, means, method, type) of existence within the divine essence, and hypostasis refers to the distinct persons of the Trinity. For example, the subsistence of the Hypostasis of the Son is that He is eternally generated (begotten) of the Father. The subsistence of the Hypostasis of the Holy Spirit is eternal procession from the Father. (hypostatic modes = filial, paternal, spiritual)
So like energis is predicates?
Hello I'm a Catholic watching this video, I've recently been exploring eastern theology and thinking about conversion. I just have a question about what you said in this video. You talked about the father having a paternal characteristic or energy and for that energy to exist you have to have the son. So in order for the father to give himself to the son the Holy Spirit is necessary. Does that make the Son necessary for the cause of the Holy Spirit? How does that affect divine procession? I'm just trying to understand the debate between absolute divine simplicity and essence-energy and im trying to translate what I learn to figuring out the whole filioque controversy. Anything helps. Thank you God Bless!
The father does not need the Son to exist To beget the Son does not mean a need to be . To beget is not the same when God operates to create .the beget is from the essence of the Father eternal ,to create is from the will by the energies that are for all the three persons of the Trinity .
Wouldn't really distinct eternal energies still imply composition in God. If it cannot be implied about the essence because it would violate simplicity then how can kicking the can a bit further down the road/just adding an extra step of passing it all onto the energies really (pun intended) solve anything?
I truly have come to believe that what Joshua Sijuwade has elucidated is correct about simplicity, but that might be a bit problematic for both traditionalists in Catholicism & E.O. because it means neither side had it right (unless it might be shown to be equivalent to Scotus' DDS which i think is likely), and of course even more problematic for Palamas allegedly seeing the divine light (still a saint for his holy living & pious life don't great me wrong of course).
An essense is "what" a being is. An energy is "how" a being exists in relation to another being that it interacts with. Those are two really distinct things because the one is self subsistent (the essence), the other is dependent on the object to which the being in question is responding to. In other words, an essence is a "thing", an action is not. For there to be a cause and effect (and those two are really different), there needs to be also an action, but that action is neither the cause nor the effect. In the case of God creating the world, if we collapse His actions into His essence this means that either the effect of His creating action (the world) is by nature divine (because God gives existence to all creation and is constantly mainting that), or that there is no actual contact with God and the world (because God is trascendent in nature), meaning God did not create the wold and has no relationship to it. If neither of those scenarios is true, then the energies must be of the essence, but not identical with the essence. Generally speaking, there is no reason to assume that the real distinction between essence and energies needs to rest on whether a being is composite or not. God is one, yet He exists as three Persons. Unless we want to go Sabelianists, why should the real distinction between essence and energies would make God composite, if the distinction between the three persons doesn't?
@@kostpap3554
Is not a being energy at some fundamental level so think it's really just playing games with categories to me.
@@ThruTheUnknown No. Energy can produce matter, if that's what you mean, but that's the same as me saying my kneating produces bread. It does, but on a very different way from the one you are inferring. There is always an underlying essence behing each energy. In order to actualise you have to be actual. In other words in order to act you have to be, and those aren't the same thing. Inertia and non-existence are definately not the same thing, otherwise everytime you were lying in bed you would be (even partially) non-existent. And by the way I wouldn't advise to use science to explain theology. For one you have to grasp what the relevant theory is trying to say (which most of us don't), and on the other hand scientific theories (and all science, if we are to take Godel's second incompleteness theorem to it's logical conclusions), are incomplete. So trying to infer with absolute certainty an idea about God based upon that, not a good place to start.
@@ThruTheUnknownYou are not your actions.
@@bradspitt3896 Wisdom, Love & Power etc may all be verbs but they are also all nouns. In learning languages I believe it is what is called a participle, but Seraphim Hamiliton should already know that and be connecting those dots that he isnt quite yet connecting.
My head hurts .
@@aleksandarnedeljkovic8104 😂
מבוא קצר לאנרגיה מקודשת 2:44
Do you think Christianity affirms the law of identity, excluded middle, and non contradiction? Speaking of communal ontology.
Can you do turkish subtitle pls
Why do you write" the loci of these relations are the hypostases - three different modes in which the nature subsists" ? Doesnt this smack of the modalist heresy? The three Divine hypostases are not "modes" of the Godhead, but individual Persons within the Godhead.
Why in Christianity does there seem to be hesitance to describe the Holy Spirit as a feminine energy/essence?
Holy Spirit has God's nature, and God's nature is active, not pasive.
I think it depends on what you mean.
The Father is the first cause, and the relationship between the Father and the other two persons is masculine or feminine depending on where your starting point is, but we can't confuse the relations for the persons.
I would think you would say masculine and feminine are themselves eternal energies. Not sure.
The Holy Spirit is a divine Person. He doesn't have "feminine" or "masculine" Essence or Energy.. He just is.
you are using 'he'. @@LadyMaria
I mean that we seem to have a need to gender God as Father, but argue not to gender the Holy Spirit (see comment by @Ladymaria). Jesus Christ is obviously male for obvious reasons. While we accept there is no confining of the Holy Spirit or God into simplistic categories we always default to the masculine. So then why do we not categorize the Holy Spirit, often referred to as wisdom/Sophia, as feminine? After all both man and woman were made in the Image of God. Is it simply a discomfort with the term? if the language isn't important then why are we insistent on it being only masculine? @@bradspitt3896
A lot of metaphysical rambling without actually giving a meaningful definition of the distinction within God
RC spotted
@@davidicke7638 destroyed/gotem
If you are going to ping me with a comment, at least engage with the theological issue at hand. The video was more of a (random and seemingly without many conclusive points) reflection on Aristotelian and Neo-Platonic metaphysics. If you can provide an actual short, direct explanation of the dogma which you are positively affirming, I am all ears.
@@davidicke7638still true.
The distinction between essence and energy makes zero sense in relation to God
@@Phantom-xp2co well paul show it in 1cor 12:6 distinction between Θεός God and ενεργηματα energies there .