Cappadocian and reformed views on God's energies [Archive]

View Full Version : Cappadocian and reformed views on God's energies

Dave Ferguson

19-04-2007, 03:18 PM

I am sorry this is going to be rather long. Before I begin I need to
explain a little of my own background. I am an Anglican but much of my
theology is derived from the reformed tradition. I have been very
influenced by a reformed philosopher called Roy Clouser. When Clouser
discusses the relationship between God and the world he claims that his
understanding, like that of John Calvin, derives from the Cappadocians
rather than the western scholastic tradition, but when he describes
God’s relations with the world he insists that these are created. This
seems significantly different from the Orthodox understanding also
derrived from the Cappadocians that these relations, or energies, are
uncreated.

I wanted to clarify some of this and to pick up an understanding from
Orthodoxy and to see what similarities and differences there are between
it and the views of Clouser and Calvin.

John Calvin had said that the only things we can know of God as he is in
Himself is that he is eternal and self existent. In Clouser’s
interpretation everything else we know about God, such as that he is one
or three-in-one or just or wise or loving is a description of his
relations to the world, or to use Orthodox terminology his energies. It
is easy to see how this might be the case with an attribute like wisdom
which seems to have meaning only in relation to those things in the
world about which God might be wise. It is not so easy to see how it
might be the case in relation to God’s oneness. For we tend to conclude
that God in Himself must be either one or not one; in other words we
apply the law of the excluded middle. But this says Clouser is precisely
what we cannot do. According to Clouser, God in Himself would neither
have nor not have the property of oneness. I find an echo of this in the
writing of Pseudo-Dyonisius when he tells us that God is neither one nor
oneness, and rather more ambiguously in St Basil when he tells us God is
one in nature but not in number and that the distinctions between the
persons of the trinity are not numerical identifying number as part of
creation (de sp. sanct. 18. 44, 45). J. N. D. Kelly suggests that this
is because he has reverted to an Aristotelian philosophy of number
seeing numerical distinctions as existing only where there is matter.

Clouser also applies this radical approach not only to numerical but
also, as can be seen in his claim that the excluded middle cannot apply
to God’s essence, to logical categories: God in Himself neither has nor
does not have the property of being identical to Himself. Clouser claims
that when Calvin uses the term nature of God he is talking about the
created nature which God has assumed to Himself from all eternity; which
Calvin calls "the nature in which He is pleased to manifest himself."
Thus all the (positive) attributes of God are attributes of this nature.
However the creation and assumption of this nature is not an event with
a beginning in time; although God’s assumed nature is created there was
never a time when it did not exist; thus it is both created and eternal.
Clouser claims that this view was shared by the Cappadocians and quotes
Basil of Caesarea to the effect that “God’s own being is
incomprehensible to reason” "All that is rational belongs to creation."
(Clouser ‘Is God Eternal?’) Unfortunately rather than giving references
to the writings of the Cappadocians Clouser cites Jaroslav Pelikan’s
Christianity and Classical Culture as his source for these references.
In Letter CCXXXIV, which is thought to have been a key influence on
Gregory Palamas, Basil does not seem to say explicitly whether he
regards God’s operations as created or uncreated, but elsewhere when
talking of the Trinity he says clearly that: ‘nothing in the divine and
blessed Trinity is created.’ This might suggest that Clouser has
misunderstood him. However Basil's comments were in the context of the debate with Arianism and during that debate both sides tend to use the word creation to refer to that which is distinct from God and has a temporal origin since the Arians were arguing that the word was created in both these senses.

My questions are as follows:
1. Is the Orthodox tradition as radical as Clouser in saying nothing
whatever can be known of God’s essence? Would Orthodox say that things
like number or reason are created?
2. If this is so then from the Orthodox perspective can the Trinity be
seen as something which is found in the energies but not the essence? I
get the impression from Orthodox writers that this is not the case and
that the Trinity is held to be true of both essence and energies, but if
so how does this knowledge, that we know God is both one and three,
square with the claim that God’s essence cannot be known?
3. And whatever is the case in regard to the above, how can the Trinity
be uncreated, whether in the essence or the energies, but number be
created? Or is it that in the Orthodox as in the scholastic tradition
both number and reason must be regarded as uncreated both in God and in
the world so that as Aquinas says properties of God flow over into
creation.
4. Finally there is the distinction where Clouser is saying God’s
operations are created whereas the Orthodox tradition says they are
uncreated. Is this difference any more than a semantic one? For Clouser
I may be said to create my own actions in so far as they depend on me
for there existence and in the same way God is said to create his
actions. For the Orthodox it may be that my actions and therefore God’s
would both be said to be uncreated in the sense that they are not
something distinct from the one acting. Is this so?

I hope you will forgive me for my very slender grasp on your tradition
but I am keen to learn. And if as seems to be the case John Calvin’s
Doctrine of God has significant affinities with the Doctrine of the
Orthodox Church that is surely a quite well kept secret which must have
some ecumenical significance.

Andrew

14-05-2007, 01:41 AM

God is truly Trinity. He is Love, which is uncreated. Love cannot be of one individual in a vaccuum... it is a communion of persons. God is a Tripersonal communion of Persons in one Essence. The three persons of the Trinity are not created in any sense of the word. God is not a monad who reveals himself as Three persons. He IS three persons, and can truly be experienced as three persons. The writings of Saint Silouan are a good example of this.

I do not think Reformed theology and Orthodoxy have much in common... I do not mean to offend you, but Calvinist readings of the Fathers are pretty shallow and academic. You cannot know the Fathers unless you live like the Fathers, which requires a life of asceticism, obedience, and ceaseless prayer. Reformed theologians tend to be very rationalistic in their thought process and do not delve into noetic vision, ontological communion with God, and deification, because they do not have evidence of this in their lives. It is cold, formal, and academic. Our theologians truly live up to what "theologian" means in Greek; people who speak of God because they have met Him face to face and know Him intimately, such as the three Theologians John, Gregory, and Symeon the New, or even a modern day one Elder Sophrony.

For your questions, someone else could probably answer them better. I'm not very smart!

Theology in Orthodoxy is an outward expression of the interior reality of a ontological communion of Persons... of man/mankind entering into the Tripersonal communion of God through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit who reveals to us the Godman Christ and makes us in His image and likeness, and the Father of Lights who is revealed by the Son. They are known Personally... this is what the Prophets knew, what the Burning Bush, Christ's Baptism in the Jordan, the Transfiguration, Pentecost, the martyrdom of St. Stephen, St. Paul's vision of Uncreated Light and ascent to the Third Heaven, and the Revelation of St. John at Patmos were about. Reformed theologians are ignorant of this life, so they speak from their own reasoning process instead of from a transfigured heart.

But, enough of my rant. Maybe someone here knows more about what your asking about!

Dave Ferguson

18-05-2007, 03:55 PM

Thanks very much for replying. As I understand it when scripture talks of God's love it places that in the context of God's covenant with us. I am open to correction but I don't think we are ever given information about the inter trinitarian relationships outside the context of God's covenant with us. On the view I am presenting God would not be a monad because the number one would be created every bit as much as the number three. St Basil seems to recognise this when he says God is one in nature not in number, since number applies only to the material creation. Certainly my own experience of God is of God as three persons and I do not want to call that into question in any way. I have spent a fair bit of time recently trying to explain and defend the doctrine of the trinity and I would not want to fall into the trap of either Arianism or modalism.

Reformed theology is rational (any ology has to be that) but not rationalistic. It is certainly not mystical but neither is it cold and unemotional. I am not sure what you mean by some of the mystical tems you use but would like to understand more. I hope you are not implying that those outside Orthodoxy have no experience of sanctification; that would not be true to my reading or experience. Anyway thanks for the reply and no; I take no offence at you expressing your views in a forthright manner

Shawn Lazar

18-05-2007, 06:13 PM

Hi Dave,

My name's Shawn. I know Roy through Thinknet, and have also been trying to understand some of the issues you mentioned. I can see what you mean by linking the Orthodox concept of God's created 'energies' with Roy's suggestion that we only know God's created attributes (such as wisdom).

One of the few books he appeals to in making the connection between his view and the Cappadocians is Jaroslav Pelikan's "Christianity and Classical Culture." I just bought a copy for myself last week, as it may be able to answer my own questions. Have you read it?

Along the same lines, however, and in agreement with Andrew, I wonder (1) whether God is truly unknowable since the Incarnation. It would seem that God the Son does indeed reveal quite a bit about who God is. And no one would say that the Son is created (as opposed to eternally begotten).

If we combine that with (2) the Orthodox stress on ascetic theology and the real experience of knowing and acquiring the Holy Spirit in personal life as it is lived in the Church (who is generated or spirated and not created), it would seem that we are led to (3) a fruitful understanding of who God is in himself as a social Trinity of love (see Zizioulas' Being in Communion). After all, the actual persons of the Spirit and Son were sent to us, and not just their created attributes.

It may be that in following Dooyeweerd's strong distinction between Creator and everything else in Creation, even to the point of saying that God's nature is created and that he is completely unknowable as he is in himself, Clouser has actually shortchanged God's revelation to us. In fact, I often wonder whether Dooyeweerdian philosophy can account for Chalcedonian and Nicene orthodoxy at all?

If I can add just one more thing... Though I wouldn't characterize Reformed theology the way Andrew did, I would say that it is sometimes dominated by a concern with legal relationships (whether Dooyeweerd and Clouser's aspectual laws, or the Covenantal law emphasis of Kline, Wilson, etc), as if God, like Dooyeweerd and Calvin, was a lawyer. But as Andrew was pointing out, the way we know God is by entering into the Tripersonal communion of God through the indwelling Spirit revealing Christ to us. If I can use the analogy of a marriage... Yes, I know my wife in a legal/bureaucratic manner, in that we have official covenental documentation outlining the nature of our relationship to one another, but that aspect of our relationship pales in comparison to our actual personal relationship. The same can be said about our relationship to God, I think (it doesn't help that Dooy. could not account for the activity of the Spirit and angels, etc, in his philosophy). And even on Clouser's scheme, the juridical aspect is lower than the ethical and fiduciary aspects, so covenants can't be the profoundest way we know God.

-Shawn

Dave Ferguson

19-05-2007, 01:29 PM

I found myself wanting to add something to my responses to Andrew:

God is truly Trinity. He is Love, which is uncreated. Love cannot be of one individual in a vaccuum... it is a communion of persons. God is a Tripersonal communion of Persons in one Essence.

I wonder where this idea comes from. I read a quotation from G. K. Chesterton recently which puts across this idea in words similar to the ones you use hear. Chesterton of course is very definitely in the western tradition and I wonder whether this idea has its rootes in Augustine's doctrine of the trinity and in the western tradition which identifies attributes like love with God's essence.

St Basil says that God's opperations (sometimes this word is translated energies, I take it to refer to God's actions - we know of God's love because he acts in a loving way) have come down to us while his essence remains hidden. Hence we do not have as Augustine and Aquinas and Anselm suggest a whole load of knowledge relating to God's inner life. In a similar way when St. Gregory of Nyssa talks of God as a community of persons his concern is not with the internal relations but the way the persons act in harmony. I think this is more in accord with scripture than the western tradition.

Now to Shaun:

One of the few books he appeals to in making the connection between his view and the Cappadocians is Jaroslav Pelikan's "Christianity and Classical Culture." I just bought a copy for myself last week, as it may be able to answer my own questions. Have you read it?

No but I would like to. I would appreciate it if you let me know whether you think Clouser is correct in his interpretation of what Pelikan says about the Cappadocians, and whether he has any references to the Fathers to back it up. Did you know by the way that Pelikan joined the Orthodox Church towards the end of his life?

And no one would say that the Son is created (as opposed to eternally begotten).

We must be careful not to drift into a discussion of Calvinist philosophy which would not be appropriate to this site but Clouser would indeed say this. He takes eternally begooten to mean that what is predicated of the Son is predicated of God. This is true but perhaps a bit minimalist.

In fact, I often wonder whether Dooyeweerdian philosophy can account for Chalcedonian and Nicene orthodoxy at all?

I have wondered the same thing and I challenged Clouser on this point a few years ago (we exchanged some emails) and he would say it can but like you I am not sure he is right. This concern with legal relationships is very much part of the Western Tradition and you are right I think that it should not be allowed to dominate. Some people would favour a much more mystical interpretation of Dooyeweerd than Clouser for example Glen Friesen. the person who has done most to explore the relatioship between Dooyeweerd and Orthodox thought is probably Michael Morbey.

Antonios

19-05-2007, 05:50 PM

Andrew

19-05-2007, 08:46 PM

I found myself wanting to add something to my responses to Andrew:

I wonder where this idea comes from. I read a quotation from G. K. Chesterton recently which puts across this idea in words similar to the ones you use hear. Chesterton of course is very definitely in the western tradition and I wonder whether this idea has its rootes in Augustine's doctrine of the trinity and in the western tradition which identifies attributes like love with God's essence.

It's not an "idea," so to speak, it is an actual knowable Personal relationship. I know this through the direct experience of the Uncreated Light that Saint Silouan, Elder Sophrony, Elder Joseph, and many others attest to in their lives and writings. And I know this myself through entry into the Divine Body of Christ through sacramental participation in the Church. It is ontological knowledge, not psychological... Knowledge more along the lines of the Biblical sense of shared life and being, not in the sense of accumulation of factoids.

Andrew

19-05-2007, 08:52 PM

We Shall See Him As He Is by Elder Sophrony goes over the topic Trinitarian Love indepth... especially in the chapter "The Hypostatic Principle in the Godhead and in the Human Being".

Shawn Lazar

20-05-2007, 01:37 AM

Hi Dave,

I read over the chapter (chapter three) in Pelikan’s book, and thought I’d cull together some relevant quotes. Pelikan makes the point that apophatic theology was a theory of language. My understanding of this chapter is that in trying to defend (1) the transcendence and unknowability of God’s being (ousia), the Cappadocians expanded their language of privation to include (2) the unknowability of God’s attributes and qualities in general, and ultimately (3) all language about God.

Here are some pertinent passages:

“Regardless of whether they were cataphatic or apophatic grammatically, the names used for God, also in the language of Scripture and of the church, referred to qualities and attributes that it would be blasphemous to predicate of the eternal one in a positive or literal sense… To protect themselves against distortion, whether accidental or deliberate, any “proper conceptions about the divine nature,” therefore, needed to begin from the fundamental premise that the divine nature was “unlike anything known” that might be used in speaking about it.” (p. 45)

“An “infatuation” like that presumed to define the divine ousia, in an enterprise that according to the Cappadocians might become possible, if indeed it ever would, only in the life everlasting.” (p. 49)

“Basil made clear his position not only that ultimate reality was “inexpressible by the human voice” but that it was at the same time “incomprehensible to human reason.” Apophasis represented a critique not only of all language, including religious, mystical, and theological language, but also of all thought, including philosophical, metaphysical, and theological thought.” (p. 50)

“…the Nicene Creed… drew the ontological line of the ultimate division here: between the one transcendent Creator God on one side and, on the other side, all creatures, whether visible (as human bodies, insects, and stones were) or invisible (as angels, human souls, and Platonic forms were). This was, according to Cappadocian thought, the only way to confess the total transcendence of God the Creator over all creatures, whether visible or invisible, rational or irrational, holy or sinful.” (p. 52)

“A similar metaphysical scepticism applied to another methodology that also claimed to be reasoning in the opposite direction, this time from the nature of the Father to the nature of the Son within the Trinity. Even the attempt to reason from the nature of the Son to the nature of the Father was attended by great peril, both metaphysically and religious. Yet it at least had some sort of explicit biblical warrant in such statements of the Gospel as the saying of Jesus “No one knows the Father but the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”” (p. 54)

I was particularly struck by this last quote: we cannot even argue from the Son to the Father? I suppose that is true where the being of God is concerned, but what about his nature?

I wonder if the Cappadocians lacked a rigorous doctrine of revelation. Certainly God is able to reveal himself to us in the Scriptures! (This problem reminds me of the Clark – Van Til debates). Furthermore, have the Cappadocians taken seriously the revelation of the Incarnation? Perhaps we should also consider the voice of the pre-schism Western fathers in thinking about these issues.

-Shawn

Jaroslav Pelikan. Christianity and Classical Culture: The Metamorphosis of Natural Theology in the Christian Encounter with Hellenism (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993)

Dave Ferguson

22-05-2007, 02:33 PM

God is truly Trinity. He is Love, which is uncreated. Love cannot be of one individual in a vaccuum... it is a communion of persons. God is a Tripersonal communion of Persons in one Essence.

The problem for me is that this sounds like an argument not a description of an experience. Clearly Christians were experiencing God as Trinity long before they had words like essence, trinity or uncreated (there are several different Greek words that mean uncreated and it took a while for the Church to settle on which one to use). So when I am exploring the metaphysical implications of these things I am not questioning the reality of the experience just the interpretation of that experience. I am trying to establish what it was the Cappadocians actually said and in trying to answer that question it is of limmited value to be directed to the work of other writers from a later time. I really do want to read and as far as I can to understand some of these later writers but for me in my crude analytic way that is a different issue. I know that some mystics have claimed to be able to distinguish different kinds of light and to tell which light but if it were clear from experience that the light experienced by the mystics was uncreated then there would have been no need for Gregory Palamas to refer back to St. Basil in trying to explain the experience since the experience would have been self explanatory. so although when experiencing God's love some people may have some way of knowing that this Love is uncreated I don't really know how they can do that without refernce to some kind of explanation of what they are experiencing. It is a standard problem with mystics in all traditions: they tell you something is completely undescribale then describe it! For me there is an issue about how the experientially self evident relates to theoretical or verbal knowledge.

Thanks for the quotes Shawn. They do seem to go deeply into an apophatic view of God. What I really want to know is how well Pelikan can back that up with actual quotations from the Cappadocians. Did you ever read the description Of God in Chapter 4 of Dyonisius's Theologia Mystica?

Shawn Lazar

22-05-2007, 09:53 PM

Dave, to answer your question, Pelikan is chock-full of references which could lead you to the primary source material, and the answers you're looking for. I assume much of it is still untranslated.

I'm not entirely sure of what your question is.

Is it related to the problem of rationalizing mystical experiences in terms of truth propositions? Ie: you are frustrated that seemingly mystical experiences that defy explanation are still being explained and described by the mystics? then the quesion becomes whether or not truth is only able to be expressed in terms of propositional knowlege.

Or, erhaps the explanations we read are actually justifications of those experiences, and not explanations at all.

Or, perhaps the explanations are limiting ideas that speak around the experience without actually being able to convey the actual experience itself. Its somewhat like trying to describe our own consciousness. No matter how hard you try to objectively describe it, there will always be that subjective part of you doing the describing that gets left out of the observation; the 'heart' of the matter will always defy explanation.

Antonios

23-05-2007, 09:23 AM

Dear Dave,

The Russian Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky reminds us that "far from being mutually opposed, theology and mysticism support and complete each other. One is impossible without the other. If the mystical experience is a personal working out of the content of the common faith, theology is an expression, for the profit of all, of that which can be experienced by everyone.... There is, therefore no Christian mysticism without theology; but above all, there is no theology without mysticism. Mysticism is...the perfecting and crown of all theology: as theology par excellence."

It is quite clear in reading the Fathers of the Church that knowledge of God, that is theology, was not regarded the same way as in the degenerated, arid, scholastic and academic sense of the word used today in modern Christianity. Theology, as a set of definitions, had meaning for the early Church only in the context of mystical experience. Knowledge of dogmas does not provide any ground for their genuine understanding. This can only come from experience of them.

Theology, or the knowledge of God to the Fathers of the Church, always involves a katharsis (purification) as referenced in the New Testemant ("Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God") (Matt 5:8)

St. Gregory the Theologian stated that the necessary condition to be a theologian is to live an ascetic life, to be virtous and go through moral purification. His student, Evagrius Ponticus made the famous affirmation that theology is prayer: "If you are a theologian you will pray truly and if you pray truly, you are a theologian."

St. Maximos the Confessor stated that theology, that is knowledge of God as He is Himself, is granted only in the the mystical union with God, at the last stage of deification, which is not an instant act but is preceded by a long spiritual development (katharsis). This highest state of union was granted to the saints- for example Moses on Mount Sinai in the mysterious darkness of God and the Apostles at the mountain of the transfiguration. These saints and Fathers extend a historic dimension to the living, incarnate Orthodox faith, which never ages and is always present in the mind of the Church. Patristic theology transcends its historical title as the theology of the ancient Fathers and cannot be dismissed from the modern theological discourse as old and outdated. These Father "are liturgical persons who gather round the heavenly altar with the blessed spirits. Thus they are always contemporary and present for the faithful."

Of criticial importance is that theology signifies an active and conscious participation in or perception of the realities of the divine world- in other words, the realization of spiritual knowledge. This spiritual knowledge is attained through communion and participation and is a gift bestowed on extremely few people. It is the mode of existence with God in which knowledge of God is the unfolding of one's own experience of life in God. Diadochos of Photiki said: "Nothing is so destitute as a mind philosophizing about God when it is without Him."

Because of our weaknesses, the saints have been given to us as God-bearing Fathers and Mothers, to instruct us in the path to righteousness and participation in truth, which thus constitutes communion with God. This has always implied participation in the life of the Church, through communion with Scripture and through the Church's sacraments, that is, liturgically. This is a eucharistic participation in truth. Not an intellectual discipline, but an experiential participation- a communion.
Dave, you wrote:

so although when experiencing God's love some people may have some way of knowing that this Love is uncreated I don't really know how they can do that without reference to some kind of explanation of what they are experiencing.

The answer lies in the incarnation of the Word of God (Logos) in the words of the Scripture, in nature, and in Christ. God revealed His Word in the world; it is because of this that humans are endowed with language and other faculties in order to witness the presence of the incarnation in the world. The Word of God can be thought, painted, and even sung.

Because of this the experience of ecclesial life, of becoming a partaker in the divine nature, and of knowing God through personal participation can be taught in words by the saints (who are the only true theologians and must be trusted). Thus, the reference they use is their very own spiritual knowledge of God.

Alas, human language and reason may go so far, and in trying to describe 'the undescribable', they reach their ultimate limit and can only go so far. This is not a limit in the experience of those 'pure in heart who will see God', that is, the saints who have lived a life of purification through ascetisicm and sacramental living, but rather a limit in the human ability to describe it. It is here where St. Clement of Alexandria's notion of demonstrated faith, or gnosis, becomes important, to the saint himself and to his student in Christ.*

*As for my own disclaimer, I borrowed heavily from the book: "Light from the East" by Alexei Nesteruk for the above post and give all credit to this source.

Dave Ferguson

25-05-2007, 02:33 PM

Firstly thanks to Antonios for the very long reply. I will need to take some time to take that in. And thanks also for the refernce to We Shall See Him As He Is by Elder Sophrony. I was hoping you might come up with something like that and I missed seeing it because it was such a short post.

My problem is not about rationalising mystical experience in terms of propositions. For me there are two key issues here. The first is whether God's enegies are created or uncreated. My present understanding would be that either word would need careful qualification but if created is taken to mean temporary or temporal or existing with a measure of independance from God's essence certainly they are uncreated. The second issue concerns what can be known about God's essence whether by reasoning or by mystical experience.

Basil says:

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.

So then we can know his attributes but his essence. Yet it is also being claimed that we can know that God's essence consists of three persons who love each other. If we know that we do not know nothing. And at least one of God's attributes, his love, is of his essence as well as his energies. So there is a contradiction here or so it seems to me.

Owen Jones

28-05-2007, 05:16 PM

Perhaps this will help:

<- BOOK I CHAPTER I ->
That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with tire things which have not been delivered to us by the holy Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists.

No one hath seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him(1). The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knoweth the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father(2). And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him(3). Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature(4). Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets(5) in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour(6), seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion(7). For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable(8) to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition(9).

An underlying problem is not our definition of God but our definition of man. This is the key, really, to understanding these problems. The Orthodox understanding of man is not as an observer or knower of divine things, but as an in-between being with both mortal and immortal attributes, that exists in between the realms of mortality and immortality, of world and heaven. And so we participate in both worlds and salvation is a movement (diabasis) from one to the other, which is why Christ is our passage over the Dead Sea waters into the promised land. The problem is often created by seeing theological language as related to objects. It is not. It is a symbolic representation of reality as it is experienced, not from an Archimedean point external to the reality, but as a participant. This is the point in the Fathers that Calvin and really all reformers miss.

Dave Ferguson

30-05-2007, 03:00 PM

I want to thank you for that Seraphim and I hope you will forgive me if I take it away and think about it before I reply. I promised a reply to an earlier answer so I will give that now:

Dear Dave,

The Russian Orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky reminds us that "far from being mutually opposed, theology and mysticism support and complete each other. One is impossible without the other. If the mystical experience is a personal working out of the content of the common faith, theology is an expression, for the profit of all, of that which can be experienced by everyone.... There is, therefore no Christian mysticism without theology; but above all, there is no theology without mysticism. Mysticism is...the perfecting and crown of all theology: as theology par excellence."

I read some of Lossky’s book on mystical theology some time ago and have begun to read it again. Indeed it was reading Llossky that made me ask some of these questions. I think he’s a very fine writer. Of course both ‘theology’ and mysticism mean something a little different in the western Church. I also know that Lossky wrote a monogram on Eckhardt which I would find interesting if I could get hold of it since Eckhardt is almost the quintessence of where western mysticism goes wrong. In Eckhardt you have a relationship with God’s essence which is conceived as transcategorical (no categories from creation even very basic ones like identity apply to it) and the consequence is that you yourself whilst in that mystical state cease to be aware of yourself as a person. Now I think the Cappadocians did think God’s essence was at least partially transcategorical and therefore unknowable and therefore it makes sense to say as Gregory Palamas did that what mystics relate to is God’s enegies which are not transcategorical and therefore knowable and so one can have mystical experience of God as an interpersonal relationship.

It is quite clear in reading the Fathers of the Church that knowledge of God, that is theology, was not regarded the same way as in the degenerated, arid, scholastic and academic sense of the word used today in modern Christianity. Theology, as a set of definitions, had meaning for the early Church only in the context of mystical experience. Knowledge of dogmas does not provide any ground for their genuine understanding. This can only come from experience of them.

Well I concur if you are using the word mysticism to talk about experience of God in a fairly general sense. I am not sure if the typical features of later Orthodox mysticism are present in all the fathers; but please take that as a confession of ignorance not a dogmatic assertion.

Theology, or the knowledge of God to the Fathers of the Church, always involves a katharsis (purification) as referenced in the New Testemant ("Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God") (Matt 5:8)

I am familiar with the term catharsis in relation to Greek tragedy and in modern psychology. I assume this is the same word, does it have the same idea of a self emptying or release of emotion when used in theology?

St. Gregory the Theologian stated that the necessary condition to be a theologian is to live an ascetic life, to be virtuous and go through moral purification. His student, Evagrius Ponticus made the famous affirmation that theology is prayer: "If you are a theologian you will pray truly and if you pray truly, you are a theologian."

Yes sure. If you'll forgive another protestant referance I always liked the saying of Marin Luther where he would hear the birds outside his window in the morning and say, ‘Good morning theologians! You awake and sing because you know your Father in heaven loves you.’

St. Maximos the Confessor stated that theology, that is knowledge of God as He is Himself, is granted only in the the mystical union with God, at the last stage of deification, which is not an instant act but is preceded by a long spiritual development (katharsis). This highest state of union was granted to the saints- for example Moses on Mount Sinai in the mysterious darkness of God and the Apostles at the mountain of the transfiguration. These saints and Fathers extend a historic dimension to the living, incarnate Orthodox faith, which never ages and is always present in the mind of the Church. Patristic theology transcends its historical title as the theology of the ancient Fathers and cannot be dismissed from the modern theological discourse as old and outdated. These Father "are liturgical persons who gather round the heavenly altar with the blessed spirits. Thus they are always contemporary and present for the faithful."

The old writers are incredibly relevant to day. To give an example I was talking recently to an elderly lady who thought that she did not believe in the doctrine of the trinity. 'God is three beings,' she said 'God and Jesus are different people but God Jesus and the spirit act with one purpose'. 'That sounds similar to the way some of the Greek fathers would have put it,' I replied. I gave her a translation of some of the writing of Gregory of Nyssa to read and she beamed; 'that’s it she said, that’s what I meant.' Now I think this clicking immediately and saying that's what I meant comes from an experience of God that is trinitarian in shape, but it is not for me some strange mystical experience its a more everyday thing: that's the way I pray because that's the God I've come to know.

Of criticial importance is that theology signifies an active and conscious participation in or perception of the realities of the divine world- in other words, the realization of spiritual knowledge. This spiritual knowledge is attained through communion and participation and is a gift bestowed on extremely few people. It is the mode of existence with God in which knowledge of God is the unfolding of one's own experience of life in God. Diadochos of Photiki said: "Nothing is so destitute as a mind philosophizing about God when it is without Him."

But does that mean that if I haven’t had these experiences as most people haven’t I should give up trying to understand?

Because of our weaknesses, the saints have been given to us as God-bearing Fathers and Mothers, to instruct us in the path to righteousness and participation in truth, which thus constitutes communion with God. This has always implied participation in the life of the Church, through communion with Scripture and through the Church's sacraments, that is, liturgically. This is a eucharistic participation in truth. Not an intellectual discipline, but an experiential participation- a communion.

Okay
Dave, you wrote:
Quotation:
so although when experiencing God's love some people may have some way of knowing that this Love is uncreated I don't really know how they can do that without reference to some kind of explanation of what they are experiencing. The answer lies in the incarnation of the Word of God (Logos) in the words of the Scripture, in nature, and in Christ. God revealed His Word in the world; it is because of this that humans are endowed with language and other faculties in order to witness the presence of the incarnation in the world. The Word of God can be thought, painted, and even sung.

In what way does the logos differ from the energies?

Because of this the experience of ecclesial life, of becoming a partaker in the divine nature, and of knowing God through personal participation can be taught in words by the saints (who are the only true theologians and must be trusted). Thus, the reference they use is their very own spiritual knowledge of God.

But what happens when two saints disagree? Which one do I believe? Also there seems to me to be only a limited correspondence between saintliness and theological correctness. The best illustration I can think of is the conflict between Cyril and Nestorius. Nestorius wasn’t a bad person he was just wrong. Cyril was undoubtedly right but he was irascible and to use an anachronistic term ‘Machieavellian’.

Alas, human language and reason may go so far, and in trying to describe 'the undescribable', they reach their ultimate limit and can only go so far. This is not a limit in the experience of those 'pure in heart who will see God', that is, the saints who have lived a life of purification through ascetisicm and sacramental living, but rather a limit in the human ability to describe it. It is here where St. Clement of Alexandria's notion of demonstrated faith, or gnosis, becomes important, to the saint himself and to his student in Christ.*

Yes. I have to explain that my comment about mystics describing the undescribable was partly tongue in cheek and partly concerned with the issue of God’s essence being supposedly unknowable and yet finding that people claim to know something about it.

Thanks again for your comments and much love in Christ.

Dave

PS on re-reading Lossky some things I find some more things falling into place. I think he supports the idea I was trying to put over that the Love between the persons of the trinity is found in the energies not the essence but there is a difference between his understanding and mine at that point. Not that I'm trying to set myself up alongside him you understand. I'll give you the full quote next time.

Herman Blaydoe

30-05-2007, 06:30 PM

In what way does the logos differ from the energies?

Because the Logos is Christ, the source of the energies.

But what happens when two saints disagree? Which one do I believe?

Sometimes both. Often differing pious opinions are merely opposing sides of the same coin, or merely the same thing viewed from different angles. Sometimes neither, and simply accept that sometimes opinions differ and it is not essential to your Faith or salvation either way. At any rate, we are a conciliar church. Where the Fathers agree (that which is believed in all places at all times), is pretty safe ground. Where the Fathers disagree means you might have to go with what makes the most sense to you right now in your own spiritual development until your own understanding becomes more complete. Salvation is the journey, not the destination. A little patience goes a long way.

DISCLAIMER: The ideas expressed here may or may not reflect the opinion of the poster. Text may contain material some readers may find objectionable, spiritual guidance is advised. Not responsible for direct, indirect, incidental or consequential damages resulting from any defect, use of satire, or failure to suit your particular sense of humor (or lack thereof). Some shifting of context may have occurred during shipment. For external use only. Void where prohibited. Not legal in all spiritual states. Consult a licensed and reputable spiritual advisor before applying. For recreational use only. May exceed the maximum recommended daily dose of irony. If a rash, redness, irritation, or swelling develops, discontinue use. If condition persists, consult your spiritual physician. This notice applies to all posts by this poster whether or not it is included in the post and supercedes all previous disclaimers.

Herman Blaydoe

31-05-2007, 01:11 AM

When I stumble onto an area where there is no clear consensus between two Orthodox theologians, I seek out a third and see what they have to say. And a fourth, perhaps a fifth, and then seek out knowledgeable opinions from contemporaries that I respect. Somewhere in there a consensus sometimes forms....

FWIW

Herman Blaydoe

31-05-2007, 01:15 AM

es. I have to explain that my comment about mystics describing the undescribable was partly tongue in cheek and partly concerned with the issue of God’s essence being supposedly unknowable and yet finding that people claim to know something about it.

It is called apophatic knowledge...sometimes you can better define something by what it ISN'T rather than by what it is.

Andrew

31-05-2007, 08:59 PM

Sometimes both. Often differing pious opinions are merely opposing sides of the same coin, or merely the same thing viewed from different angles. Sometimes neither, and simply accept that sometimes opinions differ and it is not essential to your Faith or salvation either way. At any rate, we are a conciliar church. Where the Fathers agree (that which is believed in all places at all times), is pretty safe ground. Where the Fathers disagree means you might have to go with what makes the most sense to you right now in your own spiritual development until your own understanding becomes more complete. Salvation is the journey, not the destination. A little patience goes a long way.

Earlier in the week I talked with my spiritual father a bit about communication... or actually he talked to me! But anyways - silence is the language of heaven, and true communication is through the Holy Spirit from heart to heart. As fallen men, we speak primarily through our own psychological processes and utter forth animalistic vocalizations, which are then interpreted by others in their own scheme. Thus, what is said is not really what is meant, and what is understood is not really what was said or even meant in the first place. This is the primary source of conflict between men and women! But with those godmen, the saints, they speak from the heart that sees and knows God, and their words convey energy of Spirit that dives into the heart of the hearer. What they "say" is a means of conveying the spiritual energy, the true meaning, the true Person of the Holy Spirit. Thus, sometimes what one Father will say is different from what another will say, but the person they are conveying to their spiritual children is the same Person who revealed the fishermen to be most wise.

Dave Ferguson

05-06-2007, 03:55 PM

That the Deity is incomprehensible, and that we ought not to pry into and meddle with tire things which have not been delivered to us by the holy Prophets, and Apostles, and Evangelists.

Curiously enough Calvin said almost exactly this and went on to conclude that we cannot know anything about God in Himself, that is his essence, but only in that nature in which he has been pleased to manifest himself ie his revealed energies. The problem I have with Orthodoxy is precisely at this point. If God in his essence is incomprehensible and we can only know his revealed nature, that is his energies, then why do Orthodox theologians keep claiming to know things about his essence? I am now told this is to do with apophatic knowledge; now I have trouble understanding this concept. I think I know how the principle of antithesis works and I can accept the idea that being a logical law it does not apply to God's essence in the same way that if I say the number 7 is not green (or neither green nor green) I am simply saying that the cattegory is irrelevent. But what happens if I say the number 7 is both green and not green; sometimes the apophatic approach seems to me to be doing more or less this. Similarly I can understand the idea of a limmited analogy thus if I say God is one and not one I can mean he is one in his manifested nature but not one (because the cattegory isn't appropriate) in his essence. Or I can almost grasp what St Basil means when he says God is one in nature but not in number; almost but it partly eludes me. What is clear is that he is defining something with some degree of precision: one in this way not that, and that makes sense but there is then both cataphatic and apophatic definition going on together. Sorry still stuck.

No one hath seen God at any time; the Only-begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him(1). The Deity, therefore, is ineffable and incomprehensible. For no one knoweth the Father, save the Son, nor the Son, save the Father(2). And the Holy Spirit, too, so knows the things of God as the spirit of the man knows the things that are in him(3). Moreover, after the first and blessed nature no one, not of men only, but even of supramundane powers, and the Cherubim, I say, and Seraphim themselves, has ever known God, save he to whom He revealed Himself.

God can be known only by revelation. But does first and blessed nature refer to God’s essence? And if so does this imply that this essence can be known by revelation. If so then the implication would be that while God’s energies can be known directly by experience his essence can be known only by revelation, presumably by propositional revelation; is this what is meant?

God, however, did not leave us in absolute ignorance. For the knowledge of God's existence has been implanted by Him in all by nature. This creation, too, and its maintenance, and its government, proclaim the majesty of the Divine nature(4). Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets(5) in former times and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour(6), seeking for nothing beyond these. For God, being good, is the cause of all good, subject neither to envy nor to any passion(7). For envy is far removed from the Divine nature, which is both passionless and only good. As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable(8) to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition(9).

See above. I would not only want to say that we could not bear to know God as he is in himself but that it would be impossible to know him in that way because there would be no categories for that knowledge. However there is also the matter of God’s covenantal hiddenness, those aspects of his dealings with us which remain mysteries, and here there are things kept from us because we could not bear to know them. Since goodness is a divine attribute can I assume that by nature he means the nature revealed in the energies not the essence?

An underlying problem is not our definition of God but our definition of man. This is the key, really, to understanding these problems. The Orthodox understanding of man is not as an observer or knower of divine things, but as an in-between being with both mortal and immortal attributes, that exists in between the realms of mortality and immortality, of world and heaven. And so we participate in both worlds and salvation is a movement (diabasis) from one to the other, which is why Christ is our passage over the Dead Sea waters into the promised land.

That’s a really good point. Thanks. It does not however address my basic question (see above).

The problem is often created by seeing theological language as related to objects. It is not. It is a symbolic representation of reality as it is experienced, not from an Archimedean point external to the reality, but as a participant. This is the point in the Fathers that Calvin and really all reformers miss.

It is true that conservative Protestants have tended to see religious language as objective in the sense that it is thought to describe a reality which like the reality of creation would be the same for everyone, even if all individuals experience it differently. If you take the position you are taking here then I think you also need to explain why there is not a different reality for each encounter with God, for each individual. What is it that is constant; why are some symbols always and for everyone more appropriate than others? If God’s energies are the constant does that not make them in some sense objective?

Dave Ferguson

05-06-2007, 04:07 PM

God is truly Trinity. He is Love, which is uncreated. Love cannot be of one individual in a vaccuum... it is a communion of persons. God is a Tripersonal communion of Persons in one Essence.

To which I replied

I wonder whether this idea has its rootes in Augustine's doctrine of the trinity and in the western tradition which identifies attributes like love with God's essence.

And someone added

Trinity encompasses all Love. In a trinity, one loves the one, and both together love the other. This movement of love is the common denominator to Pure, All, Love. This idea can be extrapolated to encompass all of creation, and into infinity. It is the simplest and reduced singular concept of Love, yet filling all things in matters of love. To love one and to both love to love another... this is kenonia, this is Christian love. This is how we put Christ on and know the Father through the Holy Spirit. This is how we live the Trinitarian life.

Now what I found in Lossky was this:

The tradition of the Eastern Church never designates the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity by the name of attributes . . . To say: ‘God is love’, ‘the divine Persons are united by mutual love,’ is to think of a common manifestation, the love energy possessed by the three hypostases, for the union of the three is higher even than love.

Well actually it was quite a bit more than that which said that in Eastern theology Augustinian type psychological analogies would be seen as referring to the energies, to God in action in creation, not to the essence. And it is in the energies that we enter into the trinitarian life; no problem for me there. The problem as always is in this attempt to peer into the essence to say that God in his essence is trinitarian. I do not understand how such a claim can be interpreted apophatically; in neither form or content is this a negative statement.

Do people feel lossky is agreeing with the various quotes above or not? I am not sure.

Antonios

06-06-2007, 06:24 AM

The problem as always is in this attempt to peer into the essence to say that God in his essence is trinitarian. I do not understand how such a claim can be interpreted apophatically; in neither form or content is this a negative statement.

Do people feel lossky is agreeing with the various quotes above or not? I am not sure.

Dear Dave,

I'll go out on a limb over here because I'm not to sure I know the answer, but I think the problem your having is that you are trying to peer into the essence of God, which is unknowable, being that we are created and He is Uncreated. The apophatic approach begins with that understanding. That we can never understand or know the essence of God. We know God is Trinity because it was revealed to mankind, by God Himself.

The tradition of the Eastern Church never designates the relationship of the Persons of the Trinity by the name of attributes . . . To say: ‘God is love’, ‘the divine Persons are united by mutual love,’ is to think of a common manifestation, the love energy possessed by the three hypostases, for the union of the three is higher even than love. (Vladmir Lossky)

This explains what I wrote above. God's energies we can talk about, we can experience and partake in, we can find true life in. But His essense which is beyond our ability to elucidate, let alone contemplate, is not love as we understand love. It is even greater than love. This is an apophatic way to approaching His essense. In the quotes you listed by posters on this thread, what is described are His energies and how they can, to the best of human intelligence, be understood- that is, what Christ's beloved disciple preached, that 'God is Love'.

This is what I understand from my readings, though I be mistaken. I would appreciate any other thoughts on this by others.

Dave Ferguson

08-06-2007, 03:56 PM

I think the problem your having is that you are trying to peer into the essence of God, which is unknowable, being that we are created and He is Uncreated. The apophatic approach begins with that understanding. That we can never understand or know the essence of God. We know God is Trinity because it was revealed to mankind, by God Himself.

No my problem is that various Orthodox theologians make claims which would only be valid either if they could peer into the essence of God or if there were a place in scripture which clearly spoke about the charachteristics of God's essence; if there was such a place we would know about God's essence not by experience but by Revelation, and that is preecisely the claim that Western scholastic theologians from Augustine onwards do make, but if that claim is true that would still be knowledge and the claim that we do not know about His essence would be false. I know that God is Trinity because he has revealed Himself as Trinity but that Revelation is of His energies. If from the information in scripture enabled me to deduce facts about God's essence then Eunomius would be right and Basil wrong.

Now there is another possibility which I found in C. S. Lewis and its almost a throwaway idea that is actually an apophatic interpretation of something like Aquinas theory of analogy. A dog tries to imagine what it is like to be a human being he may understand chemical research as being something like ratting and get some faint idea of it. Now suppose being a very pious dog he assumes that human beings could never do anything so crude and dog like as eat, he would be wrong. In the same way a human being trying to understand God may assume he knows what God cannot be and be wrong. We know that God may or may not share cattegories with creation but have no way of knowing which he shares and which he does not. Thus in assuming that God's essence cannot have an identity (or not have an identity) I may be making the same mistake. I would then have to use symbols such as Father, Son and Spirit knowing they had some corrspondence to Divine reality but not knowing what that correspondence was.

This explains what I wrote above. God's energies we can talk about, we can experience and partake in, we can find true life in. But His essense which is beyond our ability to elucidate, let alone contemplate, is not love as we understand love. It is even greater than love. This is an apophatic way to approaching His essense. In the quotes you listed by posters on this thread, what is described are His energies and how they can, to the best of human intelligence, be understood- that is, what Christ's beloved disciple preached, that 'God is Love'.

This sounds almost exactly like Aquinas theory of analogical language. where a term like love can be applied to God but in a special manner consistent with who God is.

Owen Jones

08-06-2007, 05:18 PM

Aquinas was not all wrong!!!!

Celinda Grace

08-06-2007, 10:01 PM

But His essense which is beyond our ability to elucidate, let alone contemplate, is not love as we understand love.

I haven't followed this whole thread but something I have noticed here is that what is here described as essence, is I think what Aquinas refers to as God's I AM, His existence.

Some definitions from Aquinas
Quiddity, essence - quiddity is the natural object of the intellect, essences are unkown to us, quiddity is the intellect creating a definition out of essence that is perceived.

Existence has to do with God's "I AM" - beyond all essence.

Aquinas turned around the defintion of essence because in the paradigm of the Greek philosophers when taken to its logical conclusion, God's essence, His infinity and His thisness, ended up preceding his existence. Aquinas deals with God as the I AM who's first announcement of himself was his existence

Dave Ferguson

09-06-2007, 12:52 PM

The distinction between being and becoming which is so important in Greek thought and which has haunted Christian thought is not known in scripture. The same Hebrew word is used for being and becomming thus the name of God usually translated 'I am' could equally well be translated 'I become' or even 'I am the one who causes (things) to be'. I think this fits very well with the idea that whatever we know of God, including the Trinity, is God in action (Godhead, that which is shared by the persons of the Trinity, is action not nature says Gregory of Nyssa) not God's being.

A version of this thread that has appeared on other sites went into the scholastic thing a bit more but I have been criticised, probably perfectly reasonably, for misunderstanding Aquinas (I followed Clouser in suggesting that he is partially pantheistic in that he sees certain divine attributes such as identity or reason flowing over into creation - people tell me that what is found in creation is not the attribute as it is in God but a reflection of it;I have no idea what this means)

Seraphim I am quite suprised to find you defending Aquinas analogical theory of religious language; perhaps it is not as different from the Orthodox view as I had thought.

Owen Jones

09-06-2007, 04:29 PM

Owen Jones

09-06-2007, 04:50 PM

On the subject of energies, perhaps this helps:

We call religion a neurobiological sickness since it stems from a short-circuit between the nervous system centered in the heart, which circulates the spinal fluid, and the blood system centered in the heart which pumps blood throughout the body, including the nervous system. The cure of this sickness of religion is accomplished by repairing said short-circuit between the two hearts which pump blood and spinal fluid which allows them to function normally. In this normal state the various fantasies, religious and otherwise, produced by said short-circuit between the brain and the heart disappear and with them one's fantasies also disappear, including that of religion. The Bible calls this neurological energy the spirit of man which the Fathers came to call the noetic energy.

What is especially interesting is the fact that both religion and criminality stem from the same short- circuit and its fantasies. When being cured one believes either that which he himself sees and which certain others see, only on the condition that they train their charges to see for themselves. The method of cure is like seeing for oneself what specialists are trained to see by means of instruments what cannot be seen by the naked eye, not only in the next life, but especially in this life. The Bible calls this glorification. "When one is glorified the rest rejoice" (1Cor. 12:26) because he has become a prophet who has seen and participated in the uncreated glory of God which has no similarity whatsoever with anything created. This is why a prophet can guide others to the cure of glorification, but cannot describe the uncreated experienced in glorification. The basis for this restoration of normalcy is that the one who sees has himself been restored to normalcy which is to see the uncreated force which creates and governs all of creation. The one cured actually sees above normal seeing from time to time seeing the glory and rule of the Creator. When not in the state of seeing the short circuit in question is kept under repair by the unceasing prayer in the heart while the brain functions normally.[ 23 ] The Old and New Testaments call this force the 'glory' and 'reign' of God which is "everywhere present dividing itself without division and saturating all creation." Also those who have seen it and guide others to the cure of their short-circuit are the prophets both before Pentecost and after Pentecost.

Owen Jones

09-06-2007, 04:52 PM

On the subject of theological "concepts," perhaps this helps:

3) That "it is impossible to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him."[ 14 ] In other words there is no similarity whatsoever "between the created and the uncreated." Anyone who thinks that Biblical expressions convey concepts about God is sadly mistaken. When used correctly Biblical words and concepts lead one to purification and illumination of the heart which lead to glorification but are not themselves glorification.

Owen Jones

09-06-2007, 04:57 PM

Regarding the problems that stem from a conceptualization of God, perhaps this helps:

Neither Protestants nor Vaticanians know said four keys for reading the Bible. But what is worse, many of them allow themselves to look upon others as either among God's chosen ones (like themselves), or else not chosen and therefore destined to hell since all have supposedly inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve. Also, they continue with Augustine, that a certain number of those who have inherited the guilt of Adam and Eve are, like themselves, among the ones chosen by God for salvation without any merit of their own. God chooses them, in spite of their inherited guilt, to replace that number of angels which had fallen. Because of this paganism, Franco-Latin Christianity was destined to lose ground before the onslaught of modern science and democracy. Chosen ones can never be part of a democracy.

Augustinian Christians, both Vaticanians and Protestants, are literally unbalanced humans, and had been indeed very dangerous up to the French Revolution and are potentially still quite dangerous. They were never capable of understanding that God loves equally both those who are going to hell and those who are going to heaven. God loves even the Devil as much as He loves the saint. "God is the savior of all humans, indeed of the faithful" (1 Tim. 4:10). In other words hell is a form of salvation although the lowest form of it. God loves the Devil and his collaborators but destroys their work by allowing them to remain inoperative in their final "actus purus happiness" like the God of Thomas Aquinas.[ 21 ]

The question at hand is not, therefore, whom God loves and saves. God loves all and God saves all. Even human doctors are morally obliged to cure all patients regardless of who and what they are. From this viewpoint hell is indeed salvation, but the lowest form of it. One either chooses or one does not choose to be cured from the short-circuit which makes one religious. The one who chooses cure exercises himself like an athlete who follows the Lord of Glory's directions for purifying his heart. "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." One cooperates with Christ in the purification of one's heart and in acquiring the illumination of the unceasing prayer in the heart. This allows love to do away with self-centeredness and selfishness, but at the same time increases one's dedication to destroying the work of the Devil. When God sees that one is ready to follow the cure which will make him selfless He guides him into the courtyard of glorification and takes him from being a child to manhood, i.e. prophethood (1 Cor. 13:11). One begins with sick love concerned with one's own salvation and graduates into selfless Love which, like Saint Paul, would forego one's own salvation for that of others.[ 22 ] In other words one either chooses cure or refuses cure. Christ is the Doctor who cures all His patients to that degree of cure they accept, even that of hell.

Celinda Grace

10-06-2007, 01:55 AM

Neither Protestants nor Vaticanians know said four keys for reading the Bible.

What four keys? Would you mind explaining this.

Owen Jones

10-06-2007, 03:11 PM

Because it is not by knowing God conceptually but by seeing God. That's what happens when one is in the glorified state. For the rest of us, it is sufficient to keep the commandments, the more mundane ones first. We will all see God face to face eventually, but through a deiform soul, the prophet sees God. Is it His Essence? We can't say. There are no words.

So there is a veritable fixation in the "West" to know God, whereas the promise in Orthodoxy is to see God. As the noetic faculty is developed, false images are removed from the mental capacity, not so that we can arrive at a true concept of God, but so that we can see Him. For most of us, it involves seeing his creation differently, thereby treating it differently, which is why Orthodox worship is sensual.

Peter Farrington

10-06-2007, 11:07 PM

Aquinas muddied the waters a good bit by his proofs for the existence of God, since God has no existence. "I AM," does not refer to existence. Existence refers to things and God is not a thing. On the other hand, analogy is the only theological language. We may call it by different names: figurative, typological, mystical, but it is all analogical. It does not refer to objects.

I am not sure that we can say that God has no existence.

We can say that that word fails to convey the being of God which is beyond knowing. But most people use the word exist to mean 'is real' and 'is not not real'.

The word exist cannot fully or partially compehend the being-ness of God, but He chose to say 'I AM' therefore it seems problematic to deny His own self-revelation.

To say that God exists does not say that He is a thing, or created, or comprehensible or anything. But it does say 'there is a God who has being according to His own nature'.

When God Himself says 'I AM' this does refer directly to His being because He chooses to use this term of Himself. Therefore it seems entirely within God's self revelation to say that 'God is'.

Though human words do not comprehend God nevertheless they do say real things which are not analogy because God reveals Himself - not completely, but equally not in a meaningless sense. The very fact that we are created in the Imago Dei shows that by grace we do have similarities with God - not according to His essence of course. It does not seem reasonable to me at aleast, or biblical, to insist, for instance, that when we say God is Love we do not mean that He is Love in any sense that we understand Love. Descriptive words such as these need a purified heart to understand them but we could not become sons of God if everything we say of God has no connection with God.

To say that God has no existence, in human language, means that there is no God at all. To say that God IS, does not make Him created or comprehensible, but merely receives His own self-revelation.

Peter

Owen Jones

11-06-2007, 12:35 AM

Regarding to analogy, I am open to persuasion on this issue. Help me out.

Antonios

11-06-2007, 04:34 AM

Dear Peter and Owen,

I think we can all agree that the limiting factor in this is human language and description. Saying "God exists" is the closest we can humanly describe that there is a God. What is His 'existence' is beyond our ability to understand or put in words.

Andrew

11-06-2007, 04:47 AM

I don't know. Lord Jesus Christ the I Am succinctly has affirmed His own existence throughout time.

His existence is kenotic, deifying, Light-bearing life-creating Love. I think too much is made of apophatic expression sometimes. His existence and Person can be put into salvific words, symbols, and sacraments, by His own great love for man. The Holy Mysteries and His Holy Name are two examples of this. Can we fit Him into our own cognitive box? No. But He lift our minds, our words, and our own physical reality into Himself and transfigures them. Thus, His Holy Name is His Presence. The Holy Gifts become His own very Body and Blood. They Are... O Wn; He is the I Am. Positive language can be used when describing Our Lord. We just have to be careful, just like in all matters of the spiritual life.

Peter Farrington

11-06-2007, 11:02 AM

I also think that sometimes the apophatic approach is used inappropriately.

There is a need to bridle our intellectual pride in thinking that we can describe God in any adequate sense. But when He chooses to reveal Himself in our human language we should receive His own description of Himself as a blessing and not insist that His own words have no meaning.

God's self revelation is something to meditate on, rather than to systematise, if by that we mean that we can pin God down like a butterfly in a display. But what He says about Himself must surely be true and communicate some truth, otherwise the Son of God would not be the Word of God.

Peter

Shawn Lazar

11-06-2007, 01:08 PM

I would agree with Andrew. Though the existence of 'God-as-he-is-in-himself' defies explanation, and perhaps even metaphysical proof, 'God-as-he-towards-us' whether in the form of pillar and cloud, burning bush, incarnate Christ, or the Spirit-manifest tongues of fire, certainly "exists" in the sense of being experienced by the physical senses in this world.

--Shawn

Celinda Grace

12-06-2007, 04:36 AM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-06-2007, 04:44 PM

I think I understand what Owen is saying. Or at least I understand what he is saying in the following way:

From the Introduction to the English translation by John D Jones of The Divine Names and Mystical Theology of St Dionysios Areopagite which I often turn to when this question comes up:

Here is the common western position on the superessentiality of God from footnote 62, p 31 of the Introduction:

For Christian thought in general, God is revealed as "I am who am' (Ex 3:14); God is the creator of all that is limited: both intelligible and sensible being. Thus God transcends all that is limited and is unknowable in himself to all who are limited (although God is completely intelligible to himself and is knowable to us through his effects). God does not have being in a limited way; God is freed from all multiplicity and diversity and is supremely or excessively full of being. God is "an infinite ocean of being (ousia = substance)" That is, God is his own being: more radically, God is the being (ens) which is be-ing itself (ipsum esse). God is the being whose essence is simply to be. Thus God is the highest being (ens summum) and the most real or most actual being (ens realissimum). The tension between God and the world is that between the unlimited and the absolutely simple being (ens) which is be-ing itself (ipsum esse) and the limited and diverse beings which participate in (have) be-ing (esse).

In other words God is the highest Being, the superessential Being. And divine things are thus supernatural.

According to Patristic theology & St Dionysios however God's being is not the highest being. Rather, the word hyperousios, denotes,

"be-ing beyond every way of being, or more literally, beyond-beingly being (on hyperousios). Thus on hyperousios is to be translated as "beyond-beingly being." Or, if we designate the determinations of being as beingly be-ing (ousios on), then divine being: beyond beingly-be-ing. Far from marking the divinity as be-ing in the highest manner or way, these adverbs deny that the divinity is any manner of be-ing." [my added italics

In other words God Who IS transcends being.

I have the feeling this is also gone into in Vladimir Lossky's Mystical Theology but I don't have the chance to look into his book right now.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

12-06-2007, 05:20 PM

Dear Father

I haven't sensed that any of us are saying that God is highest being according to some scale of being, which would indeed be a false concept.

But even the quote you provide expresses the point that God is being, even though it describes this being as being beyond-being-ness.

In normal English to say that 'God is' means only that 'He is', as He himself declares. It says nothing about the nature of that being. But to deny God being is in English at least to deny Him any reality. And though we cannot describe God in his essence yet we know that He is, because He says so.

Peter

Owen Jones

13-06-2007, 04:18 AM

Admittedly, most of my limited knowledge of Aquinas is second hand. But I think it is Patristic to say that existence is not a term that can be applied to God.

Peter Farrington

13-06-2007, 09:56 AM

Lol! It may be patristic but it is not English.

If we say that God does not exist then it will not help our mission much.

If we say, as God Himself does, that 'He is' then I do not think people immediately start to consider that He comes within the domain of created being. It just means 'He is'.

Most people on the street have enough trouble with straightforward theology.

I appreciate the place for the apophatic approach but sometimes, outside of a spiritual context where it is being used with a spiritual purpose, I sense that I have used it to be a bit clever, which I have had to try and overcome, and allow my inate stupidity to shine through.

I think that since God Himself says, 'I am' we may also say the same.

Peter

Antonios

13-06-2007, 05:19 PM

Hi everyone,

This is from the book "The Experience of God" by Dumitru Staniloe, pages 133-134:

St. Maximos the Confessor says the same when he declares that God is not subject to the category of existence, for everything that falls under the category of existence also falls under a 'how' of existence and as such is limited, for any kind of 'how' excludes other kinds of 'how'. Moreover, on this how of the existence also depend a 'when' and 'where', that is, a time and place which likewise provide limits in the process of individuation. "God is not accessible to any reason or any understanding, and because of this we do not categorize His existence as existence. For all existence is from Him, but He Himself is not existence. For He is beyond existence itself whether expressed or conceived simply or in any particular mode" (St. Maximos, The Ambigua)
But God would have nothing to do with self-existence, however, if he had no possibility at all of receiving it or of communicating it. Both sides of this paradox are satisfied by supernatural revelation in its teaching on the holy Trinity. God has existence of Himself, and yet He is alive, for He receives and communicates existence within Himself. This latter fact completes the character of person for this is not only reality "of itself' per se but also communion. The divine persons are interior one to the other- and, hence, receive nothing from outside- but they are not confused with one another since they find themselves within a movement and communion of being and love. The total interpersonal communion intensifies the personal character of God to the highest degree. The divine Personal reality (as transcendent of whatever of its attributes which can be defined, though not received from anyone else) is the apophatic reality par excellence. If everything that comes under the ray of knowledge and everything that is participable belongs to the category of existence, the personal subject is superexistent. We have seen that, as image of God, even our human person somehow possesses in this respect a superexistential, apophatic character.
The reason why God cannot be defined lies in His superexistentiality. For all words are of the order of existence and this order is definable.

Staniloae goes on to discuss the apophatic character of God, including His answer to Moses, "I am who I am". It is quite lengthy, and honestly a bit difficult to follow (to me, at least), but I think directly addresses the topic Peter and Owen have been discussing and goes on to show that both Owen and Peter are correct in what they are saying. In the end, the limiting factor is always us, our language, our minds, our very being. Only by God's grace can this be overcome.

Athanasius Abdullah

17-06-2007, 04:36 PM

Dear all,

In his article, 'God Hidden and Revealed: The Apophatic Way and the Essence-Energies Distinction' (in Eastern Churches Review, 7 (1975):125-136), H.G. Kallistos Ware quotes the following from John the Damascene, which is of some relevance to the discussion regarding whether God can be spoken of as "existing" or not:

God does not belong to the class of existing things; not because he has no existence, but because he is superior to all existing things, and even to existing things, and even to existence itself.

He also quotes Gregory Palamas, who would seem to further confuse the issue:

[God] is not a being if other beings are beings; but if he is a being, then other things are not beings....

I guess one can say that both Owen and Peter are correct insofar as their assertions are concerned, and incorrect insofar as their rejection of the other's assertions are concerned? Not that I am the arbiter of what is "correct" and what is "incorrect"; I am just expressing my opinion in light of how I understand the above two quotations.

In XC
-Athanasius

Peter Farrington

17-06-2007, 06:30 PM

Dear Athanasius

Don't worry, I don't reject Owen's terminology, unless it were to be asserted as the only possible terminology.

God is, but the manner in which 'He is' lies beyond our understanding.

I am only saying that in ordinary English, to say that God does not exist would actually not express what we are all agreeing with since it would deny that 'God is'.

I am very happy with saying that 'God does not exist as we do'. If that allows that 'He is', but is also 'not within any category of existing beings'.

Peter

John Charmley

17-06-2007, 06:48 PM

Dear Peter,

A good, and interesting discussion. I loved your comment:

I sense that I have used it to be a bit clever, which I have had to try and overcome, and allow my innate stupidity to shine through.

it reminds us all of what Our Lord said in Luke 10:21:

21 In that hour Jesus rejoiced in the Spirit and said, I thank You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to babes. Even so, Father, for so it seemed good in Your sight.

Elsewhere there is a discussion on what one might understand by the term 'catholic', well, in the very first place, as one writer once commented
a catholic faith must first of all be a faith intelligible to the common man, directed to common needs and expressed in common human language

Not, of course, that He was indifferent to intellect or thought - as the wondrous care with which He crafted His teaching in parables shows. One of the many things which marks His teaching out from all others is that no one went to greater lengths to make us think about what it is He was saying. Indeed, it was in their observation of common things that He encouraged the Apostles and the Fathers to think about the laws of the kingdom of Heaven.

Those who mocked the Apostles as unlearned men have long been forgotten, and their philosophical systems are at one with the empires of Nineveh and Tyre. But any one reading the Pauline epistles, or those of St. James, St. John and St. Peter finds him or herself in the presence of great wisdom - a wisdom which has prompted some of the world's finest minds into the most profound and edifying writing; all of it based upon the Word Incarnate.

In Christ,

John

Athanasius Abdullah

17-06-2007, 08:23 PM

Dear Peter,

I understand your concern, but I do not think that such a concern warrants making any generalisations about what language we should and should not adopt in our theologising (and I use this term in the sense of speaking about God for the sake of the salvation of men--i.e. evangelistic-ally) mission. Theology is, in the end, supposed to be contextual in its external manifestation, for how else can it address the needs of the times and places?

The emphasis on the fact God is beyond the category of existence with which we in the created order are familiar, is not necessarily just "philosophical mumbojumbo" that strives to express a certain truth in such a way merely for the sake of technical accuracy without any due regard or concern for how it would be received (though we can choose to reduce it to that depending on the context--the when, where, how and why of our placing emphasis on such rhetoric).

I can envisage some real concrete instances where such an emphasis is necessary in our theologising (used as per the definition above). In fact, it was only a few weeks ago in my philosophy class that I myself chose to emphasise such rhetoric in conversation with an Orthodox friend from my "Reality, Ethics, and Beauty" philosophy class. The first segment of this class ("Reality") dealt with the classical arguments for the "existence of God", and my friend was troubled by the evident tendency, as evidenced in our lectures and reading material, to reject all such arguments as irrational absurdities. Making sure she understood, that the very fact none of the proposed arguments for God's existence could successively prove so only confirmed the Orthodox conception of God, alleviated her doubts and worries.

In XC
Athanasius

Peter Farrington

17-06-2007, 09:19 PM

Hi Athanasius

I didn't ever use the word mumbojumbo and would never use such a term in relation to theology.

I have also said that I fully accept the apophatic language but that it is not and has never been, the only language to be used of God - who Himself says 'I am'.

I don't want to argue over nothing so I'll bow out of this thread.

Peter

Athanasius Abdullah

17-06-2007, 09:29 PM

Dear Peter,

I wasn't trying to attribute any words to you.

Furthermore, I accept the fact you affirm the legitimacy of apophatic language, I was simply trying to give my opinion as to its importance to the evangelistic mission of the Church since one of the issues you seemed to have with Owen was its helpfulness in that regard.

My point was that whilst I agree with you that saying "God does not exist" can be very unhelpful and confusing in certain contexts, there are in fact times where such an emphasis is necessary, especially in today's era of the so-called "enlightenment" where the acceptance or rejection of God for many stems from whether they believe there is enough or not enough "proof" of His "Existence, respectively.

No arguments here my friend.

In XC
Athanasius

Peter Farrington

17-06-2007, 10:32 PM

Dear Athanasius

I agree entirely with your point that different circumstances require different terminology. And I am sorry that I seemed to disagree with you, and with Owen, since I am sure that actually we are in agreement.

Peter

Kornelius

18-06-2007, 12:24 AM

My questions are as follows:
1. Is the Orthodox tradition as radical as Clouser in saying nothing
whatever can be known of God’s essence? Would Orthodox say that things
like number or reason are created?
2. If this is so then from the Orthodox perspective can the Trinity be
seen as something which is found in the energies but not the essence? I
get the impression from Orthodox writers that this is not the case and
that the Trinity is held to be true of both essence and energies, but if
so how does this knowledge, that we know God is both one and three,
square with the claim that God’s essence cannot be known?
3. And whatever is the case in regard to the above, how can the Trinity
be uncreated, whether in the essence or the energies, but number be
created? Or is it that in the Orthodox as in the scholastic tradition
both number and reason must be regarded as uncreated both in God and in
the world so that as Aquinas says properties of God flow over into
creation.
4. Finally there is the distinction where Clouser is saying God’s
operations are created whereas the Orthodox tradition says they are
uncreated. Is this difference any more than a semantic one? For Clouser
I may be said to create my own actions in so far as they depend on me
for there existence and in the same way God is said to create his
actions. For the Orthodox it may be that my actions and therefore God’s
would both be said to be uncreated in the sense that they are not
something distinct from the one acting. Is this so?

I hope you will forgive me for my very slender grasp on your tradition
but I am keen to learn. And if as seems to be the case John Calvin’s
Doctrine of God has significant affinities with the Doctrine of the
Orthodox Church that is surely a quite well kept secret which must have
some ecumenical significance.

Dear Dave,

First, allow me to congratulate your humble spirit in your lofty quest for the Truth. Your rhetoric sets a par excellence paradigm for all un-orthodox members and visitors of Monachos interested in learning more about Orthodoxy, in that, it searches for answers with divine humility in Christ, which re-programs the "fight or flight" syndrome of modernism in us toward ancient Orthodox Truths, into a welcoming objective investigation impulse toward such Truths.

Having said that, let us see if we may answer your questions regarding the distinction between the essence and energies of God. This is a very significant subject and it requires detailed investigation, therefore I apologize beforehand for the length of text. In it I would focus primarily but not exclusively on the theology of St.Gregory Palamas. Please, let me know if it answers your questions!

It is crucial to understand first that St. Gregory Palamas' focal point in making such a distinction (essence-energy) was not concerned with abstract problems of philosophy, but rather with soteriology and theosis. As heavy and pretentious as theosis may sound, Palamas was emphatic in his belief that theosis, the ultimate goal of human life, is not a myth but a reality within Christian life. He believed that unless theosis is true, the salvific act of Christ is imperiled. It would suffice to quote at this point St. Athanasios: "He [Christ] became human, so that we could become Gods." (De Incarnatione 54).

Indeed, it is not difficult to find Palamas's thought enrooted deeply in the Patristic pedegree. Florovsky states that: "It is not difficult to trace most of his [Palamas'] views and motives back to the Cappadocian Fathers and to St. Maximus the Confessor...Indeed, St. Gregory was also intimately acquainted with the writings of Pseudo-Dionysios. He was rooted in the tradition. Yet, in no sense was his theology just a 'theology of repetition'." George Florovsky, "Saint Gregory Palamas and the Tradition of the Fathers," in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, v.2 (1959-60), p. 126.

In order to demystify theosis Palamas first had to establish a distinction between becoming God and sharing in God's essence, and becoming God and sharing in God's uncreated energies. In regard to this orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky states: "The union to which we are called is neither hypostatic - as in the case of the human nature of Christ - nor substantial, as in that of the three divine Persons: it is a union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature, without our essence becoming thereby the essence of God." Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (1998), p.87.

Prior to the conclusion that we become God by sharing in God's energies not essence, Palamas had to first establish the distinction between the Essence and the Energies of God. This endeavor is not novel, for we find already a clear distinction among the Cappadocians. St. Basil the Great emphatically states: "We know our God from his energies, but we do not claim to draw near to His essence. For His energies come down to us, but His essence remains unapproachable." Ep. ccxxxiv, 1 (MPG, xxxii, col.869A)

Palamas is very careful while making such distinction. In a dialectical way, he first establishes the distinction, and then hastens to confess that despite this distinction energies are not different from God. He states: "Nonetheless, there is only one unoriginate essence, the essence of God; none of the powers that inhere in it is an essence, so that all necessarily and always are in the divine essence. To use an obscure image, they exist in the divine essence as do the powers of the senses in what is called the common spiritual sense of the soul." Palamas, The Triads (1983), p.93.

Although it may seem antinomic and paradoxical, the language Palamas employs is not different from the antinomic and paradoxical character (by human logic alone) of our Trinitarian theology. Here we may refer to Ware who points out that God's mathematics differs radically from ours. He states: "In the case of humanity 1+1+1=3; in the case of divinity, 1+1+1=1." Kallistos Ware, "The debate about Palamism," in The Eastern Churches Review 9, 1977, p.47.

Second, to strengthen his argument that although essence transcends energies they still subsist in the essence, Palamas proceeds by affirming that both essence and energies are unoriginate and uncreated. To support his thesis he refers to Divine Providence, one of God's energies: "There is, therefore, a single unoriginate providence, that of God, and it is a work of God. Providences other than it are of a created nature. Nonetheless, providence is not the divine essence, and thus the essence of God is not alone unoriginate." The Triads, p.94.

According to Palamas, the essence of God must possess natural energies, and these must be of the same nature as the essence. Accordingly, if the divine energies are created entities, God Himself must have been created. Thus, to give greater support to his argument he refers to the divinity of God, which also designates one of His energies, as follows: "But if the divinity of God designates the divine energy par excellence, and if the energies are, as you say, created, the divinity of God must also be created!"

Once Palamas walks on the verge of almost fading the distinction between essence and energies, he carefully turn the rudder on the opposite side, and concedes that while all the energies are unoriginate and uncreated, some of them have a beginning and an end, not in themselves, but only from the perspective of their created objects. Some of them have a beginning, such as God's creative energy, which became effective or activated only when creation and time simultaneously began - yet God always possessed a creative power and purpose. Others, like prescience, have an end, no longer operating when this world passes away. (See notes 21 & 24 in Triads, pp.148.)

Palamas states: "While all the energies of God are uncreated, not all are without a beginning. Indeed beginning and end must be ascribed, if not to the creative power itself, then at least to its activity, that is to say, to its energy as directed towards created things. Moses showed this, when he said, 'God rested from all the works which He had begun to do." Triads, p. 96

To ultimately avoid any misunderstanding regarding the transcendence of the essence of God, Palamas adds: "The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even with those without beginning; for which it follows that it is not only transcendent to any energy whatsoever, but that it transcends them 'to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times', as the divine Maximus says." Triads, p.96.

In the dialectical language employed by Palamas, we must note two important things. First, when Palamas exalts God's essence beyond any limit, making a clear distinction from God's energies, he is concerned with the transcendence of God. Second, when he exalts energies, describing them as rays deriving from the sun - symbolically representing the very essence of God - we must not be confused, for he is concerned with the immanence of God. Since Palamas's intent is to advocate theosis, then it is obvious that in the former he emphasize that none can share in God's essence, for otherwise God would not have three hypostasies but an infinite number of hypostasies, whereas in the latter he states that mankind can achieve theosis by sharing in God's energies which conced no inferior divinity and comprise the wholeness of God and which derive from God's essence, yet are not the essence. "It is not the essence of the sun which the eye perceives, but that which surrounds the essence." The Triads, p.108.

Quoting Maximus the Confessor, Palamas elaborates on the theme of theosis: "He [the deified man] remains entirely man by nature in his soul and body, and becomes entirely God in his soul and body through grace, and through the divine radiance of the blessed glory with which he is made entirely resplendent." The Triads, pp. 109-110.

Finally, Palamas makes a third point regarding the uncreated energies of God. They are a. manifold; and b. not visible or perceivable to human senses, but rather to the purified intellect. "The essence [sun] is one, even though the rays [energies] are many, and are sent out in a manner appropriate to those participating in them, being multiplied according to the varying capacity of those receiving them." The Triads, p.98. The capacity of those receiving them shows the synergism that should exist in the act of theosis. Such synergism consists of a two-sided interaction; on one hand, God descending toward man and on the other hand, man, instead of passively waiting to be lifted, actively tries to ascend to God by God's grace. Such effort on the part of man will be rewarded. That is why Palamas states: "The rays [energies] are consequently visible to those worthy." Triads, p.100.

The worthy one is the athlete who excels in askesis, and consequently is able to finish the race by receiving at the end of it the crown of theosis, while preserving the human crown [human essence]. "His [man's] created ousia is permeated and transfigured by the fire of the divinity; yet, though 'a god by grace', he does not become God by essence and nature. Equally he retains his hypostasis or distinctive personal identity, which grows transparent but is not swallowed up in the abyss of God's omnipotence." Kallistos Ware, God Hidden and Revealed, p.132.

In conclusion I would like to say that the Fathers of the Church including Palamas were well aware of the limitations of the human intellect and languages, hence, while theologizing about the doctrine of God and His incomprehensibility, they took pains to expound their theological convictions beyond the level of ratio, or discursive reason to the intellectus, or spiritual understanding. What is a contradiction and an incoherence to the discursive reason is not necessarily such to the spiritual intellect. This spiritual understanding is even beyond the leap of faith concept by Søren Kierkegaard which implies accepting things in spite of available empirical evidence. The saints in the Orthodox Church indeed contemplate, understand, and see things beyond reason such as the countenance of the resurrected Christ - not merely by leap of faith - but through their illuminated nous by Christ's uncreated energies.

The contemporary reader is inclined to perceive everything that does not appeal to ratio as obscurantism. Unfortunately, such a trend which was perpetuated in particular during the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, has been contagious to today's theology. Accordingly, the use of intellectus in theology is labeled as irrational and obscurantist. Kallistos says, "To use the intellectus or spiritual nous in realms which the ratio is incapable of apprehending is not irrational or obscurantist, but the precise opposite. The obscurantist is the one who makes his ratio the measure of the divine realm, and who refuses to accept the possibility that there may be truths which the ratio cannot grasp.

Dave Ferguson

20-06-2007, 04:01 PM

Dear Kornelius

I want to thank you very much for giving such a detailed reply. I will need time to consider everything you have taught me, especially as I am temporarily withdrawing from theological discussions to focus on some immediate practical matters. I am getting much more clear in my own mind on the differences between the Orthodox and reformed views and also on how Orthodoxy hangs together as a system. This is in part due to reading Lossky's rather wonderful book. So many thanks. Yes it is helpful and perhaps I will be able to respond in a few weeks time meanwhile I will take away and ponder on Your answer.

Thanks again

Dave

Owen Jones

21-06-2007, 03:50 PM

In other words, the revelation of God as "I AM," is not information tendered by God about Himself, but points to the experience of God as revealing Himself.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-06-2007, 04:35 PM

In other words, the revelation of God as "I AM," is not information tendered by God about Himself, but points to the experience of God as revealing Himself.

To take up the "reformed views on God's energies" part of this thread. This is exactly, and along the lines Owen is suggesting, the stumbling block that Philip Sherrard in his book Human Image: World Image, which I've just finished reading, trips over.

For Sherrard any essential distinction between God and creation automatically implies an unacceptable dualism. The only correction to this Sherrard feels is a cosmology in which creation essentially reflects its Creator. Although Sherrard does refer to the uncreated energies of God in his book he doesn't apply this to his understanding of the manner in which God creates and continues to be in communion with creation. Possibly this accounts for his one negative comment about St Gregory Palamas & otherwise surprising neglect of this saint & how well St Gregory's vision of the essence/energy distinction could be applied to cosmology.

In any case what Owen points out is applicable here. According to Patristic theology God is totally transcendent in essence but yet through His energies does reveal Himself. When God says "I AM" we see this distinction for while God is totally beyond any manner of being He also is pre-eminently present among us.

It's this last which Sherrard seems to have forgotten. Although Sherrard is very careful to explain that he is no pantheist (and one can genuinely take him at his word here) by insisting on an essential connection between God and creation in order to overcome an apparent dualism all Sherrard can do is to try to rearrange the salt in the salt shaker. Ultimately, but without recognizing this, by the end of his book he is back to the very same 'dualist' cosmology he tries to reject.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Owen Jones

26-06-2007, 03:56 AM

According to Plato in the Symposium, and later in the desert fathers, man exists in an in-between realm (translated as the intermediate in the Philokalia). And man is therefore an in-between reality. Not simply a creaturely being, not a divine being, but in-between. This realization overcomes both the problem of dualism, and the reaction to dualism. It overcomes treating God and man as subject and object, or the obverse, which is to annihilate the distinction. We see this implicitly in the Cherubic Hymn.

Dave Ferguson

05-07-2007, 04:25 PM

I am now planning to reply to some of the stuff that has come up on here in the last few weeks. Working backwards and starting from Owen's last post.

When Plato talks about man being partly divine you have to understand this in terms of his own pagan religious perspective. The Divine I take to mean that unconditional reality on which all other things depend. For the Christian or for any theist that is God. For the Pre Christian Greeks it is always some part or aspect of the cosmos. So if you look back to the presocratics they argue about which of the elements is divine. Is it water or air or fire (though by the time you get to Heraclitus this may not be meant literally) or is it the atoms of Democritus. Plato is a little more sophisticated he sees both the forms and matter as divine, but the forms being unchangeable are more divine than matter. Some of the forms are higher or more divine than others and it is by participating in the forms that man can be said to be partly divine. The dessert Fathers may borrow some of the language of Plato but I think they mean something essentially different.

In what sense can man partake of God's being. Man cannot become divine if the word divine is being used in the sense I have used it above he will always be dependant on God. However as we matured in knowledge of God we were intended to excercise more sovereignty over creation (I take this to be the meanining Of Genesis 1:28) Furthermore there are those attributes which God and man share; those that are sometimes called God's communicable attributes, his personality if you like, we can grow more like god in those. I can understand theosis in this sense; I am sure you will tell me it means more than that.

Since you have mentioned the Symposium there is something in there that is a clue to what is going on when Aquinas tries to prove God's existance. To me the problem of this is not really that God does not in the strictly technical sense exist (existere to stand out from implies limmitation in that either the existant is an object among objects or that there is something more ultimate than the existant from which it stands out);the Fathers sometimes therefore follow the neoplatonists in denying existance to the absolute. But one can also follow the other route, as some other fathers and Aquinas do, and use the word existance (or its Greek equivalents) not least the author of Hebrews 'for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists'
but carefully qualify it. The problem for me is epistemelogical. Plato in the Symposium defines knowledge as justified true belief. And he implies that belief is justified by argument. This leads to an elitist concept of knowledge because the philosopher who can follow sophisticated arguments can know the truth whereas the plain man can only have belief in the sense of unjustified opinion. Aquinas adapts this to a Christian setting and says in effect that the ordinary believer has to trust the Church when it tells him that there is a God whereas the informed theologian can know that there is a God because he can understand the theistic proofs. This is not a Biblical epistemology. In scripture we know there is a God because we have experienced him.

I will get back to Palamas soon, Cheers Dave

Dave Ferguson

03-08-2007, 04:23 PM

Dear Kornelius

I have finally found time to give to this the full reply I feel it deserves. I have answered each part separately and I hope that does not mean the key issues will get lost in the details. I am glad you have focused on Gregory Palamas because he seems to be vital in grasping how these issues have been understood.

’It is crucial to understand first that St. Gregory Palamas' focal point in making such a distinction (essence-energy) was not concerned with abstract problems of philosophy, but rather with soteriology and theosis.’

I am sure this is so; however I would like to note that a theological idea developed in one context can often be transferred into another; indeed this itself is a mark of the validity of the idea and Gregory Palamas himself is a good example of this. He takes St. Basil’s distinction between essence and energy which was originally used to counter Arian rationalism and applies it to mystical experience. So if I want to take Palamas’ ideas and apply them to other areas, say for example, philosophy of number and its relationship to the structure of the cosmos I think that is legitimate in principle. And if Palamas’ ideas don’t hold up that would count against them although it would not mean they ought to be completely abandoned.

As heavy and pretentious as theosis may sound, Palamas was emphatic in his belief that theosis, the ultimate goal of human life, is not a myth but a reality within Christian life. He believed that unless theosis is true, the salvific act of Christ is imperilled. It would suffice to quote at this point St. Athanasios: "He [Christ] became human, so that we could become Gods." (De Incarnatione 54).

As I have indicated elsewhere I find the idea of theosis very difficult to grasp, and this is not a matter of rejecting something out of hand. Many Protestants are wary of the concept because it seems to deny the fundamental distinction between man and God; I think if we look carefully at what that distinction is and what it means this problem is more imagined than real. The quote you give from Athanasius is a tricky one because that comment in his book on the Incarnation (which is one of my favourite theology texts – especially chapter 17; that gives me shivers when I read it) is almost thrown away. He does not explain what he means by it. However if we place it in the context of the whole argument of the book I think his meaning becomes clear.

I recently read some of Karen Armstrong’s ‘History of God’; she sees the key issue at the time of the Arian crisis as having been the new emphasis Athanasius placed on the doctrine of creation ex nihilo which for the first time became an essential part of orthodoxy. This lead to an abandonment of emanationism and thus made more stark the distinction between creator and creature so that it became much more necessary to say on which side of that divide Christ came. Athanasius sees man not so much as being by nature part way between human and divine but as being so by virtue of his participation in the divine life of the logos. His nature having been created ex-nihilo is prone if left to its own devices to return to non-being. Hence man’s sin which cuts man off from God leads to the dissolution of his being in death. So if we ask which aspect of God’s nature Athanasius sees as being transmitted to man in theosis it would be God’s permanence. Man cannot become eternal in the sense that God is eternal – having always been – but he can become eternal in the sense that like God he will always be.

Although it is clear that Athanasius believed in creation ex nihilo it is not clear to me that he believed in pancreation ie that God created everything. It is certainly possible to believe the former but not the latter; Aquinas would be a case in point.

In order to demystify theosis Palamas first had to establish a distinction between becoming God and sharing in God's essence, and becoming God and sharing in God's uncreated energies. In regard to this orthodox theologian Vladimir Lossky states: "The union to which we are called is neither hypostatic - as in the case of the human nature of Christ - nor substantial, as in that of the three divine Persons: it is a union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature, without our essence becoming thereby the essence of God." Vladimir Lossky, The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church (1998), p.87.

Prior to the conclusion that we become God by sharing in God's energies not essence, Palamas had to first establish the distinction between the Essence and the Energies of God. This endeavor is not novel, for we find already a clear distinction among the Cappadocians. St. Basil the Great emphatically states: "We know our God from his energies, but we do not claim to draw near to His essence. For His energies come down to us, but His essence remains unapproachable." Ep. ccxxxiv, 1 (MPG, xxxii, col.869A)

When St. Basil talks of God’s energies or operations he talks of God’s attributes which he identifies with God’s actions. We can know what God does even though we cannot know what he is. Actually this is not unlike modern physics where we can know about things in creation do but not what they are. Basil’s purpose is to undercut rationalist speculation about what God or Christ must be. We don’t know. Hence for the Cappadocians it is always a case of faith seeking understanding. So Gregory of Nyssa in ‘not three Gods’ says that he will try to explain the trinity but if the explanation fails we should still hold fast to the tradition even if we cannot explain all the details. He recognises that there are mysteries of faith but also I think that it may take time to achieve an understanding.

Palamas is very careful while making such distinction. In a dialectical way, he first establishes the distinction, and then hastens to confess that despite this distinction energies are not different from God. He states: "Nonetheless, there is only one unoriginate essence, the essence of God; none of the powers that inhere in it is an essence, so that all necessarily and always are in the divine essence. To use an obscure image, they exist in the divine essence as do the powers of the senses in what is called the common spiritual sense of the soul." Palamas, The Triads (1983), p.93.

Yes that’s important, people sometimes say Palamas thought of the energies as something more ‘concrete’ than Basil would allow; this implies that he did not.

Although it may seem antinomic and paradoxical, the language Palamas employs is not different from the antinomic and paradoxical character (by human logic alone) of our Trinitarian theology. Here we may refer to Ware who points out that God's mathematics differs radically from ours. He states: "In the case of humanity 1+1+1=3; in the case of divinity, 1+1+1=1." Kallistos Ware, "The debate about Palamism," in The Eastern Churches Review 9, 1977, p.47.

The latter part of that is roughly what Gregory of Nyssa says in ‘not three Gods’ though he goes into more detail. However I would like to understand what Eastern theologians mean by the term antinomy. Does the term refer to a paradox – something which appears contradictory but when examined turns out not to be – or does it refer to a mystery – something which even when examined seems to be contradictory to human understanding although in fact it is not so – or does it refer to an actual contradiction a violation of the laws of logic. Although I recognise that God in his essence is not subject to those laws that to me means not that we must therefore use a special kind of non-human logic to talk about God’s essence but simply that we cannot, beyond the bare recognition of its self existence and eternality, say anything about it. The formulation of the laws of logic may be human (specifically Aristotelian) but the laws as such are meant to describe what must prevail within creation and if they apply to God’s energies then God’s energies must be created; if they do not apply to God’s energies then we can say no more about God’s energies than we can about his essence.

Second, to strengthen his argument that although essence transcends energies they still subsist in the essence, Palamas proceeds by affirming that both essence and energies are unoriginate and uncreated. To support his thesis he refers to Divine Providence, one of God's energies: "There is, therefore, a single unoriginate providence, that of God, and it is a work of God. Providences other than it are of a created nature. Nonetheless, providence is not the divine essence, and thus the essence of God is not alone unoriginate." The Triads, p.94.

I am not sure what word is being translated unoriginate here or what unoriginate means but if God’s providence has it’s origin in his essence then it is not unoriginate. If it is unoriginate then it is difficult to see how it differs from his essence since distinctions rely on the laws of logic which themselves must be created unless as Aquinas says they are part of God’s being which flows over into creation. I can see no reason for not saying God’s providence is not created in the same way that God’s wisdom is created.

According to Palamas, the essence of God must possess natural energies, and these must be of the same nature as the essence. Accordingly, if the divine energies are created entities, God Himself must have been created. Thus, to give greater support to his argument he refers to the divinity of God, which also designates one of His energies, as follows: "But if the divinity of God designates the divine energy par excellence, and if the energies are, as you say, created, the divinity of God must also be created!"

Now at this point I’m completely foxed. As I understand the meaning of the word divinity it refers to the unconditional on which all other things depend. By definition it cannot be created but neither can it be one of God’s enegies because the energies depend on the essence and are therefore not unconditional. If God’s essence is unknowable and if his energies are of the same nature as his essence it follows that the energies are also unknowable.

Once Palamas walks on the verge of almost fading the distinction between essence and energies, he carefully turn the rudder on the opposite side, and concedes that while all the energies are unoriginate and uncreated, some of them have a beginning and an end, not in themselves, but only from the perspective of their created objects. Some of them have a beginning, such as God's creative energy, which became effective or activated only when creation and time simultaneously began - yet God always possessed a creative power and purpose. Others, like prescience, have an end, no longer operating when this world passes away. (See notes 21 & 24 in Triads, pp.148.)

Palamas states: "While all the energies of God are uncreated, not all are without a beginning. Indeed beginning and end must be ascribed, if not to the creative power itself, then at least to its activity, that is to say, to its energy as directed towards created things. Moses showed this, when he said, 'God rested from all the works which He had begun to do." Triads, p. 96

I can’t fully grasp this but in so far as I do I agree only because I can’t see the energies as unoriginate anyway. However it does create the interesting issue that if the energies are themselves not permanent it does not follow at all that my participation in them will make me permanent!

To ultimately avoid any misunderstanding regarding the transcendence of the essence of God, Palamas adds: "The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even with those without beginning; for which it follows that it is not only transcendent to any energy whatsoever, but that it transcends them 'to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times', as the divine Maximus says." Triads, p.96.

Yes. Although a number, even an infinite one, would still be created. But we will have to be careful here as we must when for example the father’s talk about light or heat. Just as they do not have a modern scientific understanding of these things they would not be aware of the modern mathematics of infinity.

In the dialectical language employed by Palamas, we must note two important things. First, when Palamas exalts God's essence beyond any limit, making a clear distinction from God's energies, he is concerned with the transcendence of God. Second, when he exalts energies, describing them as rays deriving from the sun - symbolically representing the very essence of God - we must not be confused, for he is concerned with the immanence of God. Since Palamas's intent is to advocate theosis, then it is obvious that in the former he emphasize that none can share in God's essence, for otherwise God would not have three hypostasies but an infinite number of hypostasies, whereas in the latter he states that mankind can achieve theosis by sharing in God's energies which conced no inferior divinity and comprise the wholeness of God and which derive from God's essence, yet are not the essence. "It is not the essence of the sun which the eye perceives, but that which surrounds the essence." The Triads, p.108.

Again if the energies derive from the essence they are neither divine nor unoriginate; for it makes no sense to say something derives from something else yet is unoriginate.

Quoting Maximus the Confessor, Palamas elaborates on the theme of theosis: "He [the deified man] remains entirely man by nature in his soul and body, and becomes entirely God in his soul and body through grace, and through the divine radiance of the blessed glory with which he is made entirely resplendent." The Triads, pp. 109-110.

Not sure what it means to become entirely God.

Finally, Palamas makes a third point regarding the uncreated energies of God. They are a. manifold; and b. not visible or perceivable to human senses, but rather to the purified intellect. "The essence [sun] is one, even though the rays [energies] are many, and are sent out in a manner appropriate to those participating in them, being multiplied according to the varying capacity of those receiving them." The Triads, p.98. The capacity of those receiving them shows the synergism that should exist in the act of theosis. Such synergism consists of a two-sided interaction; on one hand, God descending toward man and on the other hand, man, instead of passively waiting to be lifted, actively tries to ascend to God by God's grace. Such effort on the part of man will be rewarded. That is why Palamas states: "The rays [energies] are consequently visible to those worthy." Triads, p.100.

The worthy one is the athlete who excels in askesis, and consequently is able to finish the race by receiving at the end of it the crown of theosis, while preserving the human crown [human essence]. "His [man's] created ousia is permeated and transfigured by the fire of the divinity; yet, though 'a god by grace', he does not become God by essence and nature. Equally he retains his hypostasis or distinctive personal identity, which grows transparent but is not swallowed up in the abyss of God's omnipotence." Kallistos Ware, God Hidden and Revealed, p.132.

That makes sense to me. Ware usually does.

In conclusion I would like to say that the Fathers of the Church including Palamas were well aware of the limitations of the human intellect and languages, hence, while theologizing about the doctrine of God and His incomprehensibility, they took pains to expound their theological convictions beyond the level of ratio, or discursive reason to the intellectus, or spiritual understanding. What is a contradiction and an incoherence to the discursive reason is not necessarily such to the spiritual intellect. This spiritual understanding is even beyond the leap of faith concept by Søren Kierkegaard which implies accepting things in spite of available empirical evidence. The saints in the Orthodox Church indeed contemplate, understand, and see things beyond reason such as the countenance of the resurrected Christ - not merely by leap of faith - but through their illuminated nous by Christ's uncreated energies.

The contemporary reader is inclined to perceive everything that does not appeal to ratio as obscurantism. Unfortunately, such a trend which was perpetuated in particular during the Enlightenment, or the Age of Reason, has been contagious to today's theology. Accordingly, the use of intellectus in theology is labeled as irrational and obscurantist. Kallistos says, "To use the intellectus or spiritual nous in realms which the ratio is incapable of apprehending is not irrational or obscurantist, but the precise opposite. The obscurantist is the one who makes his ratio the measure of the divine realm, and who refuses to accept the possibility that there may be truths which the ratio cannot grasp.

There are many truths which are not known by discursive reasoning, although some extreme rationalists have denied this. These include very basic things like my knowledge that I exist or that 1+1=2. I would put the knowledge that there is a God in the same class. There is a difference between recognising that some truths lie beyond the process of reasoning and that some knowable truths are not subject to the fundamental laws of reason. For if something is not subject to the laws of reason then any statement we make about it can be neither true nor false. I think this is the reason why it is so difficult even to make the simple statement that God exists if we are talking about God'd transcendent essence for God's essence transcends all cattegories including the cattegories of affirmation and denial; it neither exists nor does not exist. What is more the fundamental laws of reason such as the law of identity are not themselves known by reason but grasped by intuition. This was certainly known to most of the great thinkers the Enlightenment. If someone has had an experience of something that transcends discursive reason, as I believe all Christians have, this does not mean that this cannot be reasoned about but that it is not known through a process of reasoning. The fathers including Palomas do continue to discuss those things that they say are beyond reason and hence I conclude that they think of them as beyond discursive reasoning but still subject to the laws of logic. My question would then be have they gone far enough. And for me far enough would mean recognising that the laws of logic do not apply to God's essence but do apply to his energies.

I am sorry if my argument seems repetitive or circular but I am stuck on these very basis issues.

1. Are the laws of logic created or uncreated
2. How do they apply to God.
3. Are the laws of number created or uncreated
4. How do they apply to God
5. In what sense can a human being become God? Which or God’s attributes does he acquire?
6. What is meant by the word divine?
7. What is meant by the word antinomy? What does it imply if one detects an antinomy?
8. What is meant by spiritual understanding? Can it discover original truths or is it simple the spirit’s acceptance of what we know by tradition or scripture.

Herman Blaydoe

03-08-2007, 06:01 PM

Although it is clear that Athanasius believed in creation ex nihilo it is not clear to me that he believed in pancreation ie that God created everything. It is certainly possible to believe the former but not the latter; Aquinas would be a case in point.

I believe in One God, the Father Amighty, maker of heaven and of earth, and of ALL THINGS visible and invisible....

How can anyone claiming to be a member of the Church not accept the very first statement of the Creed? I have several problems with Aquinas, and if what you say is true, that one be another BIG ONE.

1. Are the laws of logic created or uncreated
Created. Math is the language with which God wrote the universe, but He had to create the language first.

2. How do they apply to God.
If I understand the teaching of the Orthodox Church correctly, they don't. That which is UNCREATED is outside the "laws" that govern the CREATED because the laws are CREATED.

3. Are the laws of number created or uncreated
4. How do they apply to God
Ditto

5. In what sense can a human being become God? Which or God’s attributes does he acquire?
Orthodoxy teaches that God created man in His image and likeness. In the Fall, the image remained, but the likeness was distorted. Theosis is the restoration of the likeness and we achieve a pre-Fall (truely NATURAL) state as opposed to our current unnatural state.

6. What is meant by the word divine?
Godlike or that which comes from God. A divine nature is that nature imparted by God. Am I simply restating the obvious or am I missing something?

7. What is meant by the word antinomy?
a contradiction between two statements, both apparently obtained by correct reasoning. This, of course only shows the limits of logic and reasoning. As I am given to understand, God has NO limits and no boundaries, and thus cannot be circumscribed by "laws" which imply limits.

What does it imply if one detects an antinomy?
Re-examine one's premises. Perhaps the logic used was incomplete or faulty? That is what we engineers do when things don't actually work out the way the equation says they should (which happens a LOT!). Logic is very over-rated IMO.

8. What is meant by spiritual understanding? Can it discover original truths or is it simple the spirit’s acceptance of what we know by tradition or scripture.
It means accepting what has been REVEALED. It means trusting the Holy Spirit who reveals. It means being open to revelation as expressed by participation in the Holy Church through a life lived encountering the Risen Christ in continuing repentance (metanoia).

Please forgive if I have misspoken and as always, I look forward to correction if I have expressed anything that differs from what the Church teaches.

Dave Ferguson

04-08-2007, 01:25 PM

Dave Ferguson

04-08-2007, 01:34 PM

Oh sorry I just spotted a difference I missed. It's about the meaning of a word and were working from English version of Greek words. If you read back I had defined 'divine' as meaning unconditional or independant. I supose its quite an obscure definition deriving from comparative religion because while in theism it is God that is unconditional in pantheistic or pancosmistic religions it is something else (everything or something within the cosmos respectivly). Anyway if divine simply refers to God being God then yes the energies are divine.

Herman Blaydoe

04-08-2007, 03:09 PM

If what you have just said truly represents the teaching of the Orthodox Church then I am delighted to tell you it is also what I believe as someone most stronglt influenced by the reformed tradition. I am not saying there are no differences between Orthodoxy and Protestantism, clearly there are but on those issues at least some Protestants and at least some (or one) Orthodox can agree.

That's good isn't it.

The point about Aquinas is that he said that certain of God's attributes such as reason or goodness flow over from God's nature into creation. Hence God did not create these things. It depends how you interpret 'all things' in the creed. I would interpret it as you do to include things like number and logic.

There are certainly things on which Orthodoxy and Protestants agree, particularly since Orthodoxy represents the "root" of all Christian beliefs. However, as has been pointed out in other threads, the word "Protestantism" covers a very broad range of beliefs, some good, some not so good. It is very difficult to pin down THE "Protestant" teaching on any given subject. For just about any topic you produce a "Protestant" opinion on, I can probably find an opposing view that is equally "Protestant", depending, of course, on how we define "Protestantism". Words, meaning, and context do indeed matter and can complicate any discussion, especially when we assign different, equally valid definitions to a particular word. This is why context is so important. As I have read elsewhere, text without context is pretext. Or as Thoreau once said: "if you would debate with me, sir, define your words!"

As to Aquinas, at least to this simple mind, God is certainly "in" Creation but not "of" Creation. There is no place, temporal, spacial, dimensional, that God "isn't". And as to God's energies not being created, why of course they aren't. Are you familiar with the first law of thermodynamics? That is, that energy cannot be created or destroyed? This is an empirical law, that is, it is based on observation and the fact that no proof that it is false has yet been observed. The "law" was "created" by man to explain what has been observed. God is under no obligation to "obey" this law, but it is His action that makes it a "law". The law was created to explain that the energy wasn't created.

Dave Ferguson

13-08-2007, 12:50 PM

I thought I'd made it clear that I didn't think any individual could be representative of Protestantism or Orthodoxy.

That last post is so muddled in its thinking that I scarcely know how to answer it. I am not even sure that it was not intended as a joke, if so I apologise for taking it seriously. Yes there is a law of thermodynamics that states that the amount of energy in the cosmos is constant and yes that law is sometimes expressed using the word created. That refers to physical energy the stuff that physicists deal with. It is not talking about God's energies. It is little more than a coincidence that the same word is being used. No, and I am speaking theologically now, physical energy is not uncreated, if it is then either part of the cosmos has the same divine status as God (this was Plato's view) or part of God's being is part of the matterial of the cosmos (a view you seem to be explicitly denying) either view is much more thoroughly pantheistic than anything in Aquinas. But in truth I don't think you have any clear idea what you are saying.