Thanks for hosting such a wonderful discussion Michael! I pray that you are well! Now, I am not Eastern Orthodox (yet), and I certainly don't have an axe to grind or feel the need to plant a flag when it comes to "Palamism" (I would agree with Dr Bradshaw's hesitation about speaking in terms of essential central dogma and nonessential peripheral theologoumenon, which is not to say that we can thereby call into question whether Jesus Christ was both fully god and fully man - I like to think in terms of Tradition since everything is organically connected), but it seems to me that Erick and yourself are prioritising philosophical principles derived from reason and history rather (i.e. the ontological chasm between God and creature) than the revelatory truth of Christianity. And what is that truth: that the Logos became flesh! During the entire discussion, I don't think anyone mentioned Jesus Christ, which for me is the most obvious "evidence" for the energy/essence distinction, at least on an intuitive conceptual basis. As I understand it, and I must admit that I haven't read much on the topic and don't fancy myself a theologian, "Palamism" is simply an extension/affirmation/acknowledgement of the Incarnation. If you want to explore how it is that God (unchanging, impassable, eternal, etc.) can manifest himself in creation (changing, passable, temporal, etc.) you need not look further than Christ. When Erick was discussing the divine theophanies in the OT and whether they could be seen as true manifestations of the divine, I was sorely disappointed when Jesus Christ failed to be mentioned - again, if ever there was an event that a Christian revealed God in the world, the Incarnation would be it (unless of course one is to side with the Arians, Donatists, etc). I know that the there are distinctions to be made between this specific discussion about essence/energy and hypostasis/ousia when speaking about the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and how God interacts with Creation, but I really do think that the Incarnation, which is shrouded in mystery, has to be front and centre. Otherwise, we risk becoming Aristotelians who prioritise the elaboration of a rationalistic systematic theology rather than Christians who worship God in fear and trembling (and who theologise as little as possible based on what has been revealed just to make sure we don’t stray too far from the Truth). Again, I must reiterate, that I do not pretend to be a theologian, and so all I have offered is an honest comment on what was discussed. PS. I have yet to listen to your other video with Dr David Bradshaw and Dr Jared Goff, so I will perhaps glean more insights from there! In Christ, Albert
I am not an expert but I cannot , with my limited understanding, grasp what is so important about that small difference in understanding that word in the context of everything else .
I am not well read on the matter, but from my understanding from listening to much smarter people than me, is that because the understanding of the essence/ energy distinction broke down in the west, they came up with the the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity. This belief, in practice ends up in modalism. So ultimately it ends up messing up the west's whole Christology.
@@joshw3010 i don’t think we should make such a fuss about two different ways of explaining something which is in the end still not the perfect explanation. We as creatures of God will NEVER be able to explain everything . As long as we follow His Revelation of Himself and follow His teachings on how to reach Salvation we should have enough to do.
So, basically what other, slightly more offensive, proponents of the essence energy distinction have said, with less sass. I still don’t see how said EE proponent was incorrect in their presentation of the position in comparison to what Dr. Bradshaw said, am I missing something?
Joel McCracken yes. You are missing some points. Dr Bradshaw has several points of departure with Jay Dyer, which I am assuming you are referring to, in this video. Moreover, Dr. Goff and Dr. Spencer all hold to EE and correct much of what he says.
Joel McCracken Goff and Spencer correct Jay. As one Palamite scholar and professor recently told me “Jay seems to have an undergrad knowledge of the issues and has little exposure to the documents in their original languages.”
@@ReasonandTheology Even though I tend to agree with him on a few things, I would have to agree, considering the way Dr. Bradshaw addressed the EE topic. Dr. Bradshaw clearly had more similar views, perhaps due to his EO background, to Dyer than others. That being said, I have yet to watch the Goff and Spencer videos, but I hope to soon.
At around 1 hr. 27 min. David Bradshaw alludes to one of our videos. He attempts to defend Palamas’ distinction between ὑπερκειμένη οὐσία (the “essence lying above”) and a ὑφειμένη θεότης (“a Divinity/Godhead that is lower”). Bradshaw’s attempt to defend Palamas fails, and his comments about θεότης are very misleading. As our video covers, Palamas’ formulation is heretical. In Greek θεότης refers to the one Godhead. See, for instance, Colossians 2:9, where the genitive form (θεότητος) is used: “For in him the whole fullness of deity [θεότητος] dwells bodily.” Θεότης was also used at Chalcedon to refer to the divine nature. It was used regularly by the Greek fathers to refer to the one Godhead, i.e. the divine essence common to the three persons. There is only one θεότης. As St. Gregory Nazianzen says (Fifth Theological Oration), “for the Godhead is One” (μία θεότης). St. Athanasius says: “There is one eternal Godhead in Trinity (άῖδιος καὶ μία Θεότης ἐστίν ἐν Тριάδι)…” (First Discourse Against The Arians, #18) Since Palamas teaches that there is a higher and a lower θεότης, that is heretical. Although Bradshaw’s response might have sounded good to those not familiar with the issue, it was not. He omitted the fact that θεότης is used regularly by the Greek fathers to refer to the one Godhead/the divine essence. At 1 hr. 28:32 Bradshaw even explicitly defends a distinction between a higher Θεότης and a lower Θεότης. That is heretical if we understand Θεότης as it is used by the ecumenical councils, and we should do so. Further, there are many formulations in Palamas that are heretical, not just his reference to a “lower θεότης”. According to Palamas, energies that “begin” are “uncreated”. That is heretical nonsense. We could go on.
@@stinnetbennet, great. If Saint Gregory Palamas is a heretic, Saint Dionysius is also a heretic, as well as Saint Gregory of Nyssa and Saint Maximos, who have said exactly the same things. If all the major Holy Fathers, from whom we have received our theological formulations, are heretical, then with what are we left with except with an entirely distinct religion? The meaning of the distinction between higher divinity and lower divinity is the same as that of the dionysian distinction between hyperessential essence and essence - which he also calls an energy or "union", namely the essentiating energy. Dionysius himself, as evidenced in the above quote, calls "God" and "Divinity" an energy - names for participatory unions. The hyper-divinity is the source of divinity as deifying energy. Saint Gregory Palamas gets it from him. Dr. David Bradshaw was particularly clear on this topic. These accusations of Saint Gregory Palamas are really slanderous and ignorant. They just repeat what has been addressed and clarified by palamite scholarship in the last 70 years. It's not even considered to be a polemical issue anymore by the majority of official roman catholic theologians. That the energies are NOT hypostases is another important point. Accusers keep repeating this misunderstanding. Since it has been clearly defined and explained, they are not justified in their slander anymore.
vaticancatholic.com Do you worship what you know or what you do not know? If I answer, I worship what I know, they immediately reply, What is the essence of the object of worship? Then, if I confess that I am ignorant of the essence, they turn on me again and say, So you worship you know not what. I answer that the word to know has many meanings. We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach. (Letter 234.1) Basil the Great.
phocas the gardener hahah they brought up a bunch of hidden cash with them according to their former brother in sedeville Richard Ibriyani ruclips.net/video/_LojYStQG1Y/видео.html He mentions how they got their bank accounts and building repossessed for fooling parishioners and took a ton of cash with them
Thanks for hosting such a wonderful discussion Michael! I pray that you are well!
Now, I am not Eastern Orthodox (yet), and I certainly don't have an axe to grind or feel the need to plant a flag when it comes to "Palamism" (I would agree with Dr Bradshaw's hesitation about speaking in terms of essential central dogma and nonessential peripheral theologoumenon, which is not to say that we can thereby call into question whether Jesus Christ was both fully god and fully man - I like to think in terms of Tradition since everything is organically connected), but it seems to me that Erick and yourself are prioritising philosophical principles derived from reason and history rather (i.e. the ontological chasm between God and creature) than the revelatory truth of Christianity. And what is that truth: that the Logos became flesh! During the entire discussion, I don't think anyone mentioned Jesus Christ, which for me is the most obvious "evidence" for the energy/essence distinction, at least on an intuitive conceptual basis. As I understand it, and I must admit that I haven't read much on the topic and don't fancy myself a theologian, "Palamism" is simply an extension/affirmation/acknowledgement of the Incarnation. If you want to explore how it is that God (unchanging, impassable, eternal, etc.) can manifest himself in creation (changing, passable, temporal, etc.) you need not look further than Christ. When Erick was discussing the divine theophanies in the OT and whether they could be seen as true manifestations of the divine, I was sorely disappointed when Jesus Christ failed to be mentioned - again, if ever there was an event that a Christian revealed God in the world, the Incarnation would be it (unless of course one is to side with the Arians, Donatists, etc). I know that the there are distinctions to be made between this specific discussion about essence/energy and hypostasis/ousia when speaking about the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit and how God interacts with Creation, but I really do think that the Incarnation, which is shrouded in mystery, has to be front and centre. Otherwise, we risk becoming Aristotelians who prioritise the elaboration of a rationalistic systematic theology rather than Christians who worship God in fear and trembling (and who theologise as little as possible based on what has been revealed just to make sure we don’t stray too far from the Truth).
Again, I must reiterate, that I do not pretend to be a theologian, and so all I have offered is an honest comment on what was discussed. PS. I have yet to listen to your other video with Dr David Bradshaw and Dr Jared Goff, so I will perhaps glean more insights from there!
In Christ,
Albert
Wow.. I have to say that this explanation of E/E distinction by Dr. Bradshaw was excellent. Keep up the great content guys!
That icon of St. Benedict is from Fontgombault. Fr. Bourel wrote it. Great discussion.
Excellent interview covering a lot of complex topics in a helpfully clarifying way
Excellent talk
I only have a basic understanding of the ramifications of the EE debate.
I'm assuming that there is no latin tradition of using the word _inopero_
1:09:45 bookmark
I am not an expert but I cannot , with my limited understanding, grasp what is so important about that small difference in understanding that word in the context of everything else .
I am not well read on the matter, but from my understanding from listening to much smarter people than me, is that because the understanding of the essence/ energy distinction broke down in the west, they came up with the the doctrine of absolute divine simplicity. This belief, in practice ends up in modalism. So ultimately it ends up messing up the west's whole Christology.
@@joshw3010 i don’t think we should make such a fuss about two different ways of explaining something which is in the end still not the perfect explanation. We as creatures of God will NEVER be able to explain everything . As long as we follow His Revelation of Himself and follow His teachings on how to reach Salvation we should have enough to do.
So, basically what other, slightly more offensive, proponents of the essence energy distinction have said, with less sass. I still don’t see how said EE proponent was incorrect in their presentation of the position in comparison to what Dr. Bradshaw said, am I missing something?
Joel McCracken yes. You are missing some points. Dr Bradshaw has several points of departure with Jay Dyer, which I am assuming you are referring to, in this video. Moreover, Dr. Goff and Dr. Spencer all hold to EE and correct much of what he says.
@@ReasonandTheology Much of what Mr. Dyer says or what Dr. Bradshaw says?
Joel McCracken Goff and Spencer correct Jay. As one Palamite scholar and professor recently told me “Jay seems to have an undergrad knowledge of the issues and has little exposure to the documents in their original languages.”
@@ReasonandTheology Even though I tend to agree with him on a few things, I would have to agree, considering the way Dr. Bradshaw addressed the EE topic. Dr. Bradshaw clearly had more similar views, perhaps due to his EO background, to Dyer than others. That being said, I have yet to watch the Goff and Spencer videos, but I hope to soon.
Wheres the audio?
At around 1 hr. 27 min. David Bradshaw alludes to one of our videos. He attempts to defend Palamas’ distinction between ὑπερκειμένη οὐσία (the “essence lying above”) and a ὑφειμένη θεότης (“a Divinity/Godhead that is lower”). Bradshaw’s attempt to defend Palamas fails, and his comments about θεότης are very misleading. As our video covers, Palamas’ formulation is heretical. In Greek θεότης refers to the one Godhead. See, for instance, Colossians 2:9, where the genitive form (θεότητος) is used: “For in him the whole fullness of deity [θεότητος] dwells bodily.” Θεότης was also used at Chalcedon to refer to the divine nature. It was used regularly by the Greek fathers to refer to the one Godhead, i.e. the divine essence common to the three persons. There is only one θεότης. As St. Gregory Nazianzen says (Fifth Theological Oration), “for the Godhead is One” (μία θεότης).
St. Athanasius says: “There is one eternal Godhead in Trinity (άῖδιος καὶ μία Θεότης ἐστίν ἐν Тριάδι)…” (First Discourse Against The Arians, #18)
Since Palamas teaches that there is a higher and a lower θεότης, that is heretical. Although Bradshaw’s response might have sounded good to those not familiar with the issue, it was not. He omitted the fact that θεότης is used regularly by the Greek fathers to refer to the one Godhead/the divine essence.
At 1 hr. 28:32 Bradshaw even explicitly defends a distinction between a higher Θεότης and a lower Θεότης. That is heretical if we understand Θεότης as it is used by the ecumenical councils, and we should do so. Further, there are many formulations in Palamas that are heretical, not just his reference to a “lower θεότης”. According to Palamas, energies that “begin” are “uncreated”. That is heretical nonsense. We could go on.
@@stinnetbennet, great. If Saint Gregory Palamas is a heretic, Saint Dionysius is also a heretic, as well as Saint Gregory of Nyssa and Saint Maximos, who have said exactly the same things. If all the major Holy Fathers, from whom we have received our theological formulations, are heretical, then with what are we left with except with an entirely distinct religion?
The meaning of the distinction between higher divinity and lower divinity is the same as that of the dionysian distinction between hyperessential essence and essence - which he also calls an energy or "union", namely the essentiating energy. Dionysius himself, as evidenced in the above quote, calls "God" and "Divinity" an energy - names for participatory unions. The hyper-divinity is the source of divinity as deifying energy. Saint Gregory Palamas gets it from him. Dr. David Bradshaw was particularly clear on this topic.
These accusations of Saint Gregory Palamas are really slanderous and ignorant. They just repeat what has been addressed and clarified by palamite scholarship in the last 70 years. It's not even considered to be a polemical issue anymore by the majority of official roman catholic theologians. That the energies are NOT hypostases is another important point. Accusers keep repeating this misunderstanding. Since it has been clearly defined and explained, they are not justified in their slander anymore.
stupid sedevacantist
Saint Augustine that boys video is full of such asininity as to be a comedy routine easily mistaken for parody than “theology”
vaticancatholic.com
Do you worship what you know or what you do not know? If I answer, I worship what I know, they immediately reply, What is the essence of the object of worship? Then, if I confess that I am ignorant of the essence, they turn on me again and say, So you worship you know not what. I answer that the word to know has many meanings. We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence. But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach. (Letter 234.1) Basil the Great.
phocas the gardener hahah they brought up a bunch of hidden cash with them according to their former brother in sedeville Richard Ibriyani
ruclips.net/video/_LojYStQG1Y/видео.html
He mentions how they got their bank accounts and building repossessed for fooling parishioners and took a ton of cash with them
High IQ.