All of the Church Fathers taught divine simplicity (yes, in the Augustinian sense). From the argument of St Athanasius it only follows that the divine nature and divine will are conceptually distinct (distinct in our mind thinking about God), but not that they are really distinct in God. In fact, St Cyril od Alexandria - who did read the writings of Athanasius, I would imagine - EXPLICITLY SAYS, that in God his will is nothing other than his nature, exactly as St Augustine teaches.
It's the Divinized body and blood of Christ, activated by the persons of God in their essence. The same Divine work that regenerates the believer in baptism, turns the bread and wine into Christ our Lord
Some of the many problems associated with the essence-energy distinction are given below. 1) To claim a real essence-energy distinction in God is comparable to the real distinction between a man and a tree. The man has matter and form and the tree has matter and form, the matter in each limits the form of man and tree, making the two really distinct. Similarly, if the essence and energy in God are really distinct, there must be matter and form in God similar to matter and form in creatures. And if so, Palamas's divinity is reduced to two creatures really distinct from each other, making the essence-energy distinction conclude to an Orthodox polytheism of two Gods within the one God of divine revelation. 2) If the essence-energy distinction in God is real it follows the divine essence is unoriginate and the divine energy is also unoriginate. But having two realities in God that are both unoriginate infers a duality in God, concluding to a dual God within the one God. Such a God is an anti-Christian abomination. 3) Alternatively, if the essence-energy distinction in God is real, it follows the divine essence and divine energy are both unoriginate, but really distinct. And yet for both the essence and energy to be both unoriginate infers both are the same by essence and energy, without any real distinction. If there are two unoriginate realities in God there are two realities in God, both of which are God, really distinct from each other, inferring a dual God contrary to the biblical one God. The essence-energy distinction in God infers a contradiction concerning the two unoriginates in the one God inferring Papalams's theology of God is false. 4) The divine attribute of omnipotence already accounts for God acting within creation by divine power. The divine attribute does not necessitate a real essence-energy distinction already accounted for by omnipotence. To affirm the real essence-energy distinction in God infers God is not omnipotent, who can apply or abstain from acting within creation via an infinite power as from an attribute. The divine attribute of omnipotence makes Palamas's real essence-energy distinction irrelevant and superfluous. 5) Palamas's real essence-energy distinction is derived from the divine power acting in a temporal way within creation. If so, Palamas's real essence-energy distinction should extend to other real distinctions in God according to His other acts relative to creation. God acts to know and react to free human decisions, but there is no real distinction between the divine essence and divine knowledge made actual by human acts. According to Palamas, the divine energy in potential made actual by any temporal divine act within creation concludes to a real essence-energy distinction. But Palalms remains silent on divine knowledge that should similarly move from potential knowledge to actual knowledge through a creature's free acts. God can know Peter will lie. Peters lies and God knows Peter lied. God's knowledge from the temporal order moves from potential to actual knowledge inferring a real distinction between the divine essence and the divine knowledge. In fact, the divine actions within the prophets who spoke in reaction to Israel and the nations is dependent upon divine knowledge of the temporal order. And yet, according to Palamas, divine knowledge of the temporal order does not include a real distinction between essence and knowledge, it does involve a real distinction between essence and energy. God knows within the temporal order according to omniscience, without any real distinction of essence and knowledge, but must act within the temporal order by divine power, always with a real distinction between essence and energy. Palamas's claim of divine power within creation, as from a real distinction in God according to essence and energy is an artificial and inconsistent truth claim not incorporated into God's knowledge of creatures. Omniscience is without any real distinction between essence and knowledge, but omnipotence is arbitrarily, always from a real distinction between essence and energies in God. The logical inconsistency in Palamas's doctrine infers Palamas's Trinity is a fiction. 6) If the essence-energy distinction is derived from divine acts of divine power within creation, which are many and varied, the energies in God must also be many and varied. The real essence-energy distinction in God involves many distinctions within the energies of God as many potentials actualised when God enacts divine power within creation. The real essence-energy distinction in God reduces to a real distinction between many energies, making the simplicity of God of pure act incompatible with one essence and multiple energies which are all really distinct. 7) Contrary, if there is only one energy in God that accounts for the multitude of divine acts within creation, without reference to a multitude of real distinctions in the divine energy, there is likewise no necessity for a real essence-energy distinction in God. The many and varied divine acts within creation are not from a multitude of potentials in God really distinct in God, therefore there is no logical basis to posit any real distinction between the essence and energies in God based upon divine acts within creation. One energy accounts for a multitude of divine acts within creation, making the divine energy absolutely simple in itself without reference to any real distinctions in the divine energies. As a multitude of transitory divine acts do not conclude to any real distinctions within the divine energy, a multitude of transitory divine acts do not conclude to a multitude of real distinctions in God. And if there are no multitude of distinctions in God from a multitude of transitory acts, there are no real distinctions in God from any transitory acts within creation. Therefore one absolutely simple God without the real essence-energy distinction in God is not derivable as Palamas claims. Palamas's essence-energy distinction in God is an illogical fiction not found in divine revelation. 8) Similarly, the real distinctions within the Trinity for example are not necessitated from the multitude of divine acts within creation of the Father, Son and Spirit within creation acting in different ways. There are no distinctions within the Father who spoke at the Jordan River and sent His Son. The Father's two transitory actions do not conclude to any real distinction within the Father. Similarly, the many and varied transitory actions of the Son and Spirit do not conclude to any real distinction within the Son and the Spirit including but not limited to Palamas's essence-energy distinction. The many and varied acts of the three divine persons are always made from and with the divine simplicity which do not necessitate any novel notion of a real distinction between essence-energy in God. 10) If the real essence-energy distinction in God is presumed, the real distinction infers each person within the Trinity is really distinct to each other according to the opposition of relation, but also according to the essence-energy in God. If so, the Father is really distinct from the Son by real relations of Father and Son. But within the Father, He has a real distinction of essence and energy within Him, similar to the same real distinction of essence and energy within the Son and Spirit. The Father's essence is really distinct from the Father's energy. The Father is His own divine essence and the Father is His own divine energy. The Father is therefore, really distinct within Himself, inferring the Father is the Father of His essence and the Father of His energy. Therefore the Father is one Father relative to the Son and Spirit and two Fathers with a really distinct essence and energy. Similarly, the Son and Spirit are each one person relative to the other divine persons, but also really distinct regarding the essence and energy distinction in God. The Trinity is therefore both three persons in one nature, but also three persons within one energy. Or if there are many energies, the Trinity is both three persons in one nature and three persons in inumerable energies, all really distinct. Such a version of the Trinity invented by Palamas is a Trinity of wild speculation unworthy of the true God of infinite perfection.
11) The essence-energy distinction in God concludes to a convoluted amalgamation of each divine person defined by relative oppositions to two other persons and the real distinction between essence and energy within God. Each divine person is both a singular real hypostasis, involving three hypostasis within God. But each concrete hypostasis is really distinct according to essence and energy. Each divine person in God is therefore one of three according to hypostasis defined through relative opposition, but each divine hypostasis contains within itself a real distinction of essence and energy. The real distinction between essence and energy in God within each divine person infers each person has two distinct existences according to 1) divine essence and 2) divine energy involving three divine persons in God existing as though there were six divine persons in God. The three divine persons are opposed to each other within the divine essence and the three divine persons are opposed to each other within the divine energy. As the divine essence and divine energy are really distinct, the three divine persons are also really distinct according to essence and energy, inferring the divinity has revealed Himself to be both three divine persons and six divine persons if Palamas's real essence-energy distinction is accepted. 12) Alternatively, each divine person exists within the divine essence and the divine energy and there are only three divine persons as three really distinct hypostases within God independent of the real distinction of essence and energy in God. If so, there are not six divine persons logically derived from Palamsas's essence-energy distinction, inferring the essence-energy distinction in God is not real, but only a nominal fiction, contrary to the claims of Palamas's novel theology of God. If the Trinity of three persons is accepted, Palamas's real distinction must be rejected. If Palamas's real distinction is accepted, the Trinity must be either rejected, or redefined in a way unknown to church history. Such a redefinition is against the perfection of divine revelation granting the fullness of truth within the church and her powers to define dogmas and doctrines. 13) Pericohoresis affirms the three divine persons interpenetrate each other as within the same divine essence. If there is a real distinction of essence and energy in God the real distinction in God must also interpenetrate thereby removing any real distinction in God between essence and energy. To have essence and energy really distinct but ontologically identical is to have two contraries in God ontologically identical, removing the real distinction. Perochiresis in God excludes any real distinction within God as proposed by Palamas and favours the Thomistic notion of absolute simplicity including the perichoresis of the three persons, only distinct by the opposition of substantial relation. 14) If the essence-energy distinction is derived from divine acts within creation reducible to potentials in God to act, later made actualised, such as the potential to creation, act within a prophet, or perform a miracle, later actualised. Such reduction of potentials in God is presumed to be accounted through the existence of the divine energies made actualised within creation, really distinct from the divine essence. And yet, to have actuals and potentials is God is to anthropomorphise God, contrary to the revealed notion of God who is infinitely transcendent and therefore incomprehensible. Palamas's real distinction is a deformation of the revealed God acting within the temporal order according to an impenetrable mystery which excludes any explanation of such action through the false invention of Palams's real distinction between essence and energies. 15) Dr Bradshaw's comments on the essence energy distinction failed to prove the divine energy given to the faithful is the energy Palamas defined as really distinct from the divine essence. If the divine essence is really distinct from the divine energy in God, the real distinction must be in God independent of creation. One may then hold to a real distinction between the divine simplicity and the divine action within creation, having the absolute divine simplicity within God without reference to any real distinction within God and affirm the divine action within creation as limited and transitory. Palamas holds to a real distinction in God derived from divine actions within creation. But such a notion is a non sequitur known as from the error of real distinction in God contrary to the divine simplicity revealed and known through natural theology. There are very many other problems with Palams's theology already critiqued by another video - ruclips.net/video/d07mgLoOW8g/видео.html Some questions on the essence-energy distinction 1) If the essence-energy distinction was developed and promoted by Palamas, why was the essence-energy distinction not defined by any ecumenical council before Palamas? 2) Why has the essence-energy distinction not been defined by an ecumenical council after Palamas? 3) If the essence-energy distinction is found in the scriptures and church fathers, why did no father or any heretic ever define or oppose the essence-energy distinction as Palamas formulated? 4) Why believe the real distinction between essence and energies is true when transitory divine acts within creation can be accounted for without any reference to the real distinction? 5) Why believe the real distinction between essence and energies is true when the divine acts without creation are probably an impenetrable mystery comparable to the mystery of the Trinity? 6) The Trinity is an incomprehensible mystery not reducible to human reasoning. Why pretend the real distinction between essence and energy in God accounts for divine power applied within creation when the divine acts always occur from pure act without any reference to any potentials within God comparable to the incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity? 7) Apparently, the essence-energy distinction is utilised to provide a reasoned account for how only the second person became incarnate whilst the father and Spirit did not. And yet the reasoned accounts using the essence-energy distinction involve the above problems exposed. Why believe the real distinction between essence and energies is true when the distinction infers many unresolvable problems and therefore does not account for the Incarnation of the second person? 8) God as pure act is known by reason alone in n natural theology and from divine revelation expressing the divine essence as simple. The divine pure act is the origin of all divine acts of power within creation, contrary to Palamas's real distinction between essence and energy. Why affirm the real distinction in God when God as pure act is already know by reason and faith? 9) If divine simplicity is of faith, how can the Orthodox faithful affirm Palamas's real distinction within God and logically affirm divine simplicity which logically denies any real distinction between essence and energy as affirmed by faith? 10) If there is a real distinction between essence and energy in God, and in God all interpenetrates, known by perichoresis, how does the essence and energy remain distinct when the essence and energy must concentrate each other? 11) Palamas's essence-energy distinction involves God moving from potency to act within the created order. If so, how does the divine essence as pure act conpenetrate the potency within God to act within creation, without the divine essence becoming identical to the potency within God and therefore reducing God from pure actual being to a collection of energy potencies?
@@MrJohnmartin2009 "Similarly, if the essence and energy in God are really distinct, there must be matter and form in God similar to matter and form in creatures" non sequitur as God is not a creature
You said a whole lot of nothing lol. If you affirm God’s actions and knowledge are isomorphically identical to the divine essence, then creation is eternal and necessary, constituting a Dyad. God’s ad extra acts of will, which should be modally contingent, would become modally necessary. Actions are specified by their objects or effects, so the universe is directly specified with the divine essence, hence a necessary emanation of God is at hand. And with the divine knowledge: God knows that we exist in this world right now, this is modally contingent knowledge, that could have been another way if God chose not to create, therefore another modal collapse ensues. If the distinction is merely virtual or formal, and God could exist without creating the universe, then it must be real.
@@youreacuck You've avoided answering the 10 proposed problems with the essence-energy (Es-En) distinction, making the Orthodox doctrine on God very weak. If you want Catholic Thomists and others to take the Es-En distinction seriously, you must defend the doctrine from those who make legitimate objections to the distinction. Objections have been made and no answers to the objections have been given, so this Thomist does not take Palamas's invention seriously. The identity of divine intellect with the divine essence follows from God as pure act, without any real distinctions within His essence as pure being. To posit a real distinction in God is to formally require dependence in God, similar to a creature having a real distinction between essence and being properly accounted for by the divine power acting within the creature as the prime being acting to sustain all things. The problem of divine action to create and within creation can only occur with the accompanying truth of God as pure act. One solution to the problems of the divine act of creation and God's conservation of creatures within the created order is to posit all divine acts are from pure act, which includes the act of creation and all divine acts within creation. VD - If you affirm God’s actions and knowledge are isomorphically identical to the divine essence, then creation is eternal and necessary, constituting a Dyad. JM - Every act of God is eternal as from His divine nature as pure act. Contingent acts of divine power to create and within creatures are enacted without reference any potency in the divine nature and therefore without any reference to the so called energies in God. Contingent divine acts are always from the divine nature as pure act, which probably involves a mystery of the divine presence according to divine power within the natural order. The alternative explanation of a divine mystery accords well with the divine nature containing many known and revealed mysteries and shows the creation is not identical to the divine essence and the divinity is not a diad. To conclude to a necessity of creation and a diad in God by ignoring the possibility of only partial knowledge and an accompanying mystery on the divine acts within the natural order is illogical. VD - God’s ad extra acts of will, which should be modally contingent, would become modally necessary. Actions are specified by their objects or effects, so the universe is directly specified with the divine essence, hence a necessary emanation of God is at hand. And with the divine knowledge: God knows that we exist in this world right now, this is modally contingent knowledge, that could have been another way if God chose not to create, therefore another modal collapse ensues. If the distinction is merely virtual or formal, and God could exist without creating the universe, then it must be real. JM - You haven't demonstrated anything here at all. The divine acts within creation are contingent and necessary without having the divine acts having an object defined by the divine nature. Also divine knowledge of creation is never contingent, for contingent knowledge is accidental, not found in pure act. The Orthodox doctrine of Es-En distinction reduces God to a supreme creature, dependent upon another, whilst being the prime cause and not dependent upon another. For if God is not dependent upon another, God is unreceptive and, therefore pure act. However, if God is dependent upon another, then God is receptive and therefore composed of matter and form as a creature. Similarly, real energies in God are potencies to act in the nature order, reducing God to a composite of potency and act, imitating a creature. The Es-En distinction reduces God to a supreme creature contrary to divine revelation, making the Es-En distinction and the creaturely divinity a heretical invention of Palamas.
![Natanael Cano - Amor Eterno [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EO4prCs6WpM/mqdefault.jpg)
Incredible
Great talk!!!!!! John 1:9 “ true light which gives light to everyone who comes into the world”!!
I got shivers too! God bless you for this interview!
🔥🔥
Vartan doing the Lords work brother ❤️🙏🏾
Glory to God brother! Thank you!
Doctor David Bradshaw 🙏🙏
Great stream
Well done!☦
Thank you for this great interview! It was very easy to follow. So informative. Glory to God ❤️
i"m delighted to hear! God bless you sister
Great interview ❤️✝️
May God bless you both ❤️😍
May God bless you to!
👀🔥 🔥 🔥
Great talk! John 1:9 fave verse!
All of the Church Fathers taught divine simplicity (yes, in the Augustinian sense). From the argument of St Athanasius it only follows that the divine nature and divine will are conceptually distinct (distinct in our mind thinking about God), but not that they are really distinct in God. In fact, St Cyril od Alexandria - who did read the writings of Athanasius, I would imagine - EXPLICITLY SAYS, that in God his will is nothing other than his nature, exactly as St Augustine teaches.
Nice bro ❤
👑☦️🕊
Excellent discussion. So interesting and filled with mystery. Is the Holy Eucharist the Divine Essence or Energies?
It's the Divinized body and blood of Christ, activated by the persons of God in their essence. The same Divine work that regenerates the believer in baptism, turns the bread and wine into Christ our Lord
Angels don't have matter but do have potentiality?
55:01
20:37 Augustine
Gained a sub
Some of the many problems associated with the essence-energy distinction are given below.
1) To claim a real essence-energy distinction in God is comparable to the real distinction between a man and a tree. The man has matter and form and the tree has matter and form, the matter in each limits the form of man and tree, making the two really distinct. Similarly, if the essence and energy in God are really distinct, there must be matter and form in God similar to matter and form in creatures. And if so, Palamas's divinity is reduced to two creatures really distinct from each other, making the essence-energy distinction conclude to an Orthodox polytheism of two Gods within the one God of divine revelation.
2) If the essence-energy distinction in God is real it follows the divine essence is unoriginate and the divine energy is also unoriginate. But having two realities in God that are both unoriginate infers a duality in God, concluding to a dual God within the one God. Such a God is an anti-Christian abomination.
3) Alternatively, if the essence-energy distinction in God is real, it follows the divine essence and divine energy are both unoriginate, but really distinct. And yet for both the essence and energy to be both unoriginate infers both are the same by essence and energy, without any real distinction. If there are two unoriginate realities in God there are two realities in God, both of which are God, really distinct from each other, inferring a dual God contrary to the biblical one God. The essence-energy distinction in God infers a contradiction concerning the two unoriginates in the one God inferring Papalams's theology of God is false.
4) The divine attribute of omnipotence already accounts for God acting within creation by divine power. The divine attribute does not necessitate a real essence-energy distinction already accounted for by omnipotence. To affirm the real essence-energy distinction in God infers God is not omnipotent, who can apply or abstain from acting within creation via an infinite power as from an attribute. The divine attribute of omnipotence makes Palamas's real essence-energy distinction irrelevant and superfluous.
5) Palamas's real essence-energy distinction is derived from the divine power acting in a temporal way within creation. If so, Palamas's real essence-energy distinction should extend to other real distinctions in God according to His other acts relative to creation. God acts to know and react to free human decisions, but there is no real distinction between the divine essence and divine knowledge made actual by human acts. According to Palamas, the divine energy in potential made actual by any temporal divine act within creation concludes to a real essence-energy distinction. But Palalms remains silent on divine knowledge that should similarly move from potential knowledge to actual knowledge through a creature's free acts. God can know Peter will lie. Peters lies and God knows Peter lied. God's knowledge from the temporal order moves from potential to actual knowledge inferring a real distinction between the divine essence and the divine knowledge.
In fact, the divine actions within the prophets who spoke in reaction to Israel and the nations is dependent upon divine knowledge of the temporal order. And yet, according to Palamas, divine knowledge of the temporal order does not include a real distinction between essence and knowledge, it does involve a real distinction between essence and energy. God knows within the temporal order according to omniscience, without any real distinction of essence and knowledge, but must act within the temporal order by divine power, always with a real distinction between essence and energy. Palamas's claim of divine power within creation, as from a real distinction in God according to essence and energy is an artificial and inconsistent truth claim not incorporated into God's knowledge of creatures. Omniscience is without any real distinction between essence and knowledge, but omnipotence is arbitrarily, always from a real distinction between essence and energies in God. The logical inconsistency in Palamas's doctrine infers Palamas's Trinity is a fiction.
6) If the essence-energy distinction is derived from divine acts of divine power within creation, which are many and varied, the energies in God must also be many and varied. The real essence-energy distinction in God involves many distinctions within the energies of God as many potentials actualised when God enacts divine power within creation. The real essence-energy distinction in God reduces to a real distinction between many energies, making the simplicity of God of pure act incompatible with one essence and multiple energies which are all really distinct.
7) Contrary, if there is only one energy in God that accounts for the multitude of divine acts within creation, without reference to a multitude of real distinctions in the divine energy, there is likewise no necessity for a real essence-energy distinction in God. The many and varied divine acts within creation are not from a multitude of potentials in God really distinct in God, therefore there is no logical basis to posit any real distinction between the essence and energies in God based upon divine acts within creation. One energy accounts for a multitude of divine acts within creation, making the divine energy absolutely simple in itself without reference to any real distinctions in the divine energies. As a multitude of transitory divine acts do not conclude to any real distinctions within the divine energy, a multitude of transitory divine acts do not conclude to a multitude of real distinctions in God. And if there are no multitude of distinctions in God from a multitude of transitory acts, there are no real distinctions in God from any transitory acts within creation. Therefore one absolutely simple God without the real essence-energy distinction in God is not derivable as Palamas claims. Palamas's essence-energy distinction in God is an illogical fiction not found in divine revelation.
8) Similarly, the real distinctions within the Trinity for example are not necessitated from the multitude of divine acts within creation of the Father, Son and Spirit within creation acting in different ways. There are no distinctions within the Father who spoke at the Jordan River and sent His Son. The Father's two transitory actions do not conclude to any real distinction within the Father. Similarly, the many and varied transitory actions of the Son and Spirit do not conclude to any real distinction within the Son and the Spirit including but not limited to Palamas's essence-energy distinction. The many and varied acts of the three divine persons are always made from and with the divine simplicity which do not necessitate any novel notion of a real distinction between essence-energy in God.
10) If the real essence-energy distinction in God is presumed, the real distinction infers each person within the Trinity is really distinct to each other according to the opposition of relation, but also according to the essence-energy in God. If so, the Father is really distinct from the Son by real relations of Father and Son. But within the Father, He has a real distinction of essence and energy within Him, similar to the same real distinction of essence and energy within the Son and Spirit. The Father's essence is really distinct from the Father's energy. The Father is His own divine essence and the Father is His own divine energy. The Father is therefore, really distinct within Himself, inferring the Father is the Father of His essence and the Father of His energy. Therefore the Father is one Father relative to the Son and Spirit and two Fathers with a really distinct essence and energy. Similarly, the Son and Spirit are each one person relative to the other divine persons, but also really distinct regarding the essence and energy distinction in God. The Trinity is therefore both three persons in one nature, but also three persons within one energy. Or if there are many energies, the Trinity is both three persons in one nature and three persons in inumerable energies, all really distinct. Such a version of the Trinity invented by Palamas is a Trinity of wild speculation unworthy of the true God of infinite perfection.
11) The essence-energy distinction in God concludes to a convoluted amalgamation of each divine person defined by relative oppositions to two other persons and the real distinction between essence and energy within God. Each divine person is both a singular real hypostasis, involving three hypostasis within God. But each concrete hypostasis is really distinct according to essence and energy. Each divine person in God is therefore one of three according to hypostasis defined through relative opposition, but each divine hypostasis contains within itself a real distinction of essence and energy. The real distinction between essence and energy in God within each divine person infers each person has two distinct existences according to 1) divine essence and 2) divine energy involving three divine persons in God existing as though there were six divine persons in God. The three divine persons are opposed to each other within the divine essence and the three divine persons are opposed to each other within the divine energy. As the divine essence and divine energy are really distinct, the three divine persons are also really distinct according to essence and energy, inferring the divinity has revealed Himself to be both three divine persons and six divine persons if Palamas's real essence-energy distinction is accepted.
12) Alternatively, each divine person exists within the divine essence and the divine energy and there are only three divine persons as three really distinct hypostases within God independent of the real distinction of essence and energy in God. If so, there are not six divine persons logically derived from Palamsas's essence-energy distinction, inferring the essence-energy distinction in God is not real, but only a nominal fiction, contrary to the claims of Palamas's novel theology of God. If the Trinity of three persons is accepted, Palamas's real distinction must be rejected. If Palamas's real distinction is accepted, the Trinity must be either rejected, or redefined in a way unknown to church history. Such a redefinition is against the perfection of divine revelation granting the fullness of truth within the church and her powers to define dogmas and doctrines.
13) Pericohoresis affirms the three divine persons interpenetrate each other as within the same divine essence. If there is a real distinction of essence and energy in God the real distinction in God must also interpenetrate thereby removing any real distinction in God between essence and energy. To have essence and energy really distinct but ontologically identical is to have two contraries in God ontologically identical, removing the real distinction. Perochiresis in God excludes any real distinction within God as proposed by Palamas and favours the Thomistic notion of absolute simplicity including the perichoresis of the three persons, only distinct by the opposition of substantial relation.
14) If the essence-energy distinction is derived from divine acts within creation reducible to potentials in God to act, later made actualised, such as the potential to creation, act within a prophet, or perform a miracle, later actualised. Such reduction of potentials in God is presumed to be accounted through the existence of the divine energies made actualised within creation, really distinct from the divine essence. And yet, to have actuals and potentials is God is to anthropomorphise God, contrary to the revealed notion of God who is infinitely transcendent and therefore incomprehensible. Palamas's real distinction is a deformation of the revealed God acting within the temporal order according to an impenetrable mystery which excludes any explanation of such action through the false invention of Palams's real distinction between essence and energies.
15) Dr Bradshaw's comments on the essence energy distinction failed to prove the divine energy given to the faithful is the energy Palamas defined as really distinct from the divine essence. If the divine essence is really distinct from the divine energy in God, the real distinction must be in God independent of creation. One may then hold to a real distinction between the divine simplicity and the divine action within creation, having the absolute divine simplicity within God without reference to any real distinction within God and affirm the divine action within creation as limited and transitory. Palamas holds to a real distinction in God derived from divine actions within creation. But such a notion is a non sequitur known as from the error of real distinction in God contrary to the divine simplicity revealed and known through natural theology.
There are very many other problems with Palams's theology already critiqued by another video - ruclips.net/video/d07mgLoOW8g/видео.html
Some questions on the essence-energy distinction
1) If the essence-energy distinction was developed and promoted by Palamas, why was the essence-energy distinction not defined by any ecumenical council before Palamas?
2) Why has the essence-energy distinction not been defined by an ecumenical council after Palamas?
3) If the essence-energy distinction is found in the scriptures and church fathers, why did no father or any heretic ever define or oppose the essence-energy distinction as Palamas formulated?
4) Why believe the real distinction between essence and energies is true when transitory divine acts within creation can be accounted for without any reference to the real distinction?
5) Why believe the real distinction between essence and energies is true when the divine acts without creation are probably an impenetrable mystery comparable to the mystery of the Trinity?
6) The Trinity is an incomprehensible mystery not reducible to human reasoning. Why pretend the real distinction between essence and energy in God accounts for divine power applied within creation when the divine acts always occur from pure act without any reference to any potentials within God comparable to the incomprehensible mystery of the Trinity?
7) Apparently, the essence-energy distinction is utilised to provide a reasoned account for how only the second person became incarnate whilst the father and Spirit did not. And yet the reasoned accounts using the essence-energy distinction involve the above problems exposed. Why believe the real distinction between essence and energies is true when the distinction infers many unresolvable problems and therefore does not account for the Incarnation of the second person?
8) God as pure act is known by reason alone in n natural theology and from divine revelation expressing the divine essence as simple. The divine pure act is the origin of all divine acts of power within creation, contrary to Palamas's real distinction between essence and energy. Why affirm the real distinction in God when God as pure act is already know by reason and faith?
9) If divine simplicity is of faith, how can the Orthodox faithful affirm Palamas's real distinction within God and logically affirm divine simplicity which logically denies any real distinction between essence and energy as affirmed by faith?
10) If there is a real distinction between essence and energy in God, and in God all interpenetrates, known by perichoresis, how does the essence and energy remain distinct when the essence and energy must concentrate each other?
11) Palamas's essence-energy distinction involves God moving from potency to act within the created order. If so, how does the divine essence as pure act conpenetrate the potency within God to act within creation, without the divine essence becoming identical to the potency within God and therefore reducing God from pure actual being to a collection of energy potencies?
@@MrJohnmartin2009 "Similarly, if the essence and energy in God are really distinct, there must be matter and form in God similar to matter and form in creatures"
non sequitur as God is not a creature
@@TheMhouk2 False. Try again. . . No don't!
You said a whole lot of nothing lol. If you affirm God’s actions and knowledge are isomorphically identical to the divine essence, then creation is eternal and necessary, constituting a Dyad. God’s ad extra acts of will, which should be modally contingent, would become modally necessary. Actions are specified by their objects or effects, so the universe is directly specified with the divine essence, hence a necessary emanation of God is at hand. And with the divine knowledge: God knows that we exist in this world right now, this is modally contingent knowledge, that could have been another way if God chose not to create, therefore another modal collapse ensues. If the distinction is merely virtual or formal, and God could exist without creating the universe, then it must be real.
@@youreacuck You've avoided answering the 10 proposed problems with the essence-energy (Es-En) distinction, making the Orthodox doctrine on God very weak. If you want Catholic Thomists and others to take the Es-En distinction seriously, you must defend the doctrine from those who make legitimate objections to the distinction. Objections have been made and no answers to the objections have been given, so this Thomist does not take Palamas's invention seriously.
The identity of divine intellect with the divine essence follows from God as pure act, without any real distinctions within His essence as pure being. To posit a real distinction in God is to formally require dependence in God, similar to a creature having a real distinction between essence and being properly accounted for by the divine power acting within the creature as the prime being acting to sustain all things.
The problem of divine action to create and within creation can only occur with the accompanying truth of God as pure act. One solution to the problems of the divine act of creation and God's conservation of creatures within the created order is to posit all divine acts are from pure act, which includes the act of creation and all divine acts within creation.
VD - If you affirm God’s actions and knowledge are isomorphically identical to the divine essence, then creation is eternal and necessary, constituting a Dyad.
JM - Every act of God is eternal as from His divine nature as pure act. Contingent acts of divine power to create and within creatures are enacted without reference any potency in the divine nature and therefore without any reference to the so called energies in God. Contingent divine acts are always from the divine nature as pure act, which probably involves a mystery of the divine presence according to divine power within the natural order. The alternative explanation of a divine mystery accords well with the divine nature containing many known and revealed mysteries and shows the creation is not identical to the divine essence and the divinity is not a diad. To conclude to a necessity of creation and a diad in God by ignoring the possibility of only partial knowledge and an accompanying mystery on the divine acts within the natural order is illogical.
VD - God’s ad extra acts of will, which should be modally contingent, would become modally necessary. Actions are specified by their objects or effects, so the universe is directly specified with the divine essence, hence a necessary emanation of God is at hand. And with the divine knowledge: God knows that we exist in this world right now, this is modally contingent knowledge, that could have been another way if God chose not to create, therefore another modal collapse ensues. If the distinction is merely virtual or formal, and God could exist without creating the universe, then it must be real.
JM - You haven't demonstrated anything here at all. The divine acts within creation are contingent and necessary without having the divine acts having an object defined by the divine nature. Also divine knowledge of creation is never contingent, for contingent knowledge is accidental, not found in pure act.
The Orthodox doctrine of Es-En distinction reduces God to a supreme creature, dependent upon another, whilst being the prime cause and not dependent upon another. For if God is not dependent upon another, God is unreceptive and, therefore pure act. However, if God is dependent upon another, then God is receptive and therefore composed of matter and form as a creature. Similarly, real energies in God are potencies to act in the nature order, reducing God to a composite of potency and act, imitating a creature.
The Es-En distinction reduces God to a supreme creature contrary to divine revelation, making the Es-En distinction and the creaturely divinity a heretical invention of Palamas.