#29 Dr. David Bradshaw - The Essence-Energies distinction

I had the joy of speaking with Dr. David Bradshaw about the Essence-Energies distinction. We look in the Bible and the Fathers. In this interview, I asked Dr. Bradshaw how he would explain this doctrine to a non-christian.
You can support this channel and effort here: Patreon (monthly giving): / accordingtojohn
I write on Substack in Swedish: enligtjohannes.substack.com/a...
Twitter: / accordingjohn

[@sparkomatic]

Great talk.Thanks -s

[@phillwithskill1364]

Γειά σου Γιάννη! Ευχαριστούμε για το βίντεο αυτό με τον David Bradshaw! Hopefully my Greek is okay (I am Greek-American).
Question for you: what are your thoughts on St. Gregory Palamas’ essence-energy distinction being merely a formal distinction as per Scotus (as opposed to really ontologically distinct)?
Are you familiar with St. Gennadios Scholarios’ alleged claim that the essence-energy distinction is to be understood as a formal distinction?
(By the way, I am asking a question which I don’t fully understand myself. I can understand what is meant by a “conceptual distinction” and “ontological distinction” but I don’t fully understand what Scotus and St. Gennadios mean by “formal distinction”. Wikipedia says “In scholastic metaphysics, a formal distinction is a distinction intermediate between what is merely conceptual, and what is fully real or mind-independent.” I’m not sure that’s incredibly helpful😂).

[@AccordingtoJohn]

Γεία σου! You are welcome! :) If you go to Dr David Bradshaw's academia page there is material on this topic there

[@kylebarrington5269]

So a formal distinction would be like that of the Trinity. The "distinction" comes in the personal properties of the various persons, but this does not make the ontological foundation ("essence") of the Trinity necessitate distinction. So, essence-energies is not an ontological distinction.
Conceptual distinction is insufficient also, because a conceptual distinction merely states that concepts in the mind and the thing in re are just two ways of talking about the same thing.
But the essence-energies distinction is a REAL distinction, and talking about God's "energies" is not exactly the same as talking about God's "essence."
It seems that a formal distinction sufficiently covers the essence-energies distinction in that God's essence is an ontological unit, while the energies are God's activity which flows from His essence (His properties, if you will).

[@duginashley3199]

@@kylebarrington5269 This is actually incorrect--St. Gregory Palamas and his students, such as St. Philotheos, _reject_ real distinction by name, and _endorse_ conceptual distinction, again by name. A real distinction implies essence and energy are separable, which implies a composite Godhead, which is wrong. For some reason, a few Internet apologists have doubled down on calling E/E a "real" distinction, and this misconception has unfortunately spread throughout online circles--but regardless of what online apologists say, the Fathers come first. The conceptual distinction is the Orthodox E/E, and the "real" distinction is not. Scotism still gets a lot of things wrong
>Conceptual distinction is insufficient also, because a conceptual distinction merely states that concepts in the mind and the thing in re are just two ways of talking about the same thing.
I'm afraid this is also incorrect, what you just defined here is a virtual/illusory distinction. A virtual distinction exists only in the mind or as a logical construct (which is wrong, not E/E). A "real" distinction exists in reality, physical space, e.g. Peter and Paul (which is also wrong, and not E/E). A conceptual distinction exists metaphysically and ontologically (which is correct, Orthodox, and E/E). LIke @According to John mentions, Dr. David Bradshaw has some good material describing this in more detail, which you can find here: www.academia.edu/38164208/_Palamas_and_distinction_kat_epinoian_International_Orthodox_Theological_Association_Iasi_Romania_January_2019
The exact quote from St. Philotheos is: "According to the theologians and the Fatrhers, the divine essence and the divine energy are two things in the sense that it is proclaimed that they differ from each other not really, but conceptually, and that these two things are one thing, their unity in its turn being taken and proclaimed as existent not conceptually but really."

[@kylebarrington5269]

@@duginashley3199 that's fine that you think that, but I literally took the definition of "formal distinction" from Scotus, who is recorded as the first person to actually make that distinction in order to separate it from an ontological and conceptual distinction.
So, unless you are using a non-standard definition - or one posited by someone else - I find no reason to accept that it is in anyway more "accurate" than the one I provided above. It is in "The Oxford Companion to Philosophy."
Furthermore, the definition of "conceptual distinction" I used is, quite literally, straight from Descartes, who was the first to define it. If you want the paper, I can give it to you.
I don't think E/E is a real distinction, I think it is best fit with a conceptual distinction, but that is insufficient because [see definition above].
It seems that Scotus' definition of "formal distinction" fits better than the current definition of "conceptual distinction," and saying "Scotism still gets a lot of things wrong" doesn't somehow make it true that Scotus is wrong about this.
You need to present an argument for that.

[@dubbelkastrull]

30:28 bookmark

[@diggingshovelle9669]

If you cn not participate in he essence of God because then you would be God, Then the energies can not be the essence of God but onlly indierctly the effects of God?

[@user-pj7sq7ce1f]

The effect are results from the energies. The energies are actually God himself when operating and are always uncreated !

[@Averyaveragedeskin]

@@user-pj7sq7ce1f In the orthodox view, is there a real distinction between essence and energy?

[@user-pj7sq7ce1f]

@@Averyaveragedeskin to understand that ask yourself is there at first a real participating in the Glory of God ?

[@Averyaveragedeskin]

@@user-pj7sq7ce1f I would day yes. But the essence and energies are all of God correct?

[@user-pj7sq7ce1f]

@@Averyaveragedeskin Both are Deity but the energies are when God is operating !

[@cultofmodernism8477]

Of course God's will is fixed from all eternity. What else could it be? God doesn't change His mind.

[@user-pj7sq7ce1f]

Is his will distinct from his Essence? Or his will is actually his essence?

[@cultofmodernism8477]

@@user-pj7sq7ce1f Your question is a bit confused in that it posits only two types of relationships/realities: (i) strict identity (no distinction whatsoever) and (ii) real distinction (divisibility/separability). The will is the natural power of the essence. It is the essence, in a particular mode. It is not something other than the essence, as if apart from the essence. Said differently, will and essence are not two things.

[@user-pj7sq7ce1f]

@@cultofmodernism8477 if the creation is from the will and the will is the essence how you avoid neo Platonism ???

[@user-pj7sq7ce1f]

@@cultofmodernism8477 in mark.5;30 luke 6:19 δύναμις Power got out of Jesus Christ to heal. Is that δύναμις power the essence of God? The ενέργεια energy that got in Paul col.1:29 is that the essence of God.if so how you avoid pantheism there?

[@user-pj7sq7ce1f]

@@cultofmodernism8477 by the way who said to you as you wrote that distruction has to mean seperation???