Excellent video! I am a Catholic High School theology teacher and I will be using this Protestant perspective video to help my Orthodox students understand the essence-energies distinction of their own tradition. God blesses us with his sense of humor.
Orthodoxy, for me, was very much like stepping into a different culture, language, and time. Even a different geography. I can relate to the feeling of like being in the most beautiful art museum. And Palamas' writings are sublime. His debates with Barlaam taught me a lot during my catechism. The heart of Orthodox thinking is paradox. That really kind of sums it up.
Thank you so much for this video! Your voice is needed greatly in American Christendom. Thank you for being calm, rational and treating the commandment to love our God with our Mind seriously. Those qualities are almost anathema to modern “apologetics”.
This is great. I have found your channel just in this period if my life, where I, as a born in Greece, once orthodox, now since 30 years evangelical, rediscover the orthodox tradition and feel absolutely enriched by it. I will come back to this, after I have seen the whole video. For now, just feel lucky for having found this channel.
@@TruthUnites the difference between orthodox Theology and western Theology is not at first the conclusions ,but the methodology both use to have knowledge. If you dont understand the difference there you actually can't understand the theology.Google a small article it would help.Faith and science in orthodox methodology and gnosiology by father professor of athens university Georgios Metallinos
So glad you are making all of these fine distinctions! So few Christians outside of Catholicism or Orthodoxy are even remotely interested in these things. Thus, you, sir, are a treasure! PS..loved your "Gentle and Lowly" book!!
Fascinating stuff Gavin! Very happy to see some robust interaction with this tradition as it is often left either untreated or presented as a cure-all. Appreciate the work you put into this!
i had to pause several times your video to read to better understand these concepts before coming back to you. beyond the intellectual "meditation", your session was spiritual. it was great. there is so much charity in your approach as much as desire to discover the other. truly wonderful. God bless!
We have only words, and they often fail. But some people have an amazing gift for putting the unspeakable into words. Thanks for making it more accessible to the rest of us.
To: Professor Ortlund: This is a very fine presentation in a one hour video, very sensitively and reflectively put forward. I have studied this issue for years, and as a Roman Catholic, the chief issue I have with Palamas and his partisans is the fact that Palamas incessantly agitated for the Eastern Church to dogmatize his speculations, and having succeeded in his design, he placed all other theological approaches to the understanding or experience of God under anathema. Who would really care if Palamism was just one more system like that of Aquinas or of Scotus to be examined, appreciated, criticized and learnt from by other Christians? Dr. Bradshaw's work Aristotle East and West frankly acknowledges the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework upon which the Pseudo Dionysius and Palamas plot the data of the gospel and build out their interpretive systems, without questioning how it can possibly be legitimate to assign to pagan influenced metaphysical speculation the imprimatur of dogmatic sanction, all other interpretations being judged as accursed on their part. This level of arrogance and a-historical aggrandizement of the patristic heritage on the part of Palamas and those who subscribe to his teachings, and more importantly, on the part of those who subscribe to the invective spirit of his teachings, towards other Christian communions, is worthy of rejoinder and rebuke, and I for my own part am ready to fight fire with fire, so that they might learn what the Lord had said about removing the beam from one's eye before pointing out the beam in thy brother's eye. Since Palamas arrogates the gospel and the patristic heritage to himself, and anathematizes everyone else who disagrees with him, his teachings must be held to the highest standard of criticism, inasmuch as he claims the highest standard of sanction for his doctrines. Therefore we may ask whether his teaching that God is entirely present in His energies, while His essence remains infinitely transcendent to His energies, really does represent profound mysticism or mere incoherent babbling on his part. Palamas generally teaches that God's attributes are properly His energies, not His nature, but in one of his works, as Dr. Bradshaw admits, he states that the energies are properly acts of God's power, so what then is it we may ask, is divine energy the principle of divine power, or the reverse? He wants to anathematize anyone who does not agree with himself, but alas, he himself does not always agree with himself! Palamas' teaching that "God is Light not according to Essence but according to His energy" (Against Akindynos, PG 150 823 A), contradicts the Nicene Council of 325 A.D.'s dogmatic definition that the Son of God is 'only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light'. This represents a profound theological blunder on his part. Indeed, one of his greatest theological blunders is witnessed in Ch 36 of his work "150 Chapters", wherein Palamas adopts as his own St. Augustine's teaching from On the Trinity Book XV that the principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit is the "divine love" (theia eros) of the Father for the Son. But his doctrine of energetic procession teaches that God's love is His energy, not His nature, and that His love therefore is infinitely transcended by His inaccessible essence. What do we observe here? Either the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Father's energy, and is a work, since God's theia eros is His energy, or what is even more ludicrous, God's theia eros infinitely transcends His agape, the former being proper to His essence and the latter to His energy. So I say let this man's arrogance and theological incoherence be held up to the ridicule it so richly deserves. In the Medieval and Early Modern Latin Church, the writings of John Ruusbroec and St. John of the Cross surpassed the Eastern fathers in regard to the analytical complexity of the stages of theosis, referred to by St. John of the Cross as "the transforming union in love", and they were able to formulate their teachings without adopting the Palamite terminology (though there was a degree of 'Dionysian' influence), which proves that the EOC's contention that their discourse alone describes experiential union with God is utterly false. One other issue I have with what was said in the video is with the idea of certain Eastern fathers that the transfiguration had to do with the disciples rather than with Christ, which I do not believe is true, for the Jews could not bear to look upon the light that shone from Moses' face, and they certainly were not initiated into a higher level of spiritual vision on account of having seen that light. Nor were the 3 disciples reported in the gospels to have been ravished with a sense of holy awe and joyousness on the occasion in question, and to have experienced the sense of Christ living within them, as St. Paul wrote in his Letter to Galatians, when they saw Christ's glorified face, which would have been the case if they had truly been inspirited with the Spirit Himself, or so it seems to me at any rate. Moreover St. John states that the Holy Spirit had not been given to the disciples at that time (cf. Jn 7:39), which was before Christ had been glorified, so I have my doubts about Maximus' interpretation of that gospel event. Nevertheless, this was an excellent video.
Your comment really helped me as a new Catholic convert. I really like the orthodoxy thinking and I appreciate your sentiment that it should just be contained within the Catholic umbrella instead of put against it. At least that's what I got out of it. Correct me if I'm wrong
@@j897xce Gregory Nazianzen (4th century A.D.), lauded as "The Theologian" in the Eastern Orthodox tradition (one of only four members of the Eastern Orthodox Church to receive such a designation), wisely wrote in Oration 28.17 that in matters not dogmatically defined by the Ecumenical Councils (i.e. the coequal divinity of the Son, etc.), each may philosophize and judge as each sees fit - and this was said in respect to the matter of whether the beatified souls in heaven will ever see or know the nature and essence of God in the age to come! He then offered up reasons in Oration 28.17-18 why it might indeed be possible for beatified souls to attain such a vision, especially in light of 1 Corinthians 13:12. If the sobriquet "theologian" indicates superior eminence, it would seem then that Gregory Nazianzen spoke with superior wisdom in regard to this matter than did Gregory Palamas a thousand years later. Why then did the Eastern Orthodox Church not follow Gregory Nazianzen's sage counsel, and decide instead to dogmatize the Palamite teaching in respect to the vision of God, which was in fact contrary in certain respects to that of Gregory Nazianzen, whose teaching is judged by this ecclesial communion to be of superior eminence to that of Gregory Palamas? I am Roman Catholic, but I am a trained philosopher and theologian and I don't put down my thinking cap when someone from my own tradition makes theologically unsupportable statements. There is something to critique in every religious tradition. There is an unfortunate tendency in the ancient Churches of Christendom to proclaim dogmas where no dogmatic certitude is possible, concerning, for instance, the nature of the beatific vision (essence-energy), the Assumption of Mary, and so forth. Why is it not enough to say "we piously believe" without pronouncing anathema upon those who question the degree of theological certainty that has been attained in regard to these matters? The doctrine of the Holy Trinity can indeed be rationally deduced from the data of Sacred Scripture, and so heresies regarding this matter are rightly condemned, as undermining one of the primary tenets of the faith. The Protestants for their own part rightly criticized this tendency of the ancient Churches to dogmatize where it was not warranted. A virtue of Roman Catholicism is that it could allow competing schools of theology to flourish, such as Thomism and Scotism, without insisting that one school and one school only must be thought of as setting forth the definitive teaching in regard to abstract and recondite matters of theological speculation, whereas in the Eastern Orthodox Church, an issue of theological division once joined seemed to require a dogmatic verdict on the part of the Church in favor of one side or the other, as witnessed in the various stages of the Hesychast (or Palamite) controversy. With the development of the cathedral schools and the great universities in the Latin West, and the expansion of commerce and culture, a spirit of free theological inquiry along academic lines of dialogue developed, which was far more tolerant of competing viewpoints than the increasingly isolated society which had developed during the dying stages of the ever diminishing borders of the Byzantine Empire. For me, it is not so much the difference of opinion as the vehemence, arrogance and condemnatory nature of the Eastern Orthodox stance in regard to the essence-energies distinction in God, which can be shown to derive primarily from the teachings of Plato and the Neoplatonists (especially Proclus) as adopted and adapted by the Pseudo Dionysius and subsequently modified by Gregory Palamas. It is an utter embarrassment (to those who are capable of experiencing it) to have to admit that a so called dogma of the faith, supposedly as transmitted by Christ and the apostles (in the mistaken belief that the Pseudo Dionysius was a first century associate of the apostles transmitting a hidden esoteric wisdom teaching of Christ and the apostles), is in point of fact little more than the philosophical speculations of Diadochus Proclus dressed up in Christian garb! Thomas Aquinas is quite open about who his pagan philosophical sources are. The Pseudo Dionysius was not, and thus all the confusion about the true source of his teachings. Well the Hesychast Councils erred in supposing the Pseudo Dionysius to be a first century Christian author, and rather than admit the mistake and revise their judgment as to the apostolicity of the essence-energies teaching (even here Palamas does not faithfully represent the Pseudo Dionysian teaching in setting forth his own adaptation of it), owing to the doctrine of infallibility they steadfastly persist in their errors and their anathemas, which become more puerile with each passing decade as the scholarship in regard to this matter undermines its foundations. To conclude, I would say that you got the gist of it, but I offered here in response somewhat more to chew on, if you wish to delve further into the matter.
I absolutely love this. I share your fascination and appreciation for this subject and have also been blown away by reading the writings of eastern fathers. It is definitely a different paradigm and mindset but I can totally identify with that sense of having a mystical experience just reading some of these writings and some of it just goes right over my head. But I love it and continue to study it. Thanks for this video.
this was a very good video. As someone who is fairly convinced of the essence and energies distinction I say you have done a good job. There is a great deal of diversity in each side as to how much this is an issue for division. What convinced me is reading the New Testament in Greek, many of the fathers and Gregory. The way the word energy is used is fairly clear. In Latin energy was related as operation and as work in English.
I too have read the Greek fathers, and while Palamas does reflect what many of them said with respect to that in respect to God which comes down to us, he misrepresents what they taught with respect to the Godhead itself, who generally were of the opinion that God Himself (viz. Father-Son Spirit) is Enhypostatic Light, that is, Light according to essence, hence the creedal definition of Nicea, 'the Son is only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light, homousian with the Father', to wit, on the basis of their identity as Enhypostatic (viz., substantially existing) Light. St. Athanasius (De Decretis 24) and St. Basil (Letter 52.2 to the Canonicae) both confirm that this was the intended teaching of the Council of Nicea. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy, won over to the teaching of Gregory Palamas, who taught that "God is Light not according to His essence but according to His energy" (cf. Against Akindynos, PG 150, 823A), anathematizes those who maintain that the Divine Light is synonymous with the Divine Essence. Essentially the Synodikon has anathematized the Nicene Creed, and this is the pernicious result of Palamas' error. Many Greek fathers (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, etc.) employed Hebrews 1:3 "brightness of glory" with the specific purpose of refuting the Arian heresy by arguing that this scripture proved the homousian between Father and Son, but some of them temporized between accepting that this phrase speaks with respect to the uncreated light, at one time, and trying to argue at other times that it referred either to the created sun and its brightness (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa), or to fire and its brightness (Theodoret), in order to defend their apophatic theology, but inasmuch as Hebrews 1:3 is a gloss on Wisdom 7:26, "brightness of eternal light", their arguments are untenable, and the Latin fathers are more correct in understanding this scripture as indicating unity of essence on the basis of the uncreated light itself. Let us take Palamas' interpretation of John Chrysostom to highlight his less than truthful exposition of patristic teaching. While he correctly cites Chrysostom's teaching in his Homily on John that John 3:35 "Spirit without measure" expresses the energy of the Spirit, in his work 150 Chapters, he fails to inform his readers that Chrysostom also taught, in regard to the Son giving witness to Himself before men: “it is sufficient that He [the Son] only exhibit His unveiled essence...for no one is able to bear the assault of that unapproachable light” (ήρκει δείξαι μόνον εαυτόν όστις ήν γυμνή τη ουσία...μηδενός δυναμένου την απρόσιτον εκείνην του φωτός προσβολήν ενεγκείν). [Homily VI.1 On the Gospel of John]. Moreover, in John's work On the Incomprehensible Nature of God he makes the following observations: In Sermon 3.27 John speaks of ἀκράτῳ οὐσίᾳ (unmixed essence) and the vision of the “likeness of the glory of the Lord” (ὁμοιώματος δόξης Κυρίου) seen by angels, who therefore do not see the glory of the Lord itself, in its unmixed nature. In Sermon 3.15 John also referred to the ἄκρατον φῶς (unmixed light). And so correlating Sermon 3.15 with Sermon 3.27, we have ἄκρατον φῶς = ἀκράτῳ οὐσίᾳ = δόξης Κυρίου. That is, in God, light = glory = essence. Thus John teaches, respecting the Godhead, while affirming that God communicates unto creatures through His energies. Palamas fails to make this distinction in his own writings, and only cites Chrysostom where he agrees with his teaching, and fails to disclose where he diverges from his teaching, which is fundamentally dishonest on his part, and he is rightly criticized for urging the Eastern Church to anathematize those who did not agree with his half representation of Eastern Patristic teaching. The Latin fathers, e.g. Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 51.2-6, teach that the uncreated light of Godhead is tempered when revealed to men in the flesh, but seen as it is face to face in the age to come (cf. Augustine, De Vivendo Deo, Leo, Sermon 51.2). St. Augustine correlates Ex 33:18-20, Math 18:10, 1 Cor 13:12, Jn 1:18, and 1 Jn 3:2 into a coherent whole, while Chrysostom founders when he tries to dismiss Mt 18:10 'the angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven', because of its obvious reference to Ex 33:20 'no MAN can see my face and live', which latter scripture the Eastern fathers are wont to employ for the purpose of defending their apophatic theology. They do, however, have one scripture in their favor, Isaiah 6:2: 'the seraphim covered their face with their wings' in the presence of God, which Augustine does not address. There is no need to bring in Scholastic theology either to criticize Palamas, who overturns the Nicene faith of the undivided Church, or to enter the lists with the Greek fathers with respect to the vision of God. The Latin fathers and Scholastic theologians do not have as good a grasp as the Greeks do of grace as 'the energizing of God's power within us' (cf. Eph 3:7), but on the whole their theology is more consistent, and they are not arguing out of both sides of their mouth that Hebrews 1:3 demonstrates that the Father and Son are homousian, but that the reference to the Father's glory in that passage is referenced to material sunlight and fire, which is simply preposterous.
@@fr.davidbibeau621 You appear to have no problem with a thousand years of Eastern Orthodox polemics against the West, but I do, and there isn't one thing I posted above that isn't true. But that's your prerogative.
One big issue I wish Dr Gavin would cover is the issue of created grace vs uncreated grace. For the East, uncreated grace is considered to be the partaking of the Divine Nature and grace is the working of God himself, not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity.
I think your issue at 43:50 lies in your reformed view of soteriology. As a person sympathetic to Molinism I have no issues with your concern. But I really enjoy your teachings. Thank you for the effort that is put into these videos. It takes a lot of effort.
My thoughts while watching this. Gregory maintaining a tight correlation between participle Energy and the Essence is what removed the stigma for me that was surrounding this Saint. Like Dr. Gavin, I found when reading the text of Palamas that some in the West mischaracterized his position. His mystical theology is very profound and should not be dismissed so carelessly. Now, when it comes to “enhypostatized” I still see difficulties from this not in the realm of “existence” but in the realm of “Person.” For if this “energy” is “enhypostatic” then it is such that it cannot be divorced of the “Person” who is acting. But Gods “energy” flows from will which is single as Maximus the Confessor states. So if we have three Persons who have 1 energetic act terminating in the creature and yet is “enhypostatic” then the creature could never know the Father as distinct from the Son since the act is one. Willing to flesh this out more if someone is interested in discussing further. Push back is always welcome. The distinction between seeing the Essence and not comprehending it is what I actually find Maximus trying to communicate in his writings. And this can’t be rejected since Gregory the Great, Ambrose and Augustine all say the same. The Palamite has to be open to Thomism since it is a faithful formulation of the Western Fathers. I, like Dr Gavin, am not persuaded but appreciate what I have learned about the East Saints such as Gregory and Maximus. I appreciate the mosquito to Niagara Falls comparison. So true. I love the East perspective on the body. Though I think the West, because of the dogma of original sin, has a more nuanced view that the East should not entirely sweep away since it is founded in Scripture. The Taboric light is an interesting topic to think about. I have a video on my page that tries to pry into this if anyone wants some food for thought. The univocal vs analogical predication is for me the crux of the issue. Thomas Analogia entis is what safeguards us from anthropomorphizing God. This is why I not only lean towards Thomism over Palamism but even Thomism over Scotism. The West is not denying that God has “energy.” But God does not have energy as some “medium” between Him and creatures. Mankind does because we are composed of Act/Potency needing to move from inside to an outside term. But all terms are present to God and in fact exist through participation in Him. If someone wants to assert that the West intellectualizes God then they have not read how Aquinas says the intellect isn’t at rest until it stops intellectualizing. This happens in the beatific vision. Gavin, great video. I’m working on one as well and appreciate seeing commonality with your analysis. Thanks
I think you're absolutely right about the analogie entis and creation in the west being a one step process without mediation. The question is can eastern theology function without a middle region. All the stuff about nature being the self-encryption of the logos and returning to the logos, as well as the stuff about conforming with the logoi and the divine virtues in maximus just doesn't work on a thomistic system where there is nothing "in" god to conform too. There is nothing between the simple essence and particular creatures. Paul Dehart is a thomist whose absolutly brilliant on this point.
@@esoterico7750 I think the East should be permitted to continue their “middle function” of the energies. Right now no Eastern Catholic is bound to the formulation of the West at the expense of their own tradition. So with that being said, the East needs to come to grips with the West as well. It can’t be just us who gives a little to them but they must also return the Charity our way. We have good reasons (historical, philosophical, theological) to keep the doctrine as we have formulated it. The East has good reasons for theirs. In short, I don’t think an East can reject Catholicism without rejecting the Western Doctors of the Church. And I don’t think the East can be entirely dismissed because of the Doctors of the Church on their side (Basil, Nyssa, Nazianzen). It’s really two paradigms but I believe each is faithful to the 1 church. My personal opinion is the Western formulation is more proper and robust. But I don’t deny the East formulation either.
It’s good to know this because not only is it fascinating but more importantly the reason why I believe Grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.
Started this video late last night and had to come back and finish it this morning! Very interesting and insightful discussion! Thanks for your work Gavin! Also, really enjoyed your book on Theological Triage! Finished it last week
I'm glad for this summary, Dr. Ortlund, and I trust your exposition. This has been an interesting subject that I have poked my head in on from the margin, but it is above my head, in large part. For the Lutheran Confession, Divine Simplicity is affirmed, if not explicitly, at least implicitly. But, for Luther, God is known in the Incarnate Son. He doesn't really go beyond that. For example, in many of his Christmas Sermons he will say something like, "Would you know God? Look at the infant in the manger." In any event, I wonder why this has become such a divide. I have seen Eastern Christians who basically suggest that if you don't affirm the Palamite view, you don't actually know God. This seems an over assertion.
It’s so interesting to find some points of continuity between The Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox traditions. For example, it sometimes seems like they have a shared emphasis upon discomfort with speculation and some modes of scholasticism (this is sparked by your comment about Luther). Obviously they have profound differences as well.
Saint Gregory Palamas is also a Catholic Saint. He is venerated liturgically in the Byzantine Catholic Churches on the second Sunday of Lent. It’s known as Palamas Sunday.
Thank you very much. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. After watching the William Lane Craig video on eastern orthodoxy, it's interesting how this experiencing God is very reminiscent of Pentecostalism and their experiences of the Holy Spirit. Thank you again for a great video!
It's no surprise that the group that is most open to Orthodoxy is charismatics, due to the heavy emphasis on experiencing God in both traditions, rather than just knowing about Him in thought.
This was a very good reflection. I found the Triads to be the richest and most mysterious book on theology I've ever read. I think the reason Palamas is so difficult is because his theology is grounded in mystical experience, which he claims is the highest form of knowledge. He was then forced to provide rational arguments to support the mystical theology of hesychasm, but the argument he proposes is not the same thing as the reality he is referring to. This seems to be the paradox that mystics are always confronted with. He even feared his arguments were offered in vain because they are sort of like describing the sweet taste of honey to someone who has never tasted honey. Only direct mystical experience can truly teach what he was describing. And that leaves us in a difficult position when trying to evaluate hesychasm. The purity of heart that Gregory refers to, I think, does not just refer to moral purity, but a serious change in consciousness. In Gregory's view, God is not hiding from us, but rather we are hiding from God in all sorts of psychological ways without even knowing it. It's like our default state of consciousness. This raises so many questions, but I think the important point is that we have to be careful to not get caught up in the intellectual process of splitting hairs between Palamites and Thomists, but rather re-orient our lives so that God can truly cleanse the eye of our heart. I sometimes wonder if this is even possible outside of a monastic way of living.
In reality Saint Gregory Palamas says all those as a bishop to the people all those says from him are not said to some elite but are for all the believers in Christ to experience.
I too have read the Greek fathers, and while Palamas does reflect what many of them said with respect to that in respect to God which comes down to us, he misrepresents what they taught with respect to the Godhead itself, who generally were of the opinion that God Himself (viz. Father-Son-Spirit) is Enhypostatic Light, that is, Light according to essence, hence the creedal definition of Nicea, 'the Son is only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light, homousian with the Father', to wit, on the basis of their identity as Enhypostatic (viz., substantially existing) Light. St. Athanasius (De Decretis 24) and St. Basil (Letter 52.2 to the Canonicae) both confirm that this was the intended teaching of the Council of Nicea. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy, won over to the teaching of Gregory Palamas, who taught that "God is Light not according to His essence but according to His energy" (cf. Against Akindynos, PG 150, 823A), anathematizes those who maintain that the Divine Light is synonymous with the Divine Essence. Essentially the Synodikon has anathematized the Nicene Creed, and this is the pernicious result of Palamas' error. Many Greek fathers (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, etc.) employed Hebrews 1:3 "brightness of glory" with the specific purpose of refuting the Arian heresy by arguing that this scripture proved the homousian between Father and Son, but some of them temporized between accepting that this phrase speaks with respect to the uncreated light, at one time, and trying to argue at other times that it referred either to the created sun and its brightness (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa), or to fire and its brightness (Theodoret, John of Damascus), in order to defend their apophatic theology, but inasmuch as Hebrews 1:3 is a gloss on Wisdom 7:26, "brightness of eternal light", their arguments are untenable, and the Latin fathers are more correct in understanding this scripture as indicating unity of essence on the basis of the uncreated light itself. Let us take Palamas' interpretation of John Chrysostom to highlight his less than truthful exposition of patristic teaching. While he correctly cites Chrysostom's teaching in his Homily on John that John 3:35 "Spirit without measure" expresses the energy of the Spirit, in his work 150 Chapters, he fails to inform his readers that Chrysostom also taught, in regard to the Son giving witness to Himself before men: “it is sufficient that He [the Son] only exhibit His unveiled essence...for no one is able to bear the assault of that unapproachable light” (ήρκει δείξαι μόνον εαυτόν όστις ήν γυμνή τη ουσία...μηδενός δυναμένου την απρόσιτον εκείνην του φωτός προσβολήν ενεγκείν). [Homily VI.1 On the Gospel of John]. Moreover, in John's work On the Incomprehensible Nature of God he makes the following observations: In Sermon 3.27 John speaks of ἀκράτῳ οὐσίᾳ (unmixed essence) and the vision of the “likeness of the glory of the Lord” (ὁμοιώματος δόξης Κυρίου) seen by angels, who therefore do not see the glory of the Lord itself, in its unmixed nature. In Sermon 3.15 John also referred to the ἄκρατον φῶς (unmixed light). And so correlating Sermon 3.15 with Sermon 3.27, we have ἄκρατον φῶς = ἀκράτῳ οὐσίᾳ = δόξης Κυρίου. That is, in God, light = glory = essence. Thus John teaches, respecting the Godhead, while affirming that God communicates unto creatures through His energies. Palamas fails to make this distinction in his own writings, and only cites Chrysostom where he agrees with his teaching, and fails to disclose where he diverges from his teaching, which is fundamentally dishonest on his part, and he is rightly criticized for urging the Eastern Church to anathematize those who did not agree with his half representation of Eastern Patristic teaching. The Latin fathers, e.g. Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 51.2-6, teach that the uncreated light of Godhead is tempered when revealed to men in the flesh, but seen as it is face to face in the age to come (cf. Augustine, De Vivendo Deo, Leo, Sermon 51.2). In De Vivendo Deo St. Augustine correlates Ex 33:18-20, Math 18:10, 1 Cor 13:12, Jn 1:18, and 1 Jn 3:2 into a coherent whole, while Chrysostom founders when he tries to dismiss Mt 18:10 'the angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven', because of its obvious reference to Ex 33:20 'no MAN can see my face and live', which latter scripture the Eastern fathers are wont to employ for the purpose of defending their apophatic theology. They do, however, have one scripture in their favor, Isaiah 6:2: 'the seraphim covered their face with their wings' in the presence of God, which Augustine does not address. There is no need to bring in Scholastic theology either to criticize Palamas, who overturns the Nicene faith of the undivided Church, or to enter the lists with the Greek fathers with respect to the vision of God. The Latin fathers and Scholastic theologians do not have as good a grasp as the Greeks do of grace as 'the energizing of God's power within us' (cf. Eph 3:7), but on the whole their theology is more consistent, and they are not arguing out of both sides of their mouth that Hebrews 1:3 demonstrates that the Father and Son are homousian, but that the reference to the Father's glory in that passage is referenced to material sunlight and fire, which is simply preposterous.
@@thomaspalmieri6038I have found you again! I hope Thomas to read your work(I understand you to be writing) on the historicity and tenability of St. Gregory Palamas and his partisans "Essence-Energy" distinction. "The energies are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach." - St. Basil The Great "No man is Truth, Wisdom, Justice; but many are partakers of Truth, Wisdom, and Justice. But God alone is exempt from any participating: and anything which is in any degree worthily predicated of Him is not an attribute, but His very Essence." - St. Leo The Great "That, in partaking of the Nature of God, we are partakers, not of the bare, non-hypostatic grace that is from Him, but of the Living and subsisting Holy Spirit Himself; and that the entire Trihypostatic God is called Grace and the Son and the Spirit are together Grace and each of them in particular is called Grace; while, again, what is created and effected by them is also, equivocally, called Grace." - Blessed John Kyparissiotes
My schools a serious Catholic school but we have an orthodox and Protestant teachers who are serious about their faith and understand philosophy. It’s beautiful to have real diversity of thought. I will never forget the debate in the hallway between my philosophy teacher and the orthodox literature teacher about this very topic. I’m catholic the main stumbling points about essence energy for me are: if you can’t fully grasp the essence of God what purpose are the divine attributes if you aren’t knowing God himself through them. Second, can you love someone without fully knowing them, we only will experience Gods energies in heaven not himself, but can you fully love someone you don’t fully know? Third is just why can’t I worship goodness itself the orthodox God seems to fall victim to euthemphros delema
1:04:00 I'm grateful you're addressing this... There is a lot of anti-West sentiment surfacing on the internet that is very one sided (and I would say, short sighted). I'm by no means naive about the evils of the West but it's absurd to put forth the idea that the East has had no significant hand in the state of the modern world today.
Stepping into the Orthodox paradigm has truly given a new dimension to my Christian life. I’ve described it as going from a 2d drawing to a 4D drawing. I’ve been aided by the book “orthodox psychotherapy”. It seems to me that the essence energy distinction is crucial for drawing a clear line between the Christian paradigm and the major points of the Hindu paradigm.
Right on Gavin. Another aspect to consider in respect to the energies, is free will in the eschaton. How is free will played out through the energies vs the beatific vision
As a former evengelical the has recently converted to Orthodoxy i appreciate this video. This topic is very advanced and shouldnt be taken lightly or too "rationally" but allow God to reveal himself to you through your relationship with him. Top notch work though this is something in 25 years of being an evangelical noone would touch this with a stick im glad to see people exploring it though.
Understanding energeia as metaphysically irreducible activity, the act itself, clears a lot of this up. For the act is the act of the being with the power to act, and the power of act arises from the essence. And so the energies flow from, are grounded in, and thereby reflect the essence. Still, the energies are metaphysically distinct from the essence, just as our act of thinking is distinct from our mind. And on simplicity, the essence can be one, while the activities of that one can be genuinely many. Assuming a naive dualism: the mind can be a simple entity, an essence (ousia), and yet have multiple, truly distinct mental activities and processes. Thomas thinks the essence of God just is an activity--its the act of being itself, subsistence subsisting. So for Thomas all the divine acts (energies) are genuinely one--God acts once, for all time, and that act is the essence of God. (There's many problems with this, although I'm sure they could be dealt with.) One interesting thing here is that these are two different conceptual models, and we're picking which one is "best," not just by asking what is most probable or coherent, but by asking which is more beautiful or good, and thus which is more fitting of God. For me, the Thomist view has too many cracks in it--problems, conceptual difficulties, that, while able to be overcome, strains the conceptual model too much. But that's how we choose between models, not direct refutation, but by feeling that one is a bit too burdensome. Finally, all this has really interesting implications for philosophy of science and arguments for God from natural laws (ie Swinburne). I've written a bit on this. But in short, the idea that laws of nature are Gods continual activities (energies) holding the world together is mind blowing. It would mean that our being, the being of beings, is literally a continual act of God, the act of holding together. And so all beings are constituted by an activity of God, and thus all beings are divine, and all being is good insofar as it is being.
Great video, as always! I suppose my sympathy towards the essence-energies distinction comes from something you briefly mentioned which is the problem of modal collapse. That is, if God is necessary in His essence (and His essence is simple), how is the world contingent if it emerges from His power (i.e. His necessary essence)? I suppose this has been my main hangup with the classical Western conception of God.
The distinction was not lost on Spinoza. He believed that because God's essence is simple, and is the cause of all things, all facts are metaphysically necessary.
Beautiful summation, Gavin. I'm a Catholic convert & I THOROUGHLY enjoyed your analysis of the respected traditions. VERY well done. Truly, thank you dearly for all that you do on this channel. As usual, far more light than heat. Btw, just out of curiosity, have you done any videos on the doctrine of IMPASSABILITY? If so I'd love to check them out. Again, thank you, Gavin.
Have you considered a debate/discussion with Jay Dyer on the E/E distinction? It would be great to hear a cross examination from two people familiar with the primary sources.
@@theodosios2615oesn't mean he's wrong. His debates with Trent Horn, Dillahunty, Professor Malpass, and Classical Theist, among many others prove he's more than capable of being formal. His edgy side comes out when it's informal. Even then there's nothing wrong with that. Cries of being mean are so weak.
@@theodosios2615 I doubt you even know what EO's epistemology is. If you think theological debates are futile that just shows you don't believe in your own epistemology. Sounds arbitrary.
Great video! Very helpful! This reminds me of the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. Herman Bavinck, the Dutch Reformer, puts it this way, "[The communicable attributes] tell us that this God who is so infinitely exalted and sublime nevertheless also dwells in all His creatures, is related to all His creatures, and possesses all those virtues which in a derived and limited way are also proper to his creatures. He is not only a God afar off but is also a God nearby. He is not only independent and unchangeable, eternal and omnipresent, but also wise and mighty, just and holy, gracious and merciful. He is Elohim not only but Jehovah." Seems like communicable attributes are like the energies and incommunicable like the essence.
The book Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy is a great little collection (as often, the quality from one contribution to another can vary). David Bradshaw, John Meyendorff, Vladimir Lossky are all good starting points. Hope that helps.
Gavin, I think you may find St Isaac the Syrian's view on knowledge. I did my thesis on his 3 levels of knowledge, and I believe he answers your concerns about "there is no way going beyond intellectual concepts". His view is that natural knowledge only leads to fear, it has its purpose, but it leaves us in darkness. The 2nd level is that of the soul, that leads us to goodness, and finally the 3rd level, the spiritual level which leads us to the unspeakable holiness, where we can only but participate in it, and not "attain" it per se.
@@Jimmylad. I do. I think St Isaac expresses knowledge far better than anyone else, including philosophers. And, we currently find ourselves in a world devoted to the first level, and the first level alone.
It would be amazing if you could either edit these into short form videos or make some short form videos on these topics to cover the broad understanding of these issues.
There is this interesting remark in C.S. Lewis's essay on Friendship: "I was once at some kind of conference where two clergymen, obviously close friends, began talking about 'uncreated energies' other than God. I asked how there could be any uncreated things except God if the Creed was right in calling Him the 'maker of all things visible and invisible.'" A valid question, I think. What are your thoughts on that question?
how interesting! Did not pick that up in Lewis. Does he say anything more about what kind of clergymen they were? I agree with Lewis' question, and it gets at the first of my three points of disagreement I mentioned in the video, concerning simplicity.
@@TruthUnites He doesn't say. After he asked the question, he said they laughed at him, and never answered the question. He was utilizing the account as an anecdote of how Friendship can tend toward arrogance, which despises anyone on the outside.
@@TruthUnites Sure thing. It is toward the end of the essay. I read it off a scanned, public domain version and I don't think the page numbers match the latest edition, otherwise I'd let you know that.
The Orthodox Church rejects the idea that there is a scholastic 'real distinction' between the essence and energy. The only individual to hold this position, as far as I'm aware, was Myenedorff (and Farrell, but he's not Orthodox). Even Bradshaw, in "Essence and Energies: What type of Distinction" says that's it's a formal-type of distinction. Here's what St. Gregory says about the *type* of distinction: "… but dividing the indivisible conceptually and recognizing their [essene-energy] different for us, but not distancing them and separating them from each other.” - Letter to Gabras Here's how the Council of Constantinople, 1351 defines the type of distinction: "But the fact that there is no interval, but we are obliged to separate them mentally, and that the difference between prior and posterior [essence-energy] is contemplated only in the mind, it appears beyond doubt that the need for union is very piously confirmed, and that no injury is inflicted on this union as a result of the distinction, but the union is asserted theologically to be unconfused and the difference is taught in every way to be indivisible." Here's St. Philotheus Kokkinos explains the distinction (Patriarch of Constantinople during the Hesychast controversy and St. Gregory's biographer): "To see that essence and energy are not in every aspect one and the same thing, but are united and inseparable and yet are distinguished only conceptually, pay attention to how the saints state that these things are two and testify both to their unity and distinctiveness… Hence we do not state that there are two deities or Gods, as they slander us; instead, what we state on the basis of what we have learnt from the saints is that this Deity, which is participated in by those who are deified, is not a proper essence or substance, but a natural power and energy present within God Himself, the Holy Trinity, absolutely inseparable and indivisible, the difference being only conceptual… The holy Fathers and Doctors, as we have already said, even if they say that God’s essence is one thing and His energy is another thing, conceive of the energy-and they write thus-as inseparable and indivisible from the essence, as proceeding from it and as having existence and being present only in this very essence, since the separation (or, better, the difference) is construed only conceptually. Thus, in the case of those things which have their existence in other things, but do not subsist or exist autonomously in themselves, one does not speak of composition, as we have said.” You also don't seem to have a great grasp of the notion of enhypostaton. Enhypostaton is the *mode* by which essence subsists. Essence only exists in the mode of hypostasis (enhypostaton). When an essence is hypostatized, so too is the energy. For comprehensive treatment, I would recommend a paper titled, "A World of Hypostases, John of Damascus' Rethinking of Aristotle's Categorical Ontology," by Christophe Erismann. Further, it's clear from the primary material, that God's energy is ontologically one and is not something other than the divine essence, but rather is the mode of the divine essence towards us. The 'energies' are predetermined, eternally foreknown unions that God forms with His creatures. It is through/by these unions that God's activity/energy is diversified into the divine names (goodness, love, life, wisdom, etc.). "Therefore, any particular good that one might conceive of is found in it, or rather, the supreme mind is both that good and beyond it. And anything in the supreme mind that one might conceive of is a good, or rather, goodness and a goodness which transcends itself. Life too is found in it; or rather, the supreme mind is itself life, for life is a good and life in it is goodness. Wisdom too is found in it; or rather, it is itself wisdom, for wisdom is a good and wisdom in it is goodness; and similarly, with eternity and blessedness in general any good that one might conceive of. And there is no distinction there between life and wisdom and goodness and the like, for that goodness embraces all things collectively, unitively and in utter simplicity… But that goodness is not only identical with that which is truly conceived by those who think with a mind endowed with divine wisdom and speak of God with a tongue moved by the Spirit; as ineffable and inconceivable, it is also beyond these things, and is not inferior to the unitive and supernatural simplicity.” - Capita, C. 34 "The divine transcendent being is never named in the plural. But the divine and uncreated grace and energy of God is divided indivisibly according to the image of the sun’s ray which gives warmth, light, life and increase, and sends its own radiance to those who are illumined and manifests itself to the eyes of those who see. In this way, in the manner of an obscure image, the divine energy of God is called not only one but also many by the theologians. For example, Basil the Great says….” -ibid, C. 68 “As it has been made clear above by Basil the Great, the theologians treat the uncreated energy of God as multiple in that it is indivisibly divided… since it is not the substance but the energy of God, for this reason it is treated not only in the singular but also in the plural. It is bestowed proportionately upon those who participate and, according to the capacity of those who receive it, it instills the divinizing radiance to a greater or lesser degree.” - ibid, C. 69 "He admits that we believe that there is only one reality that transcends all, and this bears testimony that we call this super-essential reality that one God. The divine light is not essence but an activity, an energy of the essence which, as we said, is one and transcends all and is always active. But even if we called this energy inseparable from that one essence, still that super-essentiality would not be composite. For truly no essence would ever be simple if this were the case. It is impossible to find any essence whatsoever without a natural energy.” - Triads, 3.1.24 "(KEY) Moreover, when we say that someone acquires wisdom through effort and study, we do not call wisdom the effort and the study itself, but the result of it. After all, the Lord comes and dwells in men in different ways according to the worthiness and the way of life of those who seek him. Christ comes in one way to the active man and in another way to the contemplative man…” - ibid, 3.1.28 Finally, there's absolutely nothing novel in St. Gregory Palamas. A read through the Philokalia shows that he was merely drawing on the patristic framework of mystical theology, already in place. Read St. Andrew of Crete and St. John of Damascus on the light of Tabor; St. Maximus on uncreated grace and 'energies with a beginning;' St. Dionysius on the transcendence of the essence and the processions of Goodness, etc.
Hi Cult! Thanks for the comment! I don't have time for an in-depth reply, but I do want to note that the idea that only Meyendorff sees the essence-energies distinction as a real distinction is not correct. That is a view represented by many scholars. I can produce some examples if you want. I will try to get back more later. Thanks again.
here are some examples in addition to meyendorff: 1) Vladimir Lossky, "if we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any clear borderline between the procession between the procession of the divine persons and the creation of the world" (The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 73). 2) John Romanides, "Note on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics," argues that it is Barlaam, not Palamas, who holds to a merely formal distinction between essence and energies. He describes Palamas' view, in contrast to this, as a "real distinction between essence and energy in God." I cannot link to this but I am sure you can find it online if you search for it where he draws this out at greater length. 3) I have seen Gabriel Bunge cited in favor of affirming a real distinction between essence and energy, but I have not yet personally tracked down the citations to confirm this. 4) That Gregory affirms a real distinction is the common view among Western interpreters of Palamas. Here is how Bernard Shultze put it (summarizing Palamas): "there is a real distinction in God between his nature and his energies" (p. 391 of Encyclopedia of Theology, ed. by Karl Rahner). Here is how Gerard Mathijsen puts it: "Gregory accepted a real, ontological distinction between the essence and the energies of God--an error which had been avoided by earlier Fathers and is surmounted by contemporary neo-Palamism, but which caused regrettable incoherences in the synthesis of this great spiritual master" (Cistercian Studies, vol. 7, p. 258). 5) It is also commonly spoken of as a real distinction in popular discussion. I am aware of course that some modern interpreters deny this view, most notably David Bentley Hart and Anna Williams, but these two are often criticized in this regard and others, as I'm sure you are aware. 6) I am not sure who you mean by Farrell. Did you mean John Farrelly? If so, I was not familiar with him but upon examination I find that he also maintains that Gregory makes a real distinction between God's essence and energies. 7) I cannot agree with you that Bradshaw speaks of it as merely a formal distinction; on my reading of Bradshaw's work, his view does not neatly fit in either the "real" or "formal" categories. Hope this helps!
@@TruthUnites 1) Lossky doesn't mean 'real distinction' in the scholastic sense (i.e., divisibility, contrariety and/or separability) but as in an 'actual distinction' with a basis in reality (not a nominal distinction). This is what the Orthodox affirm. 2) Romanides may, like Meyendorff, affirm a scholastic real distinction. It wouldn't surprise me. 3) 4) Polemicists have often misunderstood and misrepresented St. Gregory, for a variety of reasons. Parisian Orthodox did the same in the 20th century. For a very good summary of the historical dynamics surrounding St. Gregory, refer to Russell's "Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age." Russell has some interesting/relevant content on the matter: "Loudovikos denies that Palamas makes a formal division between essence and energies the way that Milbank suggests, rightly claiming that the distinction in Palamas is kat’epinoian - ‘not a separation but an expression of the fundamental distinction between will and essence in God which is not of course a separation either… The divine energies are God as he manifests himself ad extra, which does not imply in a symmetrical fashion that the essence is God ad intra, for the essence is God as he is in himself.” - pp. 224 5) Not sure what you mean by 'popular discourse.' Are you referring to RUclipsrs? 6) Joseph Farrell 7) Have you read the paper I cited? He explicitly denies that it's a Thomistic real distinction and says it's more akin to a Scotistic formal distinction (which is wrong too).
@@cultofmodernism8477 On 1), I'd be curious for your evidence for that assertion. I am not the only one who has understood Lossky in that way, but it could be a misreading. On 4), Bradshaw has a good critical response offering some strictures to Loudovikos' assertion that the distinction is kat’epinoian. It's at the back of the Divine Essence and Divine Energies book I referenced. I think you left (3) blank. On (7), yes, I have, and I must have missed him saying that--I actually took him to be offering a much more nuanced view that qualifies the meanings of the terms "formal" and "real" as they are generally used with reference to distinctions. All in all, I think it is clear that the interpretation that the essence energies distinction in Gregory is a real distinction is not limited to Meyendorff but rather a common view. I can give more examples if you like.
Good discussion. Essence in practice for Orthodox Christians is our walk with Christ experientially in the practice of a more ascetic prayer life. To become ‘like Christ’ is the participation in His energies. (Theosis applies here) However, we can never become His ‘Essence ‘or a 4th member of the Trinity, (I hope this distinction is clear). Our view of creation and fellow man is informed by this view that everything is held together by Gods Energies. God is in Control, Lord of All, Creator.
Que vídeo fascinante! Meu Deus, quanto aprendizado eu pude obter aqui. Penso que você finalizou o vídeo com chave de ouro, Gavin, e foi bastante respeitoso ao tratar o tema a partir de uma visão mais ecumênica, ou melhor, mais amorosa.
Interesting idea, will have to check out that debate. I'm hoping to engage those issues more in the future. At present I still feel I have a lot to learn before I'd be equipped for such a video. Thanks for the suggestion though.
As I slowly fly closer to the waterfall I cannot help but ask my self "what is the problem with rupturing Divine simplicity - if the distinction is otherwise true?"
My experience is that God our Father changes our energy of worldly willful self deception back into his pure essence energy. But to do this we have to submit it to him for renewal through constant prayer and humility obedience to his will. A "let your will be done" living mindset. If we seek God or to be like God through our will, then we remain spiritually dead to willful energy that is very pleasing to our fallen senses, and can appear to the deceived as christ like.
Love these video essays your putting out. Do you think that you could do one on two of my favorite theologians Maximus the confessor and Ephrem the Syrian? Also if you want a lot of insight into those two thinkers I recommend having a conversation with Jonathan Pageau
Excellent video! I would just like to comment that there are different schools of thought on how real the distinction is between essence and energies in modern Orthodox thought and this continues to be a point of discussion amongst theologians. The view of Dimitri Stanoloe would be the closest to the Thomist view and from my reading appears to be almost indistinguishable from Western doctrines of absolute divine simplicity. You might find his views quite refreshing
Question: Having listened to this and from other resources, my understanding is that the Thomist tradition would understand the Trinitarian Persons/hypostasis as processio ad intra (necessary to preserve simplicity), and then our creaturely experience of God is His revelation/manifestation of His attributes ad extra - would it be fair to say that the Eastern understanding of energies might be described as an essential (necessary or fundamental) processio ad extra? It seems like it could not be ad intra or else the energies would be a "part" of the Godhead, but it seems that an essential processio ad extra does break simplicity. Or is this trying to put a square (eastern) peg in a round (western) hole? Thank you for the video, and thank you extra if you get to the question.
Thanks so much Dr. Ortlund, this was very helpful! Any chance you might do a video some time on theosis/participation in God from a Protestant perspective? I know many early church fathers held to it, but some Protestants have had reservations about it, believing it blurs the Creator/creature distinction.
Found your Chanel through your crossover with Capturing Christianity. Sine then I’ve been watching a lot of your stuff. I really appreciate you videos. Always thoughtful and willing to honestly grapple with big issues and ideas. Moreover, you calm and gracious tone has made me open to meditating on many ideas that I otherwise would not have considered. Thus I’m really curious to hear on your Calvinist perspective. That is a theological position I have always found untenable. I’d love for you to offer an in depth persuasive case for Calvinism.
@TruthUnites Dr Ortlund you mentioned your curiosity about psychology and spirituality. If you don’t already know, I suggest the book Orthodox Psychotherapy by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Ierotheos
I too have been reading through the church fathers as I can find them on amazon, physical copies not audiobooks nor ebooks. I’m truly enjoying the eastern fathers. I’ve reached the Lateran Councils in my readings but I can’t find a physical copy of them anywhere. I know the later ecumenical councils necessarily part of your tradition on the Christian family tree. But do you know where I could find a physical collection of the Lateran Councils, not commentaries nor summaries but just straight up translations? The help would be much appreciated, thank you.
Hi, Don't know if Denziger's Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. would be of any use for you. It has ben published since the mid 19th century. One edition was edited by Karl Rahner. It is a compilation of the doctrines of the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles There is an English translation from the Latin on RUclips
Luther critiques Aristotle for not being aware of God’s potential in the Heidelberg disputation. This is not to say that Luther agrees with Palamas, but it is interesting. Likewise, in chapter 23 of the Two Natures of Christ, Chemnitz goes over the arguments from the Reformed on why Christ in the Reformed view, cannot be in the Supper. Chemnitz acknowledges that the scholastics say that God’s essence and energies/attributes are identical. He does not disagree directly but goes on to use the exact arguments and quotes from Irenaeus, the Capadoccians, and Damascus, that Maximus and later Palamas used to prove the essence energy distinction. And throughout the rest of that work, and also in Article 8 of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Chemnitz uses the explanations of the East as to how Christ can be in the Supper. He even distinguishes between God’s essence and His activities, and puts “ενεργια” next to the work activities. So … I would say it is safe to say the Lutherans tend to hold to a little of both, but it seems in my research they lean towards the East. For anyone interested
Have you looked into Abraham Calov's Systema? He grounds his formal distinction in the difference of operations which to my understanding is closer to the Eastern view.
This discussion is so very thought provoking in so many ways. I’ll have to look at your treatment of Augustine’s view of deification. I think it’s interesting how some Evangelicals upon discovering this notion in the fathers sometimes fail to put it in relation to their strong creator/creature distinction. What do you think about the following observation: Immortality was central to the ancients view of divinity. So when Peter speaks of our being made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), he is not speaking of divine attributes generally, but specifically of our being given eternal life as well as moral rectitude (what we might call the communicable divine attributes). This seems to be confirmed in the context by Peter, when he goes on to say this partaking is at the root of escaping the corruption in the world because of sin, and that theosis results in participation in the eternal kingdom. I sometimes wonder if the ancient’s view of theosis fits Peter’s description or if they go beyond it? I also wonder if modern readers of this idea of theosis risk going beyond Peter’s teaching and misunderstanding it as a sort of quasi-pantheism? I tend to think the emphasis of theosis should be on a godly immortality and is a nice way of countering an overblown notion of deification. Do you think that contextualization helpful and robust enough?
Thank you for this. I have never been particularly attracted to Thomism (or any -ism). I never can understand what ‘Absolute Divine Simplicity’ means. It sounds meaningful, but is God as a creator “outside” the creation simple? Can the expression ‘simple’ or ‘complex’ be applied to the uncreated God who creates? And would I call Jesus simple? We have the Trinity being prior to creation. Is the Trinity simple or complex? And God does not (and cannot) exist since existence itself was created by God and for God to exist would mean that God created himself. Surely the deifying energy of God is the normal means of salvation for every Christian? Christification and Theosis are the normal Christian experience, and not simply for a monk on Mount Athos. I get concerned when Gregory then says that I need works to attain it. What works are these? The only work needed is the daily membership of the Kingdom of God and following Jesus at the foot of the cross. And really it’s all found in the words of Jesus. We have John 17: 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. And surely Palamism is simply Christianity? We don’t live but Christ lives in us. We know God now and do not need to wait for a “beatific vision” in the next life. And yet we see now imperfectly. Here is Paul (1 Corinthians 13:12): 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. We are grafted onto the true vine that is Christ. What is the essential difference between Hesychasm and the words of Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18): 16 Rejoice evermore. 17 Pray without ceasing. 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. And we have the words of the poet George Herbert: Teach me, my God and King, In all things Thee to see, And what I do in anything To do it as for Thee. All may of Thee partake; Nothing can be so mean, Which with this tincture-“for Thy sake”- Will not grow bright and clean. A servant with this clause Makes drudgery divine; Who sweeps a room as for Thy laws, Makes that and th’ action fine. This is the famous stone That turneth all to gold; For that which God doth touch and own Cannot for less be told. So we have God as he is in himself (essence) and God for us (energy). As Job was asked (Job 38:4-30): 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. We have no understanding as Job was told by God. Does Gregory Palamas or Thomas Aquinas take us further than Jesus or Paul (or the book of Job)? We can end with the god of the philosophers, and Pascal clearly saw the difference with experiencing God and the god of the philosophers. Ignorant knowledge is described by Nicholas of Cusa (Cusanus). Can we know the essence of God? Can we even know the essence of another human - or even a pet? And yet we know the Inward Light of Jesus in our heart. He lives (He lives), He lives (He lives), Christ Jesus lives today He walks with me and talks with me Along life's narrow way He lives (He lives), He lives (He lives), Salvation to impart You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart I liked the talk - thank you. I must read your book.
Hey Gavin, I grew up with a pastor who was pretty versed in new-age/occultic apologetics and often talked about pantheism and panentheism as false. As you were quoting both Aquinas and Gregory a lot of those alarm bells went off in me. Obviously you are interacting with historic Christianity, but the idea that God is in everything would definitely run afoul of the teaching I grew up with. How would you differentiate between both the Thomist and Palamist views and a pantheistic or panentheistic view that is outside the bounds of orthodoxy?
Thomism and Palamism both have mechanisms for distinguishing God from creation, and disproving pantheism. Some defenders of each make them seem pretty pantheistic (DBH), but they seem pretty opposed to pantheism dogmatically.
Brilliant Video! Glad your back. I think Palamism raises good questions, but still the Thomist position seems more plausible. But I may be missing something.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Very good question. I don't know. The power could be created, I'm sure you, being Orthodox, won't like that answer. My question is: If all things are created by the energies, then are not all things just an extension of God, and how is that not panentheism? Forgive me for my ignorance, what I'm saying might be way off to the Orthodox view.
@@garyboulton2302 so saying created power is like saying that God did not have power eternal .now Paul shows δύναμις power and ενέργεια energy as synonymus 1 cor 6:14 and col 2:12
So Gavin, would you say these disagreements shows how philosophically different these traditions are coming from? Thomas Aquinas was more Aristotelian, whereas Gregory Palamas was more Platonist? Would not Thomas Aquinas see the Energies as accidents and since God has no accidents then Energies is like saying God is di-theism?
Orthodox church Theologians and saints fathers dont follow any Philosophical methodology to know about Deity. If you read Gregory Palamas works all philosophical methodologies are seen as rubbish when it is about God .The knowledge of God comes from the divine experience of Theosis.The view of his majestic Uncreated Glory δόξα in the original language text of the New Testament.Read the synodicon of orthodoxy and the agioritikos tomos that is the text from the hesychast at mouth Athos written from saint Greogory Palamas. Dont confuse western christian theology methodologies with orthodox church theology.Nothing in common not only in dogma but also in the method they use to know as possible about God
If eastern scholars can characterize Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, as making God into a solely intellectual, frozen property, they obviously have not read any of the works of these theologians. The more I read of the early church fathers in general both East and west and later scholars like Anselm and Thomas, the more I appreciate the very deeply experiential aspects of their understanding and their doxological method.
How would you respond to the criticism that Aquinas’ absolute divine simplicity commitment leads him to conclude that all of God’s workings in creation are created effects and not actually God himself? And that if all we experience from God are created effects, then we are not really knowing God himself but merely effects that God created?
My question is how much of this discussion can boil down to an epistemological assumptions.. Plato versus Aristotle to be short. I am being a bit reductionist but that seems to be what is the divergent point.
The Eucharist gives a reality to what the Israelites experienced daily, fed not only in mind but physically also. The representation that the Protestants understanding e corporates actually is OT understanding of the sacrifice, a representation however Hebrews illustrates the order of Melchizedek is the new reality.
@TruthUnites , Gavin, you say around 51:33 there is a problem with caricature and overly-simple contrasts and give Roy Clouser's comments as an example. Wouldn't you say that the sort of criticism that Clouser offers (even if one disagrees with that criticism) is a *fair* means of criticism? What I mean is that drawing out what an opponent's view entails, and that entailment is something the opponent rejects, seems legitimate to me. To do this is not the same as saying an opponent explicitly or consciously affirms the entailment, but rather the opposite, namely, that there is something wrong with a given view that entails something an advocate of that view denies.
@Shining Diamond I held up several books in the video and cited them at length, so it's odd you would claim I restricted it to Meyendorff. Energetic Procession, most of the meatier books I read for this I cited within the video, though there were too many other reference books to cite them all. Lossky's work is one I engaged with a fair amount but did not cite. hope that helps.
@@EnergeticProcession ah, sorry -- the main ones I quote here, beyond Gregory and other primary sources, were Meyendorff, David Bradshaw, and then this book: Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy ed. by C. Athanasopoulos and C. Schneider
This was very interesting if a little hard to understand. It would also be interesting to hear your perspective on some "classic" Catholic apologists. Hilaire Belloc has some truly misleading essays on Protestantism that are still being printed. He used to be quite famous (I even remember him referenced in a Monty Python sketch) but his books have not aged well.
Gregory has another serious problem you can only access the Father via the Son but his hetchyasm claims to access him without going through the Son in his body and blood. His mysticism opens him to the demonic, like claiming Filioque is false, despite Leo III saying the great mystery of the Filioque should never be disbelieved.
There was an ignorance in the west about saint Gregory Palamas says most if his works are not translated even triads that actually name is about the support of the sacred hesychasts was just a few years before
I think the most frustrating part of learning about divine simplicity and energies is that you sit here and wonder why no one speaks of the personhood? Does not Gods essence become known through the Personhood? God is known through special and general revelation, isnt he? If someone could please give me some material on Personhood and Divine simplicity, that would be much appreciated👍
Seems to me that possibly energies is the essence that we can possibly interact with? God only allowed Moses to see his back, and by doing so he was glowing. Is it possible that in our current condition we are not able to fully able to stand before God? I don't know honest but then I think about how the Holy Spirit now lives within us.
My main problems with Palamism come primarily from my doctrine of God and His revelation. We are not safe in making doctrines concerning God which are not necessitated by His revelation of Himself. He does reveal His presence to people and, through His Spirit empowers and blesses people, but claiming to gain new and/or authoritative knowledge concerning God Himself should only come via His revelation through Scripture/Prophecy. The creation of doctrine that is authoritative and to be passed down must be based on such revelation alone. 1. That said, the Essence/Energy distinction is put forward as a very real distinction concerning the nature of God Himself, but is a completely unnecessary distinction. As Thomas points out, there is no reason why we can't solve the simplicity/experience "problem" by simply saying that we are made aware of God's essential nature (by His condescension, not our effort), but cannot fully comprehend it (Which is also the simple testimony of scripture). To go further is utterly unnecessitated by Scripture or even by human experience or reason, and doctrinal distinctions that are unnecessary are spiritually unsafe. This is all the more true in doctrine concerning the nature of God. This is a controversy that has no reason to exist, and it concerns God Himself. The Eastern theologian feels that it is a necessary distinction, but that is because he is acting on false conceptual tendencies. Since Plato (and especially Pseudo-Dionysius who was simply trying to Christianize Neo-Platonism and introduced much pagan thinking into the church through his forgeries), the tendency in the East has been to invision the Divine Essence as such a pure, untouchable, and *attributeless* thing, so that anything pertaining to God has tended towards having to be seperated from Him on some level. Especially as the biblical God clearly has attributes, and is yet one. The Eastern theologian is kept from going into actual emanationism by the strictures of monotheism, yet the tension is still palpable. You get the sense that Gregory was wrestling with completely unnecessary distinctions and paradoxes. He said that something besides God's essential being must be uncreated, because His Providence, Knowledge, etc. were necessary for creation. The fact that this seems obvious to him is telling. But one without a Platonically-tainted conception of God must ask, "Why can't what we refer to as His Providence and Knowledge simply be understood as expressions concerning His essential being? Is God God without knowledge? No? Then what we call 'knowledge' is *essential* to His being." God *is* love. God *is* all-knowing. God *is* omnipotent. These are not ontologically distinct attributes that God *has* , but essential aspects describing His nature. Yet, within His nature, there is no necessary contradiction between what we understand as His attributes. They are manifestations of His single nature of God-ness. But Palamas must assume and wrestle with these completely unnecessary distinctions because His view of the highest essence must be attributeless due to the faulty metaphysics of the Greeks. And that is not based on Scripture but on (originally non-Christian) human reason. 2. Regarding Hesychasm, I am wary of it. Having academically studied the various major religious traditions outside of Christianity, I have some understanding of the nature of certain practices as practices themselves, across the distinctions of religious tradition. Repeating the same highly meanigful phrase in intense meditation dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times while practicing controlled breathing is a proven way to hack into and alter the human experience of consciousness. I could do it while hailing the Divine Spaghetti Monster. It is a psychological hack, not a meeting with the Divine. That the experience seems equally real for Buddhists, Hindus, New Agers, etc. as well as Christians implies that the resulting experience is not based on or reliant on the factual reality of the spirituality of the practitioner. In other words, if a Hindu (praying to a god who doesn't exist and based on a spiritual cosmology and economy that don't exist) can come away from almost identical practices convinced that he/she has experienced Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, etc., then how seriously should we Christians take such experiences as experiences of the one true God? Either all these experiences are equally valid and thus all the religions equally true, or the experience does not have any direct relation to the spirituality/religion of the pactitioner and is a phenomenon unrelated to spiritual reality. We should not need such unbiblical tricks to approach God the way He has provided for us. And yes, there are forms of Christian mystical prayer besides the mantric yoga/like practice of Hesychasm. It is not the only option, and I have personally had experiences of God's presence without the need of such rigorous hypnotic ritual. This issue feeds into the East/West divide in that the Orthodox will expect such practices and the artificially-induced psychological state they produce to be the normal state out of which doctrine and theology are form and the church is led. The Hesychastic monks on Athos are more highly venerated by many than the various metropolitan bishoprics that austensibly lead the Orthodox Churches. The Athos monks place themselves above reproach in doctrine, practice, and behavior primarily because they are those most steeped in "the presence of God" via hesychasm. They would almost supplant the office of Biblical prophet without having to submit to its requirements. When East and West have most promisingly come together in ecumenism, it has been Athos that presented the most supremacist, uncharitable, and pharisaical attitude towards their brothers, including their fellow Orthodox whom they chastized for daring to find common ground with the West. This is what happens when mere spiritual experience is placed above the teachings of Christ and true obedience to His Spirit. And because the West doesn't rely so heavily on such practices, the East sees them as spiritually sterile and caricature us as having only an intellectual connection to God, while only they have a personal spiritual experience of Him. Really, they are missing the exact distinction between That which is authoritative and may be reasoned from for doctrine, and That which is a personal expression of spiritual life which is primarily of personal utility. They think, I suppose, that Thomas never prayed his heart out and felt the light of the Spirit in response. The intellectual activity of Thomas and the early Scholastics was not to provide an intellectual religion that spanned all the way from man to God without the need for a personal relationship, but to bolster the intellectual framework of the faith they already held dear and to provide a safe, objective, ground for developing doctrine. "..must worship in spirit and in truth."
Please read to the end, i think this comment will be helpful to anyone familiar with this video's topic. To the video's creator - thank you for an illuminating content. Now, as an oriental orthodox christian, I like Thomas Aquinas's work here. I think thomism along with good trinitarian theology can solve some of our difficulties. First, God is a mystery to creation (Niagra falls vs mosquito example). How a transcendent God creates and interacts with created beings is also a mystery. But Palamas's concern with a silent God that doesn't have "energies" can be solved by the Word of God i.e. God speaks and has the eternal Word. But "divine energy" lumps the power of God with the works of God and calls both uncreated. But the works of God are creations i.e. created, while the power/word by which God created his works is the uncreated Word of God. The Word also fulfills thomism's divine simplicity criteria because the Word is of the same essence as God i.e. is truly God. I'm just a regular christian so this analysis could be wrong, but I hope it helps.
The mistake the western christian do is to read Gregory Palamas through Christian schollars in my opinion as of course todays elders say in orthodoxy , that is a wrong way to approach Gregory Palamas theology
Thank you for the video Dr. Ortlund. Very informative as always. I do have a question for you if you would be inclined to respond please. Dr. Ortlund, are you a pacifist or non resistance?
@@TruthUnites Thank you for your response, Dr. Ortlund. Recently I have been troubled by this topic and have sense been reading what I can from the early fathers. So far the results have been somewhat conflicting with my current position. I will continue reading and determine a more Informed position. May God bless you.
I lean towards non resistance but I’m still looking into it. I think Christians should have a general attitude of non violence but this is difficult in the USA as we are extremely violent and tribal. The kicker I think are the exceptions (just war, self defense) to be worked out. Stanley Hauerwas is a great resource to start especially on the beatitudes. Bonhoeffer on the beatitudes as well in his book The Cost of Discipleship. From what I can tell Jesus didn’t give modern day qualifiers on loving our enemies and turning the other cheek. Thomas Mertons chapter on War in his work New Seeds of Contemplation is also worthwhile. I also see a large tradition of non violence in the fathers but you also see other opinions as well. Just my 2 cents. I’ve been looking into the beatitudes and non violence for a while now as the beatitudes seems to offer a contrary politic to the world. Thought I’d comment.
@@Athabrose thanks for your response, I will look into what you stated. I too have been leaning more towards a non resistance interpretation and have also read that in nearly all the earliest fathers. And this does seem to be the most plain reading of the text in my opinion.
@@sorenrousseau I agree that non resistance seems to be the majority attitude in the fathers and throughout church history. The beatitudes are a strong point for me. The Cost of Discipleship by martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a great commentary for the plain reading of the beatitudes. He doesn’t equivocate or hold back. It was a game changer for me, by Gods grace. I’ve had to divorce myself from many American ways of thinking and realized just how violent we are as a people, even in the church. I believe in the beatitudes Jesus gives us the politic of the His kingdom up over and against empire and the sword. This is why the martyrs were so courageous. Rome could kill them but could not victimize them. There is nothing empire or government can do to such a beatifically free people. Gods blessings on your journey.
The sun and rays metaphor is now known to be a fallacy. We don’t call the rays of the Sun, the Sun, rather we realize the Sun sends forth essence carrying it energies in waves of particles called photons.
Being a protestant myself I am just as concerned with the doctrines of total depravity + original sin in the west and energies in terms of compartmentalism or even semi-agnosticism in the east. The truth is generally found in the middle for anyone that's willing to dive deep enough to find the gate.
@David V I understand what you're saying sure maybe there some nuance and that's my point. But let's be honest here the terms "total depravity" as a term in face value doesn't really give much nuance given the term....why not just call it partial-depravity then? Does the word total not mean all or complete?
Hello Gavin, Great video. I don't think that you touched on what I take to be the most fundamental issue with Palamism. It seems that it reverts to a strict Neoplatonism, which collapses free will and possibly the incarnation. This seems to be why Eric Perl deconverted from Orthodoxy to become a Neoplatonist. He has an article on Palamas you should look at. In any case I could be totally wrong, but I'm just starting to look into this stuff.
Why can't I give this video two thumbs up? You do a great job at breaking down complex ideas, thank you
RUclips was freaking out two days ago.
Excellent video! I am a Catholic High School theology teacher and I will be using this Protestant perspective video to help my Orthodox students understand the essence-energies distinction of their own tradition. God blesses us with his sense of humor.
That is amazing and so cool to hear. May the Lord heal our wounds and guide us in love
Orthodoxy, for me, was very much like stepping into a different culture, language, and time. Even a different geography. I can relate to the feeling of like being in the most beautiful art museum. And Palamas' writings are sublime. His debates with Barlaam taught me a lot during my catechism. The heart of Orthodox thinking is paradox. That really kind of sums it up.
Thank you so much for this video!
Your voice is needed greatly in American Christendom. Thank you for being calm, rational and treating the commandment to love our God with our Mind seriously.
Those qualities are almost anathema to modern “apologetics”.
This is great. I have found your channel just in this period if my life, where I, as a born in Greece, once orthodox, now since 30 years evangelical, rediscover the orthodox tradition and feel absolutely enriched by it. I will come back to this, after I have seen the whole video. For now, just feel lucky for having found this channel.
Glad to be connected!
@@TruthUnites the difference between orthodox Theology and western Theology is not at first the conclusions ,but the methodology both use to have knowledge. If you dont understand the difference there you actually can't understand the theology.Google a small article it would help.Faith and science in orthodox methodology and gnosiology by father professor of athens university Georgios Metallinos
Come back to orthodoxy brother ☦️
So glad you are making all of these fine distinctions! So few Christians outside of Catholicism or Orthodoxy are even remotely interested in these things. Thus, you, sir, are a treasure! PS..loved your "Gentle and Lowly" book!!
Thanks! Just to clarify, that book was written by my brother Dane.
Fascinating stuff Gavin! Very happy to see some robust interaction with this tradition as it is often left either untreated or presented as a cure-all. Appreciate the work you put into this!
Protestant reflections on this doctrine seem to be few and far between. Thank you, from a Catholic
i had to pause several times your video to read to better understand these concepts before coming back to you. beyond the intellectual "meditation", your session was spiritual. it was great. there is so much charity in your approach as much as desire to discover the other. truly wonderful. God bless!
We have only words, and they often fail. But some people have an amazing gift for putting the unspeakable into words. Thanks for making it more accessible to the rest of us.
'Being as Communion' and 'The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit' are great books for understanding the Eastern view.
Mystogogy by St Photios was a great book. He was "upset" putting it nicely about the Filioque 😆
To: Professor Ortlund: This is a very fine presentation in a one hour video, very sensitively and reflectively put forward. I have studied this issue for years, and as a Roman Catholic, the chief issue I have with Palamas and his partisans is the fact that Palamas incessantly agitated for the Eastern Church to dogmatize his speculations, and having succeeded in his design, he placed all other theological approaches to the understanding or experience of God under anathema. Who would really care if Palamism was just one more system like that of Aquinas or of Scotus to be examined, appreciated, criticized and learnt from by other Christians? Dr. Bradshaw's work Aristotle East and West frankly acknowledges the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework upon which the Pseudo Dionysius and Palamas plot the data of the gospel and build out their interpretive systems, without questioning how it can possibly be legitimate to assign to pagan influenced metaphysical speculation the imprimatur of dogmatic sanction, all other interpretations being judged as accursed on their part. This level of arrogance and a-historical aggrandizement of the patristic heritage on the part of Palamas and those who subscribe to his teachings, and more importantly, on the part of those who subscribe to the invective spirit of his teachings, towards other Christian communions, is worthy of rejoinder and rebuke, and I for my own part am ready to fight fire with fire, so that they might learn what the Lord had said about removing the beam from one's eye before pointing out the beam in thy brother's eye. Since Palamas arrogates the gospel and the patristic heritage to himself, and anathematizes everyone else who disagrees with him, his teachings must be held to the highest standard of criticism, inasmuch as he claims the highest standard of sanction for his doctrines. Therefore we may ask whether his teaching that God is entirely present in His energies, while His essence remains infinitely transcendent to His energies, really does represent profound mysticism or mere incoherent babbling on his part. Palamas generally teaches that God's attributes are properly His energies, not His nature, but in one of his works, as Dr. Bradshaw admits, he states that the energies are properly acts of God's power, so what then is it we may ask, is divine energy the principle of divine power, or the reverse? He wants to anathematize anyone who does not agree with himself, but alas, he himself does not always agree with himself! Palamas' teaching that "God is Light not according to Essence but according to His energy" (Against Akindynos, PG 150 823 A), contradicts the Nicene Council of 325 A.D.'s dogmatic definition that the Son of God is 'only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light'. This represents a profound theological blunder on his part. Indeed, one of his greatest theological blunders is witnessed in Ch 36 of his work "150 Chapters", wherein Palamas adopts as his own St. Augustine's teaching from On the Trinity Book XV that the principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit is the "divine love" (theia eros) of the Father for the Son. But his doctrine of energetic procession teaches that God's love is His energy, not His nature, and that His love therefore is infinitely transcended by His inaccessible essence. What do we observe here? Either the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Father's energy, and is a work, since God's theia eros is His energy, or what is even more ludicrous, God's theia eros infinitely transcends His agape, the former being proper to His essence and the latter to His energy. So I say let this man's arrogance and theological incoherence be held up to the ridicule it so richly deserves. In the Medieval and Early Modern Latin Church, the writings of John Ruusbroec and St. John of the Cross surpassed the Eastern fathers in regard to the analytical complexity of the stages of theosis, referred to by St. John of the Cross as "the transforming union in love", and they were able to formulate their teachings without adopting the Palamite terminology (though there was a degree of 'Dionysian' influence), which proves that the EOC's contention that their discourse alone describes experiential union with God is utterly false. One other issue I have with what was said in the video is with the idea of certain Eastern fathers that the transfiguration had to do with the disciples rather than with Christ, which I do not believe is true, for the Jews could not bear to look upon the light that shone from Moses' face, and they certainly were not initiated into a higher level of spiritual vision on account of having seen that light. Nor were the 3 disciples reported in the gospels to have been ravished with a sense of holy awe and joyousness on the occasion in question, and to have experienced the sense of Christ living within them, as St. Paul wrote in his Letter to Galatians, when they saw Christ's glorified face, which would have been the case if they had truly been inspirited with the Spirit Himself, or so it seems to me at any rate. Moreover St. John states that the Holy Spirit had not been given to the disciples at that time (cf. Jn 7:39), which was before Christ had been glorified, so I have my doubts about Maximus' interpretation of that gospel event. Nevertheless, this was an excellent video.
Your comment really helped me as a new Catholic convert. I really like the orthodoxy thinking and I appreciate your sentiment that it should just be contained within the Catholic umbrella instead of put against it. At least that's what I got out of it. Correct me if I'm wrong
@@j897xce Gregory Nazianzen (4th century A.D.), lauded as "The Theologian" in the Eastern Orthodox tradition (one of only four members of the Eastern Orthodox Church to receive such a designation), wisely wrote in Oration 28.17 that in matters not dogmatically defined by the Ecumenical Councils (i.e. the coequal divinity of the Son, etc.), each may philosophize and judge as each sees fit - and this was said in respect to the matter of whether the beatified souls in heaven will ever see or know the nature and essence of God in the age to come! He then offered up reasons in Oration 28.17-18 why it might indeed be possible for beatified souls to attain such a vision, especially in light of 1 Corinthians 13:12. If the sobriquet "theologian" indicates superior eminence, it would seem then that Gregory Nazianzen spoke with superior wisdom in regard to this matter than did Gregory Palamas a thousand years later. Why then did the Eastern Orthodox Church not follow Gregory Nazianzen's sage counsel, and decide instead to dogmatize the Palamite teaching in respect to the vision of God, which was in fact contrary in certain respects to that of Gregory Nazianzen, whose teaching is judged by this ecclesial communion to be of superior eminence to that of Gregory Palamas?
I am Roman Catholic, but I am a trained philosopher and theologian and I don't put down my thinking cap when someone from my own tradition makes theologically unsupportable statements. There is something to critique in every religious tradition.
There is an unfortunate tendency in the ancient Churches of Christendom to proclaim dogmas where no dogmatic certitude is possible, concerning, for instance, the nature of the beatific vision (essence-energy), the Assumption of Mary, and so forth. Why is it not enough to say "we piously believe" without pronouncing anathema upon those who question the degree of theological certainty that has been attained in regard to these matters? The doctrine of the Holy Trinity can indeed be rationally deduced from the data of Sacred Scripture, and so heresies regarding this matter are rightly condemned, as undermining one of the primary tenets of the faith.
The Protestants for their own part rightly criticized this tendency of the ancient Churches to dogmatize where it was not warranted.
A virtue of Roman Catholicism is that it could allow competing schools of theology to flourish, such as Thomism and Scotism, without insisting that one school and one school only must be thought of as setting forth the definitive teaching in regard to abstract and recondite matters of theological speculation, whereas in the Eastern Orthodox Church, an issue of theological division once joined seemed to require a dogmatic verdict on the part of the Church in favor of one side or the other, as witnessed in the various stages of the Hesychast (or Palamite) controversy. With the development of the cathedral schools and the great universities in the Latin West, and the expansion of commerce and culture, a spirit of free theological inquiry along academic lines of dialogue developed, which was far more tolerant of competing viewpoints than the increasingly isolated society which had developed during the dying stages of the ever diminishing borders of the Byzantine Empire.
For me, it is not so much the difference of opinion as the vehemence, arrogance and condemnatory nature of the Eastern Orthodox stance in regard to the essence-energies distinction in God, which can be shown to derive primarily from the teachings of Plato and the Neoplatonists (especially Proclus) as adopted and adapted by the Pseudo Dionysius and subsequently modified by Gregory Palamas. It is an utter embarrassment (to those who are capable of experiencing it) to have to admit that a so called dogma of the faith, supposedly as transmitted by Christ and the apostles (in the mistaken belief that the Pseudo Dionysius was a first century associate of the apostles transmitting a hidden esoteric wisdom teaching of Christ and the apostles), is in point of fact little more than the philosophical speculations of Diadochus Proclus dressed up in Christian garb! Thomas Aquinas is quite open about who his pagan philosophical sources are. The Pseudo Dionysius was not, and thus all the confusion about the true source of his teachings. Well the Hesychast Councils erred in supposing the Pseudo Dionysius to be a first century Christian author, and rather than admit the mistake and revise their judgment as to the apostolicity of the essence-energies teaching (even here Palamas does not faithfully represent the Pseudo Dionysian teaching in setting forth his own adaptation of it), owing to the doctrine of infallibility they steadfastly persist in their errors and their anathemas, which become more puerile with each passing decade as the scholarship in regard to this matter undermines its foundations.
To conclude, I would say that you got the gist of it, but I offered here in response somewhat more to chew on, if you wish to delve further into the matter.
I absolutely love this. I share your fascination and appreciation for this subject and have also been blown away by reading the writings of eastern fathers. It is definitely a different paradigm and mindset but I can totally identify with that sense of having a mystical experience just reading some of these writings and some of it just goes right over my head. But I love it and continue to study it. Thanks for this video.
Mentally not ready to watch yet but wow what a video brother, I’m excited
I am very much looking forward to this! The Essence vs. Energy distinction greatly fascinates me as well.
Thank you for serving the Church with your videos. I hope we can hear your take on the Filioque controversy, too.
Read "mystogogy of the Holy Spirit" by St Photius. This was the eastern Orthodox rebuttal to the Filioque in the 9th century.
This is the most fascinating debate amongst brethren, hands down.
this was a very good video. As someone who is fairly convinced of the essence and energies distinction I say you have done a good job. There is a great deal of diversity in each side as to how much this is an issue for division. What convinced me is reading the New Testament in Greek, many of the fathers and Gregory. The way the word energy is used is fairly clear. In Latin energy was related as operation and as work in English.
I too have read the Greek fathers, and while Palamas does reflect what many of them said with respect to that in respect to God which comes down to us, he misrepresents what they taught with respect to the Godhead itself, who generally were of the opinion that God Himself (viz. Father-Son Spirit) is Enhypostatic Light, that is, Light according to essence, hence the creedal definition of Nicea, 'the Son is only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light, homousian with the Father', to wit, on the basis of their identity as Enhypostatic (viz., substantially existing) Light. St. Athanasius (De Decretis 24) and St. Basil (Letter 52.2 to the Canonicae) both confirm that this was the intended teaching of the Council of Nicea. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy, won over to the teaching of Gregory Palamas, who taught that "God is Light not according to His essence but according to His energy" (cf. Against Akindynos, PG 150, 823A), anathematizes those who maintain that the Divine Light is synonymous with the Divine Essence. Essentially the Synodikon has anathematized the Nicene Creed, and this is the pernicious result of Palamas' error. Many Greek fathers (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, etc.) employed Hebrews 1:3 "brightness of glory" with the specific purpose of refuting the Arian heresy by arguing that this scripture proved the homousian between Father and Son, but some of them temporized between accepting that this phrase speaks with respect to the uncreated light, at one time, and trying to argue at other times that it referred either to the created sun and its brightness (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa), or to fire and its brightness (Theodoret), in order to defend their apophatic theology, but inasmuch as Hebrews 1:3 is a gloss on Wisdom 7:26, "brightness of eternal light", their arguments are untenable, and the Latin fathers are more correct in understanding this scripture as indicating unity of essence on the basis of the uncreated light itself. Let us take Palamas' interpretation of John Chrysostom to highlight his less than truthful exposition of patristic teaching. While he correctly cites Chrysostom's teaching in his Homily on John that John 3:35 "Spirit without measure" expresses the energy of the Spirit, in his work 150 Chapters, he fails to inform his readers that Chrysostom also taught, in regard to the Son giving witness to Himself before men: “it is sufficient that He [the Son] only exhibit His unveiled essence...for no one is able to bear the assault of that unapproachable light” (ήρκει δείξαι μόνον εαυτόν όστις ήν γυμνή τη ουσία...μηδενός δυναμένου την απρόσιτον εκείνην του φωτός προσβολήν ενεγκείν). [Homily VI.1 On the Gospel of John]. Moreover, in John's work On the Incomprehensible Nature of God he makes the following observations: In Sermon 3.27 John speaks of ἀκράτῳ οὐσίᾳ (unmixed essence) and the vision of the “likeness of the glory of the Lord” (ὁμοιώματος δόξης Κυρίου) seen by angels, who therefore do not see the glory of the Lord itself, in its unmixed nature. In Sermon 3.15 John also referred to the ἄκρατον φῶς (unmixed light). And so correlating Sermon 3.15 with Sermon 3.27, we have ἄκρατον φῶς = ἀκράτῳ οὐσίᾳ = δόξης Κυρίου. That is, in God, light = glory = essence. Thus John teaches, respecting the Godhead, while affirming that God communicates unto creatures through His energies. Palamas fails to make this distinction in his own writings, and only cites Chrysostom where he agrees with his teaching, and fails to disclose where he diverges from his teaching, which is fundamentally dishonest on his part, and he is rightly criticized for urging the Eastern Church to anathematize those who did not agree with his half representation of Eastern Patristic teaching. The Latin fathers, e.g. Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 51.2-6, teach that the uncreated light of Godhead is tempered when revealed to men in the flesh, but seen as it is face to face in the age to come (cf. Augustine, De Vivendo Deo, Leo, Sermon 51.2). St. Augustine correlates Ex 33:18-20, Math 18:10, 1 Cor 13:12, Jn 1:18, and 1 Jn 3:2 into a coherent whole, while Chrysostom founders when he tries to dismiss Mt 18:10 'the angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven', because of its obvious reference to Ex 33:20 'no MAN can see my face and live', which latter scripture the Eastern fathers are wont to employ for the purpose of defending their apophatic theology. They do, however, have one scripture in their favor, Isaiah 6:2: 'the seraphim covered their face with their wings' in the presence of God, which Augustine does not address. There is no need to bring in Scholastic theology either to criticize Palamas, who overturns the Nicene faith of the undivided Church, or to enter the lists with the Greek fathers with respect to the vision of God. The Latin fathers and Scholastic theologians do not have as good a grasp as the Greeks do of grace as 'the energizing of God's power within us' (cf. Eph 3:7), but on the whole their theology is more consistent, and they are not arguing out of both sides of their mouth that Hebrews 1:3 demonstrates that the Father and Son are homousian, but that the reference to the Father's glory in that passage is referenced to material sunlight and fire, which is simply preposterous.
@@thomaspalmieri6038 nah
@@fr.davidbibeau621 You appear to have no problem with a thousand years of Eastern Orthodox polemics against the West, but I do, and there isn't one thing I posted above that isn't true. But that's your prerogative.
One big issue I wish Dr Gavin would cover is the issue of created grace vs uncreated grace. For the East, uncreated grace is considered to be the partaking of the Divine Nature and grace is the working of God himself, not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity.
I think your issue at 43:50 lies in your reformed view of soteriology. As a person sympathetic to Molinism I have no issues with your concern.
But I really enjoy your teachings. Thank you for the effort that is put into these videos. It takes a lot of effort.
My thoughts while watching this.
Gregory maintaining a tight correlation between participle Energy and the Essence is what removed the stigma for me that was surrounding this Saint. Like Dr. Gavin, I found when reading the text of Palamas that some in the West mischaracterized his position. His mystical theology is very profound and should not be dismissed so carelessly.
Now, when it comes to “enhypostatized” I still see difficulties from this not in the realm of “existence” but in the realm of “Person.” For if this “energy” is “enhypostatic” then it is such that it cannot be divorced of the “Person” who is acting. But Gods “energy” flows from will which is single as Maximus the Confessor states. So if we have three Persons who have 1 energetic act terminating in the creature and yet is “enhypostatic” then the creature could never know the Father as distinct from the Son since the act is one. Willing to flesh this out more if someone is interested in discussing further. Push back is always welcome.
The distinction between seeing the Essence and not comprehending it is what I actually find Maximus trying to communicate in his writings. And this can’t be rejected since Gregory the Great, Ambrose and Augustine all say the same. The Palamite has to be open to Thomism since it is a faithful formulation of the Western Fathers.
I, like Dr Gavin, am not persuaded but appreciate what I have learned about the East Saints such as Gregory and Maximus.
I appreciate the mosquito to Niagara Falls comparison. So true.
I love the East perspective on the body. Though I think the West, because of the dogma of original sin, has a more nuanced view that the East should not entirely sweep away since it is founded in Scripture.
The Taboric light is an interesting topic to think about. I have a video on my page that tries to pry into this if anyone wants some food for thought.
The univocal vs analogical predication is for me the crux of the issue. Thomas Analogia entis is what safeguards us from anthropomorphizing God. This is why I not only lean towards Thomism over Palamism but even Thomism over Scotism.
The West is not denying that God has “energy.” But God does not have energy as some “medium” between Him and creatures. Mankind does because we are composed of Act/Potency needing to move from inside to an outside term. But all terms are present to God and in fact exist through participation in Him.
If someone wants to assert that the West intellectualizes God then they have not read how Aquinas says the intellect isn’t at rest until it stops intellectualizing. This happens in the beatific vision.
Gavin, great video. I’m working on one as well and appreciate seeing commonality with your analysis. Thanks
Thanks for the insightful comment!
Great comment !
A nuanced well put comment!
I think you're absolutely right about the analogie entis and creation in the west being a one step process without mediation. The question is can eastern theology function without a middle region. All the stuff about nature being the self-encryption of the logos and returning to the logos, as well as the stuff about conforming with the logoi and the divine virtues in maximus just doesn't work on a thomistic system where there is nothing "in" god to conform too. There is nothing between the simple essence and particular creatures. Paul Dehart is a thomist whose absolutly brilliant on this point.
@@esoterico7750 I think the East should be permitted to continue their “middle function” of the energies. Right now no Eastern Catholic is bound to the formulation of the West at the expense of their own tradition. So with that being said, the East needs to come to grips with the West as well. It can’t be just us who gives a little to them but they must also return the Charity our way. We have good reasons (historical, philosophical, theological) to keep the doctrine as we have formulated it. The East has good reasons for theirs. In short, I don’t think an East can reject Catholicism without rejecting the Western Doctors of the Church. And I don’t think the East can be entirely dismissed because of the Doctors of the Church on their side (Basil, Nyssa, Nazianzen). It’s really two paradigms but I believe each is faithful to the 1 church. My personal opinion is the Western formulation is more proper and robust. But I don’t deny the East formulation either.
It’s good to know this because not only is it fascinating but more importantly the reason why I believe Grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.
Wow, so blessed to have discovered this channel!
Glad to be connected!
Started this video late last night and had to come back and finish it this morning! Very interesting and insightful discussion! Thanks for your work Gavin! Also, really enjoyed your book on Theological Triage! Finished it last week
Thanks Nate!
I'm glad for this summary, Dr. Ortlund, and I trust your exposition. This has been an interesting subject that I have poked my head in on from the margin, but it is above my head, in large part. For the Lutheran Confession, Divine Simplicity is affirmed, if not explicitly, at least implicitly. But, for Luther, God is known in the Incarnate Son. He doesn't really go beyond that. For example, in many of his Christmas Sermons he will say something like, "Would you know God? Look at the infant in the manger."
In any event, I wonder why this has become such a divide. I have seen Eastern Christians who basically suggest that if you don't affirm the Palamite view, you don't actually know God. This seems an over assertion.
It’s so interesting to find some points of continuity between The Lutheran and Eastern Orthodox traditions. For example, it sometimes seems like they have a shared emphasis upon discomfort with speculation and some modes of scholasticism (this is sparked by your comment about Luther). Obviously they have profound differences as well.
@@TruthUnites Anselm, Gregory Palamas, and Luther. All three monks. Hmm…
@@mj6493 that settles it I'm becoming a monk.
@@TruthUnites A Baptist monk? XD
Saint Gregory Palamas is also a Catholic Saint. He is venerated liturgically in the Byzantine Catholic Churches on the second Sunday of Lent. It’s known as Palamas Sunday.
Anyone can be a saint in Catholicism as long as they commemorate the pope
@@όαγωνιστής-θ6θ but here Gregory Palamas says about the carholics πειθήνιοι του σατανά meaning that they obey and follow satan blindly
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας I am orthodox, I was making a joke at the expense of Uniates.
Love this video. It's always good to resist the temptation of triumphalism and I think that this video is a good presentation of your position.
Thank you Suhao!
Thank you very much. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. After watching the William Lane Craig video on eastern orthodoxy, it's interesting how this experiencing God is very reminiscent of Pentecostalism and their experiences of the Holy Spirit.
Thank you again for a great video!
It's no surprise that the group that is most open to Orthodoxy is charismatics, due to the heavy emphasis on experiencing God in both traditions, rather than just knowing about Him in thought.
This was a very good reflection. I found the Triads to be the richest and most mysterious book on theology I've ever read. I think the reason Palamas is so difficult is because his theology is grounded in mystical experience, which he claims is the highest form of knowledge. He was then forced to provide rational arguments to support the mystical theology of hesychasm, but the argument he proposes is not the same thing as the reality he is referring to. This seems to be the paradox that mystics are always confronted with. He even feared his arguments were offered in vain because they are sort of like describing the sweet taste of honey to someone who has never tasted honey. Only direct mystical experience can truly teach what he was describing. And that leaves us in a difficult position when trying to evaluate hesychasm. The purity of heart that Gregory refers to, I think, does not just refer to moral purity, but a serious change in consciousness. In Gregory's view, God is not hiding from us, but rather we are hiding from God in all sorts of psychological ways without even knowing it. It's like our default state of consciousness. This raises so many questions, but I think the important point is that we have to be careful to not get caught up in the intellectual process of splitting hairs between Palamites and Thomists, but rather re-orient our lives so that God can truly cleanse the eye of our heart. I sometimes wonder if this is even possible outside of a monastic way of living.
In reality Saint Gregory Palamas says all those as a bishop to the people all those says from him are not said to some elite but are for all the believers in Christ to experience.
I too have read the Greek fathers, and while Palamas does reflect what many of them said with respect to that in respect to God which comes down to us, he misrepresents what they taught with respect to the Godhead itself, who generally were of the opinion that God Himself (viz. Father-Son-Spirit) is Enhypostatic Light, that is, Light according to essence, hence the creedal definition of Nicea, 'the Son is only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light, homousian with the Father', to wit, on the basis of their identity as Enhypostatic (viz., substantially existing) Light. St. Athanasius (De Decretis 24) and St. Basil (Letter 52.2 to the Canonicae) both confirm that this was the intended teaching of the Council of Nicea. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy, won over to the teaching of Gregory Palamas, who taught that "God is Light not according to His essence but according to His energy" (cf. Against Akindynos, PG 150, 823A), anathematizes those who maintain that the Divine Light is synonymous with the Divine Essence. Essentially the Synodikon has anathematized the Nicene Creed, and this is the pernicious result of Palamas' error. Many Greek fathers (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, Didymus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodoret, etc.) employed Hebrews 1:3 "brightness of glory" with the specific purpose of refuting the Arian heresy by arguing that this scripture proved the homousian between Father and Son, but some of them temporized between accepting that this phrase speaks with respect to the uncreated light, at one time, and trying to argue at other times that it referred either to the created sun and its brightness (Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa), or to fire and its brightness (Theodoret, John of Damascus), in order to defend their apophatic theology, but inasmuch as Hebrews 1:3 is a gloss on Wisdom 7:26, "brightness of eternal light", their arguments are untenable, and the Latin fathers are more correct in understanding this scripture as indicating unity of essence on the basis of the uncreated light itself. Let us take Palamas' interpretation of John Chrysostom to highlight his less than truthful exposition of patristic teaching. While he correctly cites Chrysostom's teaching in his Homily on John that John 3:35 "Spirit without measure" expresses the energy of the Spirit, in his work 150 Chapters, he fails to inform his readers that Chrysostom also taught, in regard to the Son giving witness to Himself before men: “it is sufficient that He [the Son] only exhibit His unveiled essence...for no one is able to bear the assault of that unapproachable light” (ήρκει δείξαι μόνον εαυτόν όστις ήν γυμνή τη ουσία...μηδενός δυναμένου την απρόσιτον εκείνην του φωτός προσβολήν ενεγκείν). [Homily VI.1 On the Gospel of John]. Moreover, in John's work On the Incomprehensible Nature of God he makes the following observations: In Sermon 3.27 John speaks of ἀκράτῳ οὐσίᾳ (unmixed essence) and the vision of the “likeness of the glory of the Lord” (ὁμοιώματος δόξης Κυρίου) seen by angels, who therefore do not see the glory of the Lord itself, in its unmixed nature. In Sermon 3.15 John also referred to the ἄκρατον φῶς (unmixed light). And so correlating Sermon 3.15 with Sermon 3.27, we have ἄκρατον φῶς = ἀκράτῳ οὐσίᾳ = δόξης Κυρίου. That is, in God, light = glory = essence. Thus John teaches, respecting the Godhead, while affirming that God communicates unto creatures through His energies. Palamas fails to make this distinction in his own writings, and only cites Chrysostom where he agrees with his teaching, and fails to disclose where he diverges from his teaching, which is fundamentally dishonest on his part, and he is rightly criticized for urging the Eastern Church to anathematize those who did not agree with his half representation of Eastern Patristic teaching. The Latin fathers, e.g. Pope Leo the Great, Sermon 51.2-6, teach that the uncreated light of Godhead is tempered when revealed to men in the flesh, but seen as it is face to face in the age to come (cf. Augustine, De Vivendo Deo, Leo, Sermon 51.2). In De Vivendo Deo St. Augustine correlates Ex 33:18-20, Math 18:10, 1 Cor 13:12, Jn 1:18, and 1 Jn 3:2 into a coherent whole, while Chrysostom founders when he tries to dismiss Mt 18:10 'the angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven', because of its obvious reference to Ex 33:20 'no MAN can see my face and live', which latter scripture the Eastern fathers are wont to employ for the purpose of defending their apophatic theology. They do, however, have one scripture in their favor, Isaiah 6:2: 'the seraphim covered their face with their wings' in the presence of God, which Augustine does not address. There is no need to bring in Scholastic theology either to criticize Palamas, who overturns the Nicene faith of the undivided Church, or to enter the lists with the Greek fathers with respect to the vision of God. The Latin fathers and Scholastic theologians do not have as good a grasp as the Greeks do of grace as 'the energizing of God's power within us' (cf. Eph 3:7), but on the whole their theology is more consistent, and they are not arguing out of both sides of their mouth that Hebrews 1:3 demonstrates that the Father and Son are homousian, but that the reference to the Father's glory in that passage is referenced to material sunlight and fire, which is simply preposterous.
@@thomaspalmieri6038I have found you again! I hope Thomas to read your work(I understand you to be writing) on the historicity and tenability of St. Gregory Palamas and his partisans "Essence-Energy" distinction.
"The energies are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His energies, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His energies come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach." - St. Basil The Great
"No man is Truth, Wisdom, Justice; but many are partakers of Truth, Wisdom, and Justice. But God alone is exempt from any participating: and anything which is in any degree worthily predicated of Him is not an attribute, but His very Essence." - St. Leo The Great
"That, in partaking of the Nature of God, we are partakers, not of the bare, non-hypostatic grace that is from Him, but of the Living and subsisting Holy Spirit Himself; and that the entire Trihypostatic God is called Grace and the Son and the Spirit are together Grace and each of them in particular is called Grace; while, again, what is created and effected by them is also, equivocally, called Grace." - Blessed John Kyparissiotes
My schools a serious Catholic school but we have an orthodox and Protestant teachers who are serious about their faith and understand philosophy. It’s beautiful to have real diversity of thought. I will never forget the debate in the hallway between my philosophy teacher and the orthodox literature teacher about this very topic. I’m catholic the main stumbling points about essence energy for me are: if you can’t fully grasp the essence of God what purpose are the divine attributes if you aren’t knowing God himself through them. Second, can you love someone without fully knowing them, we only will experience Gods energies in heaven not himself, but can you fully love someone you don’t fully know? Third is just why can’t I worship goodness itself the orthodox God seems to fall victim to euthemphros delema
Interesting rendition. Thanks Garvin
1:04:00 I'm grateful you're addressing this... There is a lot of anti-West sentiment surfacing on the internet that is very one sided (and I would say, short sighted). I'm by no means naive about the evils of the West but it's absurd to put forth the idea that the East has had no significant hand in the state of the modern world today.
Stepping into the Orthodox paradigm has truly given a new dimension to my Christian life. I’ve described it as going from a 2d drawing to a 4D drawing. I’ve been aided by the book “orthodox psychotherapy”. It seems to me that the essence energy distinction is crucial for drawing a clear line between the Christian paradigm and the major points of the Hindu paradigm.
Right on Gavin.
Another aspect to consider in respect to the energies, is free will in the eschaton. How is free will played out through the energies vs the beatific vision
As a former evengelical the has recently converted to Orthodoxy i appreciate this video. This topic is very advanced and shouldnt be taken lightly or too "rationally" but allow God to reveal himself to you through your relationship with him. Top notch work though this is something in 25 years of being an evangelical noone would touch this with a stick im glad to see people exploring it though.
Understanding energeia as metaphysically irreducible activity, the act itself, clears a lot of this up. For the act is the act of the being with the power to act, and the power of act arises from the essence. And so the energies flow from, are grounded in, and thereby reflect the essence. Still, the energies are metaphysically distinct from the essence, just as our act of thinking is distinct from our mind. And on simplicity, the essence can be one, while the activities of that one can be genuinely many. Assuming a naive dualism: the mind can be a simple entity, an essence (ousia), and yet have multiple, truly distinct mental activities and processes.
Thomas thinks the essence of God just is an activity--its the act of being itself, subsistence subsisting. So for Thomas all the divine acts (energies) are genuinely one--God acts once, for all time, and that act is the essence of God. (There's many problems with this, although I'm sure they could be dealt with.)
One interesting thing here is that these are two different conceptual models, and we're picking which one is "best," not just by asking what is most probable or coherent, but by asking which is more beautiful or good, and thus which is more fitting of God. For me, the Thomist view has too many cracks in it--problems, conceptual difficulties, that, while able to be overcome, strains the conceptual model too much. But that's how we choose between models, not direct refutation, but by feeling that one is a bit too burdensome.
Finally, all this has really interesting implications for philosophy of science and arguments for God from natural laws (ie Swinburne). I've written a bit on this. But in short, the idea that laws of nature are Gods continual activities (energies) holding the world together is mind blowing. It would mean that our being, the being of beings, is literally a continual act of God, the act of holding together. And so all beings are constituted by an activity of God, and thus all beings are divine, and all being is good insofar as it is being.
Yes the issue isnt that the east puts something between God and creation, its that it puts something a level above God's actuality
Great video, as always! I suppose my sympathy towards the essence-energies distinction comes from something you briefly mentioned which is the problem of modal collapse. That is, if God is necessary in His essence (and His essence is simple), how is the world contingent if it emerges from His power (i.e. His necessary essence)? I suppose this has been my main hangup with the classical Western conception of God.
The distinction was not lost on Spinoza. He believed that because God's essence is simple, and is the cause of all things, all facts are metaphysically necessary.
I think it makes sense to say something like God's act of creating the world is non-deterministic.
Btw. I just finished Hills to Die On. Thank you for writing that. The distinctions you gave were incredibly helpful.
so glad to hear that, thanks!
Beautiful summation, Gavin. I'm a Catholic convert & I THOROUGHLY enjoyed your analysis of the respected traditions. VERY well done. Truly, thank you dearly for all that you do on this channel. As usual, far more light than heat.
Btw, just out of curiosity, have you done any videos on the doctrine of IMPASSABILITY? If so I'd love to check them out.
Again, thank you, Gavin.
Have you considered a debate/discussion with Jay Dyer on the E/E distinction? It would be great to hear a cross examination from two people familiar with the primary sources.
@@theodosios2615oesn't mean he's wrong.
His debates with Trent Horn, Dillahunty, Professor Malpass, and Classical Theist, among many others prove he's more than capable of being formal. His edgy side comes out when it's informal. Even then there's nothing wrong with that. Cries of being mean are so weak.
@@theodosios2615 I doubt you even know what EO's epistemology is. If you think theological debates are futile that just shows you don't believe in your own epistemology. Sounds arbitrary.
Great video, thanks for sharing your perspective! I'd be very interested to know your thoughts on Theosis :)
Great video! Very helpful! This reminds me of the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. Herman Bavinck, the Dutch Reformer, puts it this way, "[The communicable attributes] tell us that this God who is so infinitely exalted and sublime nevertheless also dwells in all His creatures, is related to all His creatures, and possesses all those virtues which in a derived and limited way are also proper to his creatures. He is not only a God afar off but is also a God nearby. He is not only independent and unchangeable, eternal and omnipresent, but also wise and mighty, just and holy, gracious and merciful. He is Elohim not only but Jehovah." Seems like communicable attributes are like the energies and incommunicable like the essence.
Dr. Ortlund can you please list some of the books you use for your research?
The book Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy is a great little collection (as often, the quality from one contribution to another can vary). David Bradshaw, John Meyendorff, Vladimir Lossky are all good starting points. Hope that helps.
@@TruthUnites Thanks, yes!! And for future videos if you can gives us starting points that would be great. You are truly a blessing! Thanks again.
Gavin, I think you may find St Isaac the Syrian's view on knowledge. I did my thesis on his 3 levels of knowledge, and I believe he answers your concerns about "there is no way going beyond intellectual concepts". His view is that natural knowledge only leads to fear, it has its purpose, but it leaves us in darkness. The 2nd level is that of the soul, that leads us to goodness, and finally the 3rd level, the spiritual level which leads us to the unspeakable holiness, where we can only but participate in it, and not "attain" it per se.
This sounds super interesting do you agree with St Isaac’s account?
@@Jimmylad. I do. I think St Isaac expresses knowledge far better than anyone else, including philosophers. And, we currently find ourselves in a world devoted to the first level, and the first level alone.
@@bellingdog I am confused as to the distinction between the second and third level
It would be amazing if you could either edit these into short form videos or make some short form videos on these topics to cover the broad understanding of these issues.
this is a wonderful explanation. thank you
There is this interesting remark in C.S. Lewis's essay on Friendship:
"I was once at some kind of conference where two clergymen, obviously close friends, began talking about 'uncreated energies' other than God. I asked how there could be any uncreated things except God if the Creed was right in calling Him the 'maker of all things visible and invisible.'"
A valid question, I think. What are your thoughts on that question?
how interesting! Did not pick that up in Lewis. Does he say anything more about what kind of clergymen they were? I agree with Lewis' question, and it gets at the first of my three points of disagreement I mentioned in the video, concerning simplicity.
@@TruthUnites He doesn't say. After he asked the question, he said they laughed at him, and never answered the question. He was utilizing the account as an anecdote of how Friendship can tend toward arrogance, which despises anyone on the outside.
@@marcuswilliams7448 ah, interesting. I will have to look that up, thanks for mentioning it
@@TruthUnites Sure thing. It is toward the end of the essay. I read it off a scanned, public domain version and I don't think the page numbers match the latest edition, otherwise I'd let you know that.
The Orthodox Church rejects the idea that there is a scholastic 'real distinction' between the essence and energy. The only individual to hold this position, as far as I'm aware, was Myenedorff (and Farrell, but he's not Orthodox). Even Bradshaw, in "Essence and Energies: What type of Distinction" says that's it's a formal-type of distinction.
Here's what St. Gregory says about the *type* of distinction:
"… but dividing the indivisible conceptually and recognizing their [essene-energy] different for us, but not distancing them and separating them from each other.” - Letter to Gabras
Here's how the Council of Constantinople, 1351 defines the type of distinction:
"But the fact that there is no interval, but we are obliged to separate them mentally, and that the difference between prior and posterior [essence-energy] is contemplated only in the mind, it appears beyond doubt that the need for union is very piously confirmed, and that no injury is inflicted on this union as a result of the distinction, but the union is asserted theologically to be unconfused and the difference is taught in every way to be indivisible."
Here's St. Philotheus Kokkinos explains the distinction (Patriarch of Constantinople during the Hesychast controversy and St. Gregory's biographer):
"To see that essence and energy are not in every aspect one and the same thing, but are united and inseparable and yet are distinguished only conceptually, pay attention to how the saints state that these things are two and testify both to their unity and distinctiveness… Hence we do not state that there are two deities or Gods, as they slander us; instead, what we state on the basis of what we have learnt from the saints is that this Deity, which is participated in by those who are deified, is not a proper essence or substance, but a natural power and energy present within God Himself, the Holy Trinity, absolutely inseparable and indivisible, the difference being only conceptual… The holy Fathers and Doctors, as we have already said, even if they say that God’s essence is one thing and His energy is another thing, conceive of the energy-and they write thus-as inseparable and indivisible from the essence, as proceeding from it and as having existence and being present only in this very essence, since the separation (or, better, the difference) is construed only conceptually. Thus, in the case of those things which have their existence in other things, but do not subsist or exist autonomously in themselves, one does not speak of composition, as we have said.”
You also don't seem to have a great grasp of the notion of enhypostaton. Enhypostaton is the *mode* by which essence subsists. Essence only exists in the mode of hypostasis (enhypostaton). When an essence is hypostatized, so too is the energy. For comprehensive treatment, I would recommend a paper titled, "A World of Hypostases, John of Damascus' Rethinking of Aristotle's Categorical Ontology," by Christophe Erismann.
Further, it's clear from the primary material, that God's energy is ontologically one and is not something other than the divine essence, but rather is the mode of the divine essence towards us. The 'energies' are predetermined, eternally foreknown unions that God forms with His creatures. It is through/by these unions that God's activity/energy is diversified into the divine names (goodness, love, life, wisdom, etc.).
"Therefore, any particular good that one might conceive of is found in it, or rather, the supreme mind is both that good and beyond it. And anything in the supreme mind that one might conceive of is a good, or rather, goodness and a goodness which transcends itself. Life too is found in it; or rather, the supreme mind is itself life, for life is a good and life in it is goodness. Wisdom too is found in it; or rather, it is itself wisdom, for wisdom is a good and wisdom in it is goodness; and similarly, with eternity and blessedness in general any good that one might conceive of. And there is no distinction there between life and wisdom and goodness and the like, for that goodness embraces all things collectively, unitively and in utter simplicity… But that goodness is not only identical with that which is truly conceived by those who think with a mind endowed with divine wisdom and speak of God with a tongue moved by the Spirit; as ineffable and inconceivable, it is also beyond these things, and is not inferior to the unitive and supernatural simplicity.” - Capita, C. 34
"The divine transcendent being is never named in the plural. But the divine and uncreated grace and energy of God is divided indivisibly according to the image of the sun’s ray which gives warmth, light, life and increase, and sends its own radiance to those who are illumined and manifests itself to the eyes of those who see. In this way, in the manner of an obscure image, the divine energy of God is called not only one but also many by the theologians. For example, Basil the Great says….” -ibid, C. 68
“As it has been made clear above by Basil the Great, the theologians treat the uncreated energy of God as multiple in that it is indivisibly divided… since it is not the substance but the energy of God, for this reason it is treated not only in the singular but also in the plural. It is bestowed proportionately upon those who participate and, according to the capacity of those who receive it, it instills the divinizing radiance to a greater or lesser degree.” - ibid, C. 69
"He admits that we believe that there is only one reality that transcends all, and this bears testimony that we call this super-essential reality that one God. The divine light is not essence but an activity, an energy of the essence which, as we said, is one and transcends all and is always active. But even if we called this energy inseparable from that one essence, still that super-essentiality would not be composite. For truly no essence would ever be simple if this were the case. It is impossible to find any essence whatsoever without a natural energy.” - Triads, 3.1.24
"(KEY) Moreover, when we say that someone acquires wisdom through effort and study, we do not call wisdom the effort and the study itself, but the result of it. After all, the Lord comes and dwells in men in different ways according to the worthiness and the way of life of those who seek him. Christ comes in one way to the active man and in another way to the contemplative man…” - ibid, 3.1.28
Finally, there's absolutely nothing novel in St. Gregory Palamas. A read through the Philokalia shows that he was merely drawing on the patristic framework of mystical theology, already in place. Read St. Andrew of Crete and St. John of Damascus on the light of Tabor; St. Maximus on uncreated grace and 'energies with a beginning;' St. Dionysius on the transcendence of the essence and the processions of Goodness, etc.
Hi Cult! Thanks for the comment! I don't have time for an in-depth reply, but I do want to note that the idea that only Meyendorff sees the essence-energies distinction as a real distinction is not correct. That is a view represented by many scholars. I can produce some examples if you want. I will try to get back more later. Thanks again.
@@TruthUnites please do show examples.
here are some examples in addition to meyendorff:
1) Vladimir Lossky, "if we deny the real distinction between essence and energy, we cannot fix any clear borderline between the procession between the procession of the divine persons and the creation of the world" (The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church, p. 73).
2) John Romanides, "Note on the Palamite Controversy and Related Topics," argues that it is Barlaam, not Palamas, who holds to a merely formal distinction between essence and energies. He describes Palamas' view, in contrast to this, as a "real distinction between essence and energy in God." I cannot link to this but I am sure you can find it online if you search for it where he draws this out at greater length.
3) I have seen Gabriel Bunge cited in favor of affirming a real distinction between essence and energy, but I have not yet personally tracked down the citations to confirm this.
4) That Gregory affirms a real distinction is the common view among Western interpreters of Palamas. Here is how Bernard Shultze put it (summarizing Palamas): "there is a real distinction in God between his nature and his energies" (p. 391 of Encyclopedia of Theology, ed. by Karl Rahner). Here is how Gerard Mathijsen puts it: "Gregory accepted a real, ontological distinction between the essence and the energies of God--an error which had been avoided by earlier Fathers and is surmounted by contemporary neo-Palamism, but which caused regrettable incoherences in the synthesis of this great spiritual master" (Cistercian Studies, vol. 7, p. 258).
5) It is also commonly spoken of as a real distinction in popular discussion. I am aware of course that some modern interpreters deny this view, most notably David Bentley Hart and Anna Williams, but these two are often criticized in this regard and others, as I'm sure you are aware.
6) I am not sure who you mean by Farrell. Did you mean John Farrelly? If so, I was not familiar with him but upon examination I find that he also maintains that Gregory makes a real distinction between God's essence and energies.
7) I cannot agree with you that Bradshaw speaks of it as merely a formal distinction; on my reading of Bradshaw's work, his view does not neatly fit in either the "real" or "formal" categories.
Hope this helps!
@@TruthUnites 1) Lossky doesn't mean 'real distinction' in the scholastic sense (i.e., divisibility, contrariety and/or separability) but as in an 'actual distinction' with a basis in reality (not a nominal distinction). This is what the Orthodox affirm.
2) Romanides may, like Meyendorff, affirm a scholastic real distinction. It wouldn't surprise me.
3)
4) Polemicists have often misunderstood and misrepresented St. Gregory, for a variety of reasons. Parisian Orthodox did the same in the 20th century. For a very good summary of the historical dynamics surrounding St. Gregory, refer to Russell's "Gregory Palamas and the Making of Palamism in the Modern Age." Russell has some interesting/relevant content on the matter:
"Loudovikos denies that Palamas makes a formal division between essence and energies the way that Milbank suggests, rightly claiming that the distinction in Palamas is kat’epinoian - ‘not a separation but an expression of the fundamental distinction between will and essence in God which is not of course a separation either… The divine energies are God as he manifests himself ad extra, which does not imply in a symmetrical fashion that the essence is God ad intra, for the essence is God as he is in himself.” - pp. 224
5) Not sure what you mean by 'popular discourse.' Are you referring to RUclipsrs?
6) Joseph Farrell
7) Have you read the paper I cited? He explicitly denies that it's a Thomistic real distinction and says it's more akin to a Scotistic formal distinction (which is wrong too).
@@cultofmodernism8477
On 1), I'd be curious for your evidence for that assertion. I am not the only one who has understood Lossky in that way, but it could be a misreading.
On 4), Bradshaw has a good critical response offering some strictures to Loudovikos' assertion that the distinction is kat’epinoian. It's at the back of the Divine Essence and Divine Energies book I referenced.
I think you left (3) blank.
On (7), yes, I have, and I must have missed him saying that--I actually took him to be offering a much more nuanced view that qualifies the meanings of the terms "formal" and "real" as they are generally used with reference to distinctions.
All in all, I think it is clear that the interpretation that the essence energies distinction in Gregory is a real distinction is not limited to Meyendorff but rather a common view. I can give more examples if you like.
Good discussion.
Essence in practice for Orthodox Christians is our walk with Christ experientially in the practice of a more ascetic prayer life.
To become ‘like Christ’ is the participation in His energies. (Theosis applies here)
However, we can never become His ‘Essence ‘or a 4th member of the Trinity, (I hope this distinction is clear).
Our view of creation and fellow man is informed by this view that everything is held together by Gods Energies. God is in Control, Lord of All, Creator.
I’m very unfamiliar with this subject. Cant wait to learn more about it!
Que vídeo fascinante! Meu Deus, quanto aprendizado eu pude obter aqui. Penso que você finalizou o vídeo com chave de ouro, Gavin, e foi bastante respeitoso ao tratar o tema a partir de uma visão mais ecumênica, ou melhor, mais amorosa.
Thank you! I have an EO friend who introduced me to Lossky, in approaching this discussion!
How about doing a video on "Thomism vs Molinism"? William Lane Craig debated Prof. Paul Helm on "Molinism vs Calvinism" and Molinism won by a mile.
Interesting idea, will have to check out that debate. I'm hoping to engage those issues more in the future. At present I still feel I have a lot to learn before I'd be equipped for such a video. Thanks for the suggestion though.
As I slowly fly closer to the waterfall I cannot help but ask my self "what is the problem with rupturing Divine simplicity - if the distinction is otherwise true?"
My experience is that God our Father changes our energy of worldly willful self deception back into his pure essence energy. But to do this we have to submit it to him for renewal through constant prayer and humility obedience to his will. A "let your will be done" living mindset. If we seek God or to be like God through our will, then we remain spiritually dead to willful energy that is very pleasing to our fallen senses, and can appear to the deceived as christ like.
As a Catholic that's a really great video! Thank you, it helped me understand better this topic, even though I still didn't get everything 😅
Great stuff!
Well done! Thank you
Love these video essays your putting out. Do you think that you could do one on two of my favorite theologians Maximus the confessor and Ephrem the Syrian?
Also if you want a lot of insight into those two thinkers I recommend having a conversation with Jonathan Pageau
Excellent video! I would just like to comment that there are different schools of thought on how real the distinction is between essence and energies in modern Orthodox thought and this continues to be a point of discussion amongst theologians. The view of Dimitri Stanoloe would be the closest to the Thomist view and from my reading appears to be almost indistinguishable from Western doctrines of absolute divine simplicity. You might find his views quite refreshing
Question: Having listened to this and from other resources, my understanding is that the Thomist tradition would understand the Trinitarian Persons/hypostasis as processio ad intra (necessary to preserve simplicity), and then our creaturely experience of God is His revelation/manifestation of His attributes ad extra - would it be fair to say that the Eastern understanding of energies might be described as an essential (necessary or fundamental) processio ad extra? It seems like it could not be ad intra or else the energies would be a "part" of the Godhead, but it seems that an essential processio ad extra does break simplicity. Or is this trying to put a square (eastern) peg in a round (western) hole? Thank you for the video, and thank you extra if you get to the question.
Thanks so much Dr. Ortlund, this was very helpful!
Any chance you might do a video some time on theosis/participation in God from a Protestant perspective? I know many early church fathers held to it, but some Protestants have had reservations about it, believing it blurs the Creator/creature distinction.
Found your Chanel through your crossover with Capturing Christianity. Sine then I’ve been watching a lot of your stuff. I really appreciate you videos. Always thoughtful and willing to honestly grapple with big issues and ideas. Moreover, you calm and gracious tone has made me open to meditating on many ideas that I otherwise would not have considered.
Thus I’m really curious to hear on your Calvinist perspective. That is a theological position I have always found untenable. I’d love for you to offer an in depth persuasive case for Calvinism.
Thank you Jon. Glad to be connected. I did a video recently called "Calvinism isn't crazy." It has a modest purpose but hopefully could be of use!
@TruthUnites Dr Ortlund you mentioned your curiosity about psychology and spirituality. If you don’t already know, I suggest the book Orthodox Psychotherapy by Metropolitan of Nafpaktos Ierotheos
So very well done
I too have been reading through the church fathers as I can find them on amazon, physical copies not audiobooks nor ebooks. I’m truly enjoying the eastern fathers. I’ve reached the Lateran Councils in my readings but I can’t find a physical copy of them anywhere. I know the later ecumenical councils necessarily part of your tradition on the Christian family tree. But do you know where I could find a physical collection of the Lateran Councils, not commentaries nor summaries but just straight up translations? The help would be much appreciated, thank you.
Hi, Don't know if Denziger's Enchiridion symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum. would be of any use for you. It has ben published since the mid 19th century. One edition was edited by Karl Rahner. It is a compilation of the doctrines of the Catholic Church since the time of the Apostles There is an English translation from the Latin on RUclips
@@stephengriffin4612 thanks man, I just found it from Ignatius press.
@@alpha4IV Glad you found it and got the English translation -unless your Latin is very good. Peace, Steve
Looking forward to this.
Luther critiques Aristotle for not being aware of God’s potential in the Heidelberg disputation. This is not to say that Luther agrees with Palamas, but it is interesting. Likewise, in chapter 23 of the Two Natures of Christ, Chemnitz goes over the arguments from the Reformed on why Christ in the Reformed view, cannot be in the Supper. Chemnitz acknowledges that the scholastics say that God’s essence and energies/attributes are identical. He does not disagree directly but goes on to use the exact arguments and quotes from Irenaeus, the Capadoccians, and Damascus, that Maximus and later Palamas used to prove the essence energy distinction. And throughout the rest of that work, and also in Article 8 of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Chemnitz uses the explanations of the East as to how Christ can be in the Supper. He even distinguishes between God’s essence and His activities, and puts “ενεργια” next to the work activities. So … I would say it is safe to say the Lutherans tend to hold to a little of both, but it seems in my research they lean towards the East. For anyone interested
Have you looked into Abraham Calov's Systema? He grounds his formal distinction in the difference of operations which to my understanding is closer to the Eastern view.
This reminds me of Kant’s Noumena/Phenomena distinction.
This discussion is so very thought provoking in so many ways. I’ll have to look at your treatment of Augustine’s view of deification. I think it’s interesting how some Evangelicals upon discovering this notion in the fathers sometimes fail to put it in relation to their strong creator/creature distinction.
What do you think about the following observation: Immortality was central to the ancients view of divinity. So when Peter speaks of our being made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), he is not speaking of divine attributes generally, but specifically of our being given eternal life as well as moral rectitude (what we might call the communicable divine attributes). This seems to be confirmed in the context by Peter, when he goes on to say this partaking is at the root of escaping the corruption in the world because of sin, and that theosis results in participation in the eternal kingdom.
I sometimes wonder if the ancient’s view of theosis fits Peter’s description or if they go beyond it? I also wonder if modern readers of this idea of theosis risk going beyond Peter’s teaching and misunderstanding it as a sort of quasi-pantheism?
I tend to think the emphasis of theosis should be on a godly immortality and is a nice way of countering an overblown notion of deification. Do you think that contextualization helpful and robust enough?
Thank you for this. I have never been particularly attracted to Thomism (or any -ism). I never can understand what ‘Absolute Divine Simplicity’ means. It sounds meaningful, but is God as a creator “outside” the creation simple? Can the expression ‘simple’ or ‘complex’ be applied to the uncreated God who creates? And would I call Jesus simple? We have the Trinity being prior to creation. Is the Trinity simple or complex? And God does not (and cannot) exist since existence itself was created by God and for God to exist would mean that God created himself.
Surely the deifying energy of God is the normal means of salvation for every Christian? Christification and Theosis are the normal Christian experience, and not simply for a monk on Mount Athos. I get concerned when Gregory then says that I need works to attain it. What works are these? The only work needed is the daily membership of the Kingdom of God and following Jesus at the foot of the cross. And really it’s all found in the words of Jesus. We have John 17:
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
And surely Palamism is simply Christianity? We don’t live but Christ lives in us. We know God now and do not need to wait for a “beatific vision” in the next life. And yet we see now imperfectly. Here is Paul (1 Corinthians 13:12):
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
We are grafted onto the true vine that is Christ. What is the essential difference between Hesychasm and the words of Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18):
16 Rejoice evermore.
17 Pray without ceasing.
18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.
And we have the words of the poet George Herbert:
Teach me, my God and King,
In all things Thee to see,
And what I do in anything
To do it as for Thee.
All may of Thee partake;
Nothing can be so mean,
Which with this tincture-“for Thy sake”-
Will not grow bright and clean.
A servant with this clause
Makes drudgery divine;
Who sweeps a room as for Thy laws,
Makes that and th’ action fine.
This is the famous stone
That turneth all to gold;
For that which God doth touch and own
Cannot for less be told.
So we have God as he is in himself (essence) and God for us (energy). As Job was asked (Job 38:4-30):
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
We have no understanding as Job was told by God. Does Gregory Palamas or Thomas Aquinas take us further than Jesus or Paul (or the book of Job)? We can end with the god of the philosophers, and Pascal clearly saw the difference with experiencing God and the god of the philosophers. Ignorant knowledge is described by Nicholas of Cusa (Cusanus). Can we know the essence of God? Can we even know the essence of another human - or even a pet? And yet we know the Inward Light of Jesus in our heart.
He lives (He lives), He lives (He lives), Christ Jesus lives today
He walks with me and talks with me
Along life's narrow way
He lives (He lives), He lives (He lives), Salvation to impart
You ask me how I know He lives?
He lives within my heart
I liked the talk - thank you. I must read your book.
Hey Gavin, I grew up with a pastor who was pretty versed in new-age/occultic apologetics and often talked about pantheism and panentheism as false. As you were quoting both Aquinas and Gregory a lot of those alarm bells went off in me. Obviously you are interacting with historic Christianity, but the idea that God is in everything would definitely run afoul of the teaching I grew up with. How would you differentiate between both the Thomist and Palamist views and a pantheistic or panentheistic view that is outside the bounds of orthodoxy?
Thomism and Palamism both have mechanisms for distinguishing God from creation, and disproving pantheism. Some defenders of each make them seem pretty pantheistic (DBH), but they seem pretty opposed to pantheism dogmatically.
They don’t believe that God IS everything.
The distinction makes more sense when you look at transubstantiation regards the Eucharist.
Brilliant Video! Glad your back. I think Palamism raises good questions, but still the Thomist position seems more plausible. But I may be missing something.
Is the power that got out of the Lord δύναμις in the text his essence mark 5:30 luke 5:19.
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας Very good question. I don't know. The power could be created, I'm sure you, being Orthodox, won't like that answer.
My question is: If all things are created by the energies, then are not all things just an extension of God, and how is that not panentheism?
Forgive me for my ignorance, what I'm saying might be way off to the Orthodox view.
@@garyboulton2302 so saying created power is like saying that God did not have power eternal .now Paul shows δύναμις power and ενέργεια energy as synonymus 1 cor 6:14 and col 2:12
@@garyboulton2302 He also show the energy of Christ in himself col 1:29 how something that supposed is created can get in a human .
@@garyboulton2302 the act _ energy of God is uncreated the effects can be created... to answer your position about the created things..
So Gavin, would you say these disagreements shows how philosophically different these traditions are coming from? Thomas Aquinas was more Aristotelian, whereas Gregory Palamas was more Platonist? Would not Thomas Aquinas see the Energies as accidents and since God has no accidents then Energies is like saying God is di-theism?
Orthodox church Theologians and saints fathers dont follow any Philosophical methodology to know about Deity. If you read Gregory Palamas works all philosophical methodologies are seen as rubbish when it is about God .The knowledge of God comes from the divine experience of Theosis.The view of his majestic Uncreated Glory δόξα in the original language text of the New Testament.Read the synodicon of orthodoxy and the agioritikos tomos that is the text from the hesychast at mouth Athos written from saint Greogory Palamas. Dont confuse western christian theology methodologies with orthodox church theology.Nothing in common not only in dogma but also in the method they use to know as possible about God
If eastern scholars can characterize Augustine, Anselm and Aquinas, as making God into a solely intellectual, frozen property, they obviously have not read any of the works of these theologians. The more I read of the early church fathers in general both East and west and later scholars like Anselm and Thomas, the more I appreciate the very deeply experiential aspects of their understanding and their doxological method.
How would you respond to the criticism that Aquinas’ absolute divine simplicity commitment leads him to conclude that all of God’s workings in creation are created effects and not actually God himself? And that if all we experience from God are created effects, then we are not really knowing God himself but merely effects that God created?
I caught that too.
My question is how much of this discussion can boil down to an epistemological assumptions.. Plato versus Aristotle to be short. I am being a bit reductionist but that seems to be what is the divergent point.
The Eucharist gives a reality to what the Israelites experienced daily, fed not only in mind but physically also.
The representation that the Protestants understanding e corporates actually is OT understanding of the sacrifice, a representation however Hebrews illustrates the order of Melchizedek is the new reality.
You should reach out to Dr Bradshaw and do an interview on this topic. Dr Bradshaw was instrumental in me becoming Orthodox.
@TruthUnites , Gavin, you say around 51:33 there is a problem with caricature and overly-simple contrasts and give Roy Clouser's comments as an example. Wouldn't you say that the sort of criticism that Clouser offers (even if one disagrees with that criticism) is a *fair* means of criticism?
What I mean is that drawing out what an opponent's view entails, and that entailment is something the opponent rejects, seems legitimate to me. To do this is not the same as saying an opponent explicitly or consciously affirms the entailment, but rather the opposite, namely, that there is something wrong with a given view that entails something an advocate of that view denies.
Would you say that most Eastern doctrines flow from their essence energies understanding?
Another issue that the East brings up, is that of the Logoi from Max the Confessor. Do you have any thoughts on that? Thanks.
The λόγοι saint Maximus says are actually the ενέργειες energies of God .they are the same thing
Concern of "applying creaturely categories to the divine essence" -48:15 (bookmarking for future reference)
Dr. Ortland, do you have a bibliography for the research you did for this video?
Looks like he did meyendorffs book and that's it
@Shining Diamond I held up several books in the video and cited them at length, so it's odd you would claim I restricted it to Meyendorff. Energetic Procession, most of the meatier books I read for this I cited within the video, though there were too many other reference books to cite them all. Lossky's work is one I engaged with a fair amount but did not cite. hope that helps.
@@TruthUnites Soooo, you're going to make me watch it to find out. Got it.
@@EnergeticProcession ah, sorry -- the main ones I quote here, beyond Gregory and other primary sources, were Meyendorff, David Bradshaw, and then this book: Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy
ed. by C. Athanasopoulos and C. Schneider
Will you debate any Eastern Orthodox on these issues
This was very interesting if a little hard to understand. It would also be interesting to hear your perspective on some "classic" Catholic apologists. Hilaire Belloc has some truly misleading essays on Protestantism that are still being printed. He used to be quite famous (I even remember him referenced in a Monty Python sketch) but his books have not aged well.
Gregory has another serious problem you can only access the Father via the Son but his hetchyasm claims to access him without going through the Son in his body and blood. His mysticism opens him to the demonic, like claiming Filioque is false, despite Leo III saying the great mystery of the Filioque should never be disbelieved.
There was an ignorance in the west about saint Gregory Palamas says most if his works are not translated even triads that actually name is about the support of the sacred hesychasts was just a few years before
I think the most frustrating part of learning about divine simplicity and energies is that you sit here and wonder why no one speaks of the personhood? Does not Gods essence become known through the Personhood? God is known through special and general revelation, isnt he? If someone could please give me some material on Personhood and Divine simplicity, that would be much appreciated👍
Seems to me that possibly energies is the essence that we can possibly interact with? God only allowed Moses to see his back, and by doing so he was glowing. Is it possible that in our current condition we are not able to fully able to stand before God? I don't know honest but then I think about how the Holy Spirit now lives within us.
My main problems with Palamism come primarily from my doctrine of God and His revelation.
We are not safe in making doctrines concerning God which are not necessitated by His revelation of Himself. He does reveal His presence to people and, through His Spirit empowers and blesses people, but claiming to gain new and/or authoritative knowledge concerning God Himself should only come via His revelation through Scripture/Prophecy. The creation of doctrine that is authoritative and to be passed down must be based on such revelation alone.
1. That said, the Essence/Energy distinction is put forward as a very real distinction concerning the nature of God Himself, but is a completely unnecessary distinction. As Thomas points out, there is no reason why we can't solve the simplicity/experience "problem" by simply saying that we are made aware of God's essential nature (by His condescension, not our effort), but cannot fully comprehend it (Which is also the simple testimony of scripture). To go further is utterly unnecessitated by Scripture or even by human experience or reason, and doctrinal distinctions that are unnecessary are spiritually unsafe. This is all the more true in doctrine concerning the nature of God. This is a controversy that has no reason to exist, and it concerns God Himself.
The Eastern theologian feels that it is a necessary distinction, but that is because he is acting on false conceptual tendencies. Since Plato (and especially Pseudo-Dionysius who was simply trying to Christianize Neo-Platonism and introduced much pagan thinking into the church through his forgeries), the tendency in the East has been to invision the Divine Essence as such a pure, untouchable, and *attributeless* thing, so that anything pertaining to God has tended towards having to be seperated from Him on some level. Especially as the biblical God clearly has attributes, and is yet one. The Eastern theologian is kept from going into actual emanationism by the strictures of monotheism, yet the tension is still palpable. You get the sense that Gregory was wrestling with completely unnecessary distinctions and paradoxes. He said that something besides God's essential being must be uncreated, because His Providence, Knowledge, etc. were necessary for creation. The fact that this seems obvious to him is telling. But one without a Platonically-tainted conception of God must ask, "Why can't what we refer to as His Providence and Knowledge simply be understood as expressions concerning His essential being? Is God God without knowledge? No? Then what we call 'knowledge' is *essential* to His being." God *is* love. God *is* all-knowing. God *is* omnipotent. These are not ontologically distinct attributes that God *has* , but essential aspects describing His nature. Yet, within His nature, there is no necessary contradiction between what we understand as His attributes. They are manifestations of His single nature of God-ness. But Palamas must assume and wrestle with these completely unnecessary distinctions because His view of the highest essence must be attributeless due to the faulty metaphysics of the Greeks. And that is not based on Scripture but on (originally non-Christian) human reason.
2. Regarding Hesychasm, I am wary of it. Having academically studied the various major religious traditions outside of Christianity, I have some understanding of the nature of certain practices as practices themselves, across the distinctions of religious tradition. Repeating the same highly meanigful phrase in intense meditation dozens, hundreds, or thousands of times while practicing controlled breathing is a proven way to hack into and alter the human experience of consciousness. I could do it while hailing the Divine Spaghetti Monster. It is a psychological hack, not a meeting with the Divine. That the experience seems equally real for Buddhists, Hindus, New Agers, etc. as well as Christians implies that the resulting experience is not based on or reliant on the factual reality of the spirituality of the practitioner. In other words, if a Hindu (praying to a god who doesn't exist and based on a spiritual cosmology and economy that don't exist) can come away from almost identical practices convinced that he/she has experienced Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, etc., then how seriously should we Christians take such experiences as experiences of the one true God?
Either all these experiences are equally valid and thus all the religions equally true, or the experience does not have any direct relation to the spirituality/religion of the pactitioner and is a phenomenon unrelated to spiritual reality.
We should not need such unbiblical tricks to approach God the way He has provided for us. And yes, there are forms of Christian mystical prayer besides the mantric yoga/like practice of Hesychasm. It is not the only option, and I have personally had experiences of God's presence without the need of such rigorous hypnotic ritual.
This issue feeds into the East/West divide in that the Orthodox will expect such practices and the artificially-induced psychological state they produce to be the normal state out of which doctrine and theology are form and the church is led. The Hesychastic monks on Athos are more highly venerated by many than the various metropolitan bishoprics that austensibly lead the Orthodox Churches. The Athos monks place themselves above reproach in doctrine, practice, and behavior primarily because they are those most steeped in "the presence of God" via hesychasm. They would almost supplant the office of Biblical prophet without having to submit to its requirements. When East and West have most promisingly come together in ecumenism, it has been Athos that presented the most supremacist, uncharitable, and pharisaical attitude towards their brothers, including their fellow Orthodox whom they chastized for daring to find common ground with the West. This is what happens when mere spiritual experience is placed above the teachings of Christ and true obedience to His Spirit.
And because the West doesn't rely so heavily on such practices, the East sees them as spiritually sterile and caricature us as having only an intellectual connection to God, while only they have a personal spiritual experience of Him.
Really, they are missing the exact distinction between That which is authoritative and may be reasoned from for doctrine, and That which is a personal expression of spiritual life which is primarily of personal utility. They think, I suppose, that Thomas never prayed his heart out and felt the light of the Spirit in response. The intellectual activity of Thomas and the early Scholastics was not to provide an intellectual religion that spanned all the way from man to God without the need for a personal relationship, but to bolster the intellectual framework of the faith they already held dear and to provide a safe, objective, ground for developing doctrine.
"..must worship in spirit and in truth."
Please read to the end, i think this comment will be helpful to anyone familiar with this video's topic.
To the video's creator - thank you for an illuminating content. Now, as an oriental orthodox christian, I like Thomas Aquinas's work here. I think thomism along with good trinitarian theology can solve some of our difficulties.
First, God is a mystery to creation (Niagra falls vs mosquito example). How a transcendent God creates and interacts with created beings is also a mystery.
But Palamas's concern with a silent God that doesn't have "energies" can be solved by the Word of God i.e. God speaks and has the eternal Word. But "divine energy" lumps the power of God with the works of God and calls both uncreated. But the works of God are creations i.e. created, while the power/word by which God created his works is the uncreated Word of God.
The Word also fulfills thomism's divine simplicity criteria because the Word is of the same essence as God i.e. is truly God.
I'm just a regular christian so this analysis could be wrong, but I hope it helps.
The mistake the western christian do is to read Gregory Palamas through Christian schollars in my opinion as of course todays elders say in orthodoxy , that is a wrong way to approach Gregory Palamas theology
Thank you for the video Dr. Ortlund. Very informative as always. I do have a question for you if you would be inclined to respond please. Dr. Ortlund, are you a pacifist or non resistance?
I'm not a pacifist but I'm not too far from it in that I think the conditions for a truly just war are hard to meet.
@@TruthUnites Thank you for your response, Dr. Ortlund. Recently I have been troubled by this topic and have sense been reading what I can from the early fathers. So far the results have been somewhat conflicting with my current position. I will continue reading and determine a more Informed position. May God bless you.
I lean towards non resistance but I’m still looking into it. I think Christians should have a general attitude of non violence but this is difficult in the USA as we are extremely violent and tribal. The kicker I think are the exceptions (just war, self defense) to be worked out. Stanley Hauerwas is a great resource to start especially on the beatitudes. Bonhoeffer on the beatitudes as well in his book The Cost of Discipleship. From what I can tell Jesus didn’t give modern day qualifiers on loving our enemies and turning the other cheek. Thomas Mertons chapter on War in his work New Seeds of Contemplation is also worthwhile. I also see a large tradition of non violence in the fathers but you also see other opinions as well. Just my 2 cents. I’ve been looking into the beatitudes and non violence for a while now as the beatitudes seems to offer a contrary politic to the world. Thought I’d comment.
@@Athabrose thanks for your response, I will look into what you stated. I too have been leaning more towards a non resistance interpretation and have also read that in nearly all the earliest fathers. And this does seem to be the most plain reading of the text in my opinion.
@@sorenrousseau I agree that non resistance seems to be the majority attitude in the fathers and throughout church history. The beatitudes are a strong point for me. The Cost of Discipleship by martyr Dietrich Bonhoeffer is a great commentary for the plain reading of the beatitudes. He doesn’t equivocate or hold back. It was a game changer for me, by Gods grace. I’ve had to divorce myself from many American ways of thinking and realized just how violent we are as a people, even in the church. I believe in the beatitudes Jesus gives us the politic of the His kingdom up over and against empire and the sword. This is why the martyrs were so courageous. Rome could kill them but could not victimize them. There is nothing empire or government can do to such a beatifically free people. Gods blessings on your journey.
That Palamas guy sounds like a Pentecostal with depth.
The sun and rays metaphor is now known to be a fallacy. We don’t call the rays of the Sun, the Sun, rather we realize the Sun sends forth essence carrying it energies in waves of particles called photons.
Being a protestant myself I am just as concerned with the doctrines of total depravity + original sin in the west and energies in terms of compartmentalism or even semi-agnosticism in the east. The truth is generally found in the middle for anyone that's willing to dive deep enough to find the gate.
@David V I don't see that myself. Nowhere does it say that a person loses his will altogether.
@David V I've never heard of "total inability". Total depravity states that you cannot do anything good due to original sin.
@David V I understand what you're saying sure maybe there some nuance and that's my point. But let's be honest here the terms "total depravity" as a term in face value doesn't really give much nuance given the term....why not just call it partial-depravity then? Does the word total not mean all or complete?
@David V By the way I want to thank you for bringing this term I did not know to my attention. Have a good day brother(:
Hello Gavin,
Great video. I don't think that you touched on what I take to be the most fundamental issue with Palamism. It seems that it reverts to a strict Neoplatonism, which collapses free will and possibly the incarnation. This seems to be why Eric Perl deconverted from Orthodoxy to become a Neoplatonist. He has an article on Palamas you should look at.
In any case I could be totally wrong, but I'm just starting to look into this stuff.
EO rejects Neoplatonism. Neoplatonism and Thomism both have the absolute divine simplicity doctrines.
Can you do a video on how palamism can be compatible with weak panentheism
Actually the theology of saint Gregory Palamas goes against pantheism
@@ΓραικοςΕλληνας soft panENthesim