Can the Orthodox define what "Uncreated Energy from the Holy Spirit is"?

[Gabriel_of_12]

The Holy Spirit Himself is not “uncreated energy,” anymore than the Father is of the Son is. Uncreated energies from the Holy Spirit, or from the Father, or from the Son, are those eternal attributes of God, such as love, grace, mercy, etc. Anything that God “is,” apart from the divine essence and the three Persons, is an uncreated energy, for God does not change.

So uncreated energy is “love, grace, mercy” coming from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Do you consider God’s wrath, judgement to be an uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit?

What can trigger an uncreated energy?

If something triggers an uncreated energy, does this triggering define creating an uncreated energy?

I am trying to grasp your understanding of uncreated energy. I am almost there.

I have to admit upon contemplating this uncreated energy has taken my theology thru leaps and bounds in a good and enlightening way. This subject has opened alot of windows and doors to much enlightenment for me.

But not sure I have grasped it yet?

I would like to mention that the JW’s believe that the Holy Spirit himself is not God, but an energy of God that produces an action of God. So I am trying hard to discipher that the JW’s belief does not taint your belief of uncreated energy. That is why my inquiry.

 

[RyanBlack]

So uncreated energy is “love, grace, mercy” coming from the Father, Son and Holy Spirit?

Do you consider God’s wrath, judgement to be an uncreated energy of the Holy Spirit?

What can trigger an uncreated energy?

If something triggers an uncreated energy, does this triggering define creating an uncreated energy?

I am trying to grasp your understanding of uncreated energy. I am almost there.

Anything that is an attribute, or trait, or characteristic or God is an uncreated energy, for God does not change. God has never been without love, or mercy, or grace, etc. Yet none of these traits, or energies, defines God’s essence. Operations, or energies is the label they have been given by the Eastern Christian tradition. Personally, I would rather call God’s justice an uncreated energy, as opposed to God’s wrath. When we live in opposition to God, we encounter God’s justice as judgment or wrath.

As to what triggers an uncreated energy, I would not use that particular terminology. We encounter God’s energies through the liturgy, through receiving the sacraments, through prayer, through the sacramentals, and through our interactions with other believers.

As to your last question, I’m not sure how best to make sense of it. How can that which is uncreated be created (I don’t mean to be sarcastic)?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Anything that is an attribute, or trait, or characteristic or God is an uncreated energy, for God does not change. God has never been without love, or mercy, or grace, etc. Yet none of these traits, or energies, defines God’s essence. Operations, or energies is the label they have been given by the Eastern Christian tradition. Personally, I would rather call God’s justice an uncreated energy, as opposed to God’s wrath. When we live in opposition to God, we encounter God’s justice as judgment or wrath.

As to what triggers an uncreated energy, I would not use that particular terminology. We encounter God’s energies through the liturgy, through receiving the sacraments, through prayer, through the sacramentals, and through our interactions with other believers.

As to your last question, I’m not sure how best to make sense of it. How can that which is uncreated be created (I don’t mean to be sarcastic)?

Nice post thank you;

If my action triggers an uncreated energy to respond, then I have created the motion of the uncreated energy to move?

Does this action that triggers a response from the uncreated energy to respond, places more power in the triggering action that caused the uncreated energy to move, or does the uncreated energy have more power over my action that triggered the uncreated energy?

In other words; Is this uncreated energy the divine will of God?

 

[RyanBlack]

Nice post thank you;

If my action triggers an uncreated energy to respond, then I have created the motion of the uncreated energy to move?

Does this action that triggers a response from the uncreated energy to respond, places more power in the triggering action that caused the uncreated energy to move, or does the uncreated energy have more power over my action that triggered the uncreated energy?

In other words; Is this uncreated energy the divine will of God?

Uncreated energy is God, just not God’s essence. Remember, God is love, God is mercy, God is grace, God is goodness, God is justice, etc. So even your action to “trigger” the response of one of God’s uncreated energies is itself a response to God’s uncreated energies. In other words, it is only by the grace of God (an uncreated energy) that we can take an action that will elicit a response from God. So, in terms of your question, the uncreated energy that is grace has more power over our actions than our actions have over the uncreated energies that they “trigger,” since, ultimately, the uncreated energies are indeed God. I don’t think we can ever say that we hold power over God.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Uncreated energy is God, just not God’s essence. Remember, God is love, God is mercy, God is grace, God is goodness, God is justice, etc. So even your action to “trigger” the response of one of God’s uncreated energies is itself a response to God’s uncreated energies. In other words, it is only by the grace of God (an uncreated energy) that we can take an action that will elicit a response from God. So, in terms of your question, the uncreated energy that is grace has more power over our actions than our actions have over the uncreated energies that they “trigger,” since, ultimately, the uncreated energies are indeed God. I don’t think we can ever say that we hold power over God.

Thank you RyanBlack for your response.

So the essence of God is different from the uncreated energy of God.

One more question and I believe I will have an elementary understanding of your uncreated energy of God. I think what threw me off is when one poster attributed the uncreated energy “from” the Holy Spirit, which drew my speculation, here is why below.

Scripture reveals that God is Spirit. So you are stating that the uncreated energy of God is not His essence “being”, but an attribute of God that comes from God in the form of Love, Grace and Mercy?

When God created creation from His Word, His uncreated energy created?

If the uncreated energy created from the Word of God, was there ever a time that the uncreated energy left God’s essence being (Spirit)?

I promise these are the last questions to put to you, because I don’t mean to go to far off topic here.

Thanks and peace be with you

 

[GaryTaylor]

Uncreated energy is God, just not God’s essence. Remember, God is love, God is mercy, God is grace, God is goodness, God is justice, etc. So even your action to “trigger” the response of one of God’s uncreated energies is itself a response to God’s uncreated energies. In other words, it is only by the grace of God (an uncreated energy) that we can take an action that will elicit a response from God. So, in terms of your question, the uncreated energy that is grace has more power over our actions than our actions have over the uncreated energies that they “trigger,” since, ultimately, the uncreated energies are indeed God. I don’t think we can ever say that we hold power over God.

Nice post, I agree. Anything that implies God acting according to our will I see as totally incorrect. IMHO its the complete act of placing oneself before the Cross and the Lord with a conscious effort to follow His will in complete unwavering Faith. Then its “thy will be done”

Interesting post though. But yes, Love, Grace, Mercy and Justice.

 

[Marybeloved]

Uncreated energy is God, just not God’s essence. Remember, God is love, God is mercy, God is grace, God is goodness, God is justice, etc.

Here’s the reason why I think the Eastern essence/Energies distinction is different from Western understanding of God. This things you list here, God’s goodness, mercy, love, justice- To us, they are in no way “not” his essence; They cannot be said in any way to be distinct from God’s essence . They are all exactly ONE thing, the very substance of God which is simple, without distinction and ONE essence. God’s goodness is the same “thing” as his mercy, as his justice, power, wisdom etc. He’s the fullness of being without limit- To us very limited beings who don’t possess the fullness of being, we can think of beauty, goodness, power, as different ways of being- In God they are absolute and only one unlimited existence.

So this analogy never makes sense to me because the East insists that God’s energies are not God’s essence (To the West, not being God’s essence makes then NOT God, because the essence is exactly what God is and because God is not made of two parts- He’s one undivided essence, Absolute Divinity through and through).

The only way it can make sense to us is making a distinction between:

• God’s acts in regards to creation (which are outside the Divine being and have a beginning when that creature acted upon comes to be or is created). The acts are created (have a beginning) but the Gift conferred is Divinity- God himself in his essence. He communicates himself according to the capacities (limited) of the creature and no more.
• God in himself- This refers strictly to the Divine being from Eternity and is all essence because it’s who God is independently of anything not God.

My main confusion with the E/E distinction is how they insist that energies are God’s manifestation to creatures (which makes them dependent on creatures) and yet “uncreated”- thereby making them part of God’s being from eternity. But God’s being is absolutely INdependent of creatures- God does not have to create- So how can we conceive of any part of his being being in anyway all about communicating with what is not God? That seems to me to fall into the trap of many non-christian monotheisms which see God in himself as a creator! Almost as if God has to create; Or it’s his nature to create - But God does not have to create- it’s purely an act of freedom. Nothing but God has to exist- so how can any part of God’s being (energies) be all about creatures? And if not, then how can they be from eternity? To what would they be manifesting to as only God exists from eternity?

 

[Marybeloved]

In Eastern Christian thought, within God there is the divine essence (which is absolutely simple, undivided, transcendent, and entirely beyond human comprehension), the three hypostases, and the divine energies. The divine energies are those eternal attributes of God, such as love, grace, mercy, etc.

Some Easterns realize the difficulties of creating another distinction IN God apart from the three persons of the trinity (Divine energies vs essence) and say that there’s no distinction in God. That essence and energies are only about our limited capacities, but do not represent any true distinctions IN God. So they refer to what we can possess of God as energies and what remains beyond us (transcendence) as essence- This is compatible with western thought. But your own explanation here provided, is the one that creates parts in God- essence and energies. This latter view I believe represents a true division between East and West.

 

[Vico]

Maybe you missed my point; The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary body and soul into heaven does not define a mortal death of Mary suffering bodily corruption.

For a body to suffer a death of mortal corruption the soul leaves the body. No Catholic theologian teaches Mary suffered mortal bodily corruption at death nor when she was assumed into heaven, did Mary’s body suffer mortal corruption, which death implies. The Assumption does not teach this mortal bodily decay of the blessed Virgin suffered from a death. Not even 3 days later, if some believers chose to believe this, but this 3 day event is not binding on all believers. Mary in heaven is binding on all believers.

The assumption of Mary is not dealing with Mary dieing a death. The assumption of Mary deals with her body and soul assumed into heaven. If we stop here what the doctrine of the assumption declares. None of the ECF’s teachings contradict this doctrine of Mary in heaven. In fact Iam sure all these ECF’s are celebrating this doctrine which is binding on all believers that Mary is in heaven body and soul, because we celebrate with them from our liturgies on earth, this great eternal reality of Mary in heaven.

Exactly what I said, that the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary body and soul into heaven does not define a mortal death. Why do you suppose I mentioned it? Could it not be to focus on the Magisterial teachings that were not dogmas de fide, those of the tradition of the Church and with common belief?

These issues from the Assumption have bearing on the Immaculate Conception dogma.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Some Easterns realize the difficulties of creating another distinction IN God apart from the three persons of the trinity (Divine energies vs essence) and say that there’s no distinction in God. That essence and energies are only about our limited capacities, but do not represent any true distinctions IN God. So they refer to what we can possess of God as energies and what remains beyond us (transcendence) as essence- This is compatible with western thought. But your own explanation here provided, is the one that creates parts in God- essence and energies. This latter view I believe represents a true division between East and West.

But I’m not so sure that the Eastern Fathers ever understood it this way. Even St. Athanasius distinguishes between the begetting of the Son, which he said is according to nature, and creation, which he said is according to the energy (or operation in Latin) of the will. Gregory Palamas argues that there must be a real distinction between the two, or else we are uncreated and the Son is created.

 

[RyanBlack]

Thank you RyanBlack for your response.

So the essence of God is different from the uncreated energy of God.

One more question and I believe I will have an elementary understanding of your uncreated energy of God. I think what threw me off is when one poster attributed the uncreated energy “from” the Holy Spirit, which drew my speculation, here is why below.

Scripture reveals that God is Spirit. So you are stating that the uncreated energy of God is not His essence “being”, but an attribute of God that comes from God in the form of Love, Grace and Mercy?

When God created creation from His Word, His uncreated energy created?

If the uncreated energy created from the Word of God, was there ever a time that the uncreated energy left God’s essence being (Spirit)?

I promise these are the last questions to put to you, because I don’t mean to go to far off topic here.

Thanks and peace be with you

Yes, I am saying, that in the Byzantine (I specifically say Byzantine because I do not know whether all of the Eastern Christian traditions follow this teaching) tradition, both Orthodox and Catholic, that God’s uncreated energy is not the same as God’s essence, because we can indeed both define and experience God’s energy, but we can neither define nor experience God’s essence, which, according to the Byzantine tradition, eternally remains transcendent and incomprehensible.

I would not say that when God created all things through his Word that he created by his uncreated energies. The Word is the Son. We do not say that any of the divine persons is uncreated energy; rather, the uncreated energies, or the divine energies are attributes of all three divine persons. Furthermore, we do not say that God’s acts within history are the same as his uncreated energies. It was not necessary for God to create, and God’s act of creation is not eternal. Also, it is not necessary for God to sustain this present world, or to sustain me, and such an acts are not eternal. However, the love and the grace by which God chose to create the world, or to sustain, or to sustain me are eternal, for God never changes.

Finally, we would not say that there was ever a time that the uncreated energy left God’s essence being (Spirit), because we would not say that God’s essence or being is Spirit. Remember, in the Byzantine tradition, we do not name God’s essence, because we cannot know what it is, we cannot comprehend it, we cannot penetrate it, and we cannot be united to it. Now I’m not saying that God is not spirit, just as you would not say that God is not love, or that God is not grace, etc. However, we do not say that spirit, or love, or grace is God’s essence, because we (Byzantines) do not attempt to define God’s essence.

 

[RyanBlack]

My main confusion with the E/E distinction is how they insist that energies are God’s manifestation to creatures (which makes them dependent on creatures) and yet “uncreated”- thereby making them part of God’s being from eternity. But God’s being is absolutely INdependent of creatures- God does not have to create- So how can we conceive of any part of his being being in anyway all about communicating with what is not God? That seems to me to fall into the trap of many non-christian monotheisms which see God in himself as a creator! Almost as if God has to create; Or it’s his nature to create - But God does not have to create- it’s purely an act of freedom. Nothing but God has to exist- so how can any part of God’s being (energies) be all about creatures? And if not, then how can they be from eternity? To what would they be manifesting to as only God exists from eternity?

God does indeed manifest himself to us by his energies, but it is incorrect to define his energies strictly as his manifestation to creation because his divine energies are eternal, as God does not change, while creation, contrary to the belief of Origen, is temporal. To use an example, God manifests himself to us as love, but God has always been love (even prior to creation), and always will be love. This, in Byzantine thought, is not inconsistent with your contention that God is not, by nature, creator; that he did not have to create; and that creation is a free act of God’s will. However, the freedom in which God created, and the love by which God created are both eternal and necessary, for God cannot be other than love and God cannot be bound.

 

[RyanBlack]

Let me begin this post by stating that it was never my intent in this thread to suggest that Western Christians must accept the essence/energies distinction. I accept that it doesn’t quite make sense to many Westerners, just as St. Thomas’s notion of God as pure act doesn’t quite make sense to me. Rather, it was my intent to demonstrate that this teaching is not a product of New Age thought, and that it is not heretical.

The essence/energies distinction, within Byzantine Christian thought, is rooted in some very fundamental assumptions and answers some particularly important questions. First of all, there is the assumption that God is eternally transcendent and distinct from creation-so much so that we cannot possibly comprehend what God is, at the level of essence. But this leads to the question of how we can in any way real way encounter God. It cannot be at the level of essence, since like is known by like (another fundamental assumption), and we are unlike God in essence, so it must be in some other way. It is by God’s uncreated (they must be uncreated, for God does change-yet another fundamental assumption) energies, which reach down to us, that we encounter God.

Another important assumption is that of divine simplicity. Well, since God is manifested to us in a variety of ways (all of which are truly God, but in which we perceive distinctions), how then is God simple. God is simple because his essence is absolutely one and indivisible, but he manifests himself to creation through different attributes, which we call energies.

Then, there is the question of our salvation, which we understand as theosis, or being made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). How can we be united to God, or deified, or partake of God’s nature? It cannot possibly be at the level of his wholly incomprehensible, (name removed by moderator)enetrable essense (in the Byzantine thought, this would erase any distinction between man and God and lead ultimately to pantheism), so how can it be? Our theosis, or our partaking of the divine nature is indeed real, though not on the level of God’s essence. Rather, we partake of the divine nature by partaking of the divine energies, by which we are conformed to God, and by which we are united to God.

Again, I don’t expect that everyone will accept this particular understanding. I do not condemn those who don’t accept it, while at the same time, I will not accept being condemned by my fellow Catholics for holding to this understanding, because it is taught by my own particular Catholic tradition. I do hope that this post has helped those unfamiliar with the teaching understanding its theological foundations.

 

[dvdjs]

In Eastern Christian thought, within God there is the divine essence (which is absolutely simple, undivided, transcendent, and entirely beyond human comprehension), the three hypostases, and the divine energies. The divine energies are those eternal attributes of God, such as love, grace, mercy, etc. We cannot be united with the divine essence, but we encounter God and are united to God by our encounter with the uncreated energies of God. There is nothing whatsoever novel or New Age about this. As I said, the idea goes back as least as far as St. Basil the Great (see his letter 234). Generally, the idea is associated with St. Gregory Palamas; however, the idea had been around for several centuries by his time, he just dealt with it more extensively than his predecessors had.

As to the specific statement “The Holy Spirit prepared the Virgin Mary for her role as the Mother of God. She was filled with the Uncreated Energy of the Holy Spirit of God in order that she might be a worthy vessel for the birth of Christ,” which was made in this thread, I would take it to mean that when the BVM, or anyone, is filled with the Holy Spirit, it is by way of the uncreated energies of the Holy Spirit, as opposed to being filled with the divine essence (which Eastern Christians hold to be impossible, since the divine essence is absolutely transcendent, incomprehensible, and impenetrable).

I am not an expert on this parsing of essence and energy. However, we do very much proclaim that the Theotokos was filled with and gave birth to divine essence. No?

 

[Marybeloved]

But I’m not so sure that the Eastern Fathers ever understood it this way. Even St. Athanasius distinguishes between the begetting of the Son, which he said is according to nature, and creation, which he said is according to the energy (or operation in Latin) of the will. Gregory Palamas argues that there must be a real distinction between the two, or else we are uncreated and the Son is created.

These two operations younpresent, the begetting of the Son and creation are exactly what I said above to Ryan Black. Here I reproduce it:

The only way it can make sense to us is making a distinction between:

• God’s acts in regards to creation (which are outside the Divine being and have a beginning when that creature acted upon comes to be or is created). The acts are created (have a beginning) but the Gift conferred is Divinity- God himself in his essence. He communicates himself according to the capacities (limited) of the creature and no more.

• God in himself- This refers strictly to the Divine being from Eternity and is all essence because it’s who God is independently of anything not God.

 

[Marybeloved]

But I’m not so sure that the Eastern Fathers ever understood it this way. Even St. Athanasius distinguishes between the begetting of the Son, which he said is according to nature, and creation, which he said is according to the energy (or operation in Latin) of the will. Gregory Palamas argues that there must be a real distinction between the two, or else we are uncreated and the Son is created.

These two operations you present, the begetting of the Son and creation are exactly what I said above to Ryan Black. Here I reproduce it:

The only way it can make sense to us is making a distinction between:

• God’s acts in regards to creation (which are outside the Divine being and have a beginning when that creature acted upon comes to be or is created). The acts are created (have a beginning) but the Gift conferred is Divinity- God himself in his essence. He communicates himself according to the capacities (limited) of the creature and no more.

• God in himself- This refers strictly to the Divine being from Eternity and is all essence because it’s who God is independently of anything not God.

You said

Even St. Athanasius distinguishes between the begetting of the Son, which he said is according to nature, and creation, which he said is according to the energy (or operation in Latin) of the will.

Yes, but the operation of the divine will/wisdom in regards to the Divinity is eternal- The begetting of the Son is Forever and always.

The operation of the divine will in creation cannot be said to be eternal, can it? Were there always creatures from eternity? Was creation always there? So how can the temporal creative act be God? This act of God is temporal- it’s created and cannot be said to be itself God because God has no beginning or end- and what results is not God. Not so with the two processions (of the Son and the Holy Spirit). In regards to sanctifying Grace, we believe that God’s act of gracing us is created (not God) but his Grace itself in us is God- and it’s not some other “thing” other than his essence. For us, we don’t need to have distinctions in God’s being to understand our oneness with him without being him- None of us can possess the divine being, because none of us is a divine person. The divine being can be communicated to our creaturely persons and created beings according to our limits which is infinitely small.

To us, the will that gives rise to a divine person is the same one (essence) that gives rise to creation, but the acts of this will are not. One is an eternal act of the One will in the Divine being, another a temporal act of the One will outside God- creation.

 

[Marybeloved]

Then, there is the question of our salvation, which we understand as theosis, or being made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). How can we be united to God, or deified, or partake of God’s nature? It cannot possibly be at the level of his wholly incomprehensible, (name removed by moderator)enetrable essense (in the Byzantine thought, this would erase any distinction between man and God and lead ultimately to pantheism), so how can it be? Our theosis, or our partaking of the divine nature is indeed real, though not on the level of God’s essence. Rather, we partake of the divine nature by partaking of the divine energies, by which we are conformed to God, and by which we are united to God.

This is the other explanation I have difficulty following:

-The energies and essence are both fully God.
-We partake of God- but of his energies and not his essence.
-Partaking of his essence means we become him- pantheism.
-Partaking of his energies means we do not become him…
Yet BOTH the essence and energies are fully God Why does one have the effect of becoming God and another does not? Unless the latter (energies) is not actually God like the essence?

For me, this reasoning makes no sense unless we say that the energies are not actually Divine or fully God Why is the energy “partakable” but not the essence? Aren’t they both God? If partaking of God’s essence makes us God, why not partaking of his energies?- Are they not divine energies? Unless we say these energies are actually NOT God so that the idea of partaking of them has no danger of making us God (pantheism), what distinguishes them from essence? The only other way this works is if we divide the Divine nature into two- one that we can possess and another we can’t. If we insist it’s only act/operation, then are we saying that God communicates nothing to us- not his divine life?

 

[Vico]

Marybeloved,

What we are, creatures made in the likeness of Christ*,* is different than what we experience. We receive the gift of participation which is above our nature (supernatural).

 

[Marybeloved]

God does indeed manifest himself to us by his energies, but it is incorrect to define his energies strictly as his manifestation to creation because his divine energies are eternal, as God does not change, while creation, contrary to the belief of Origen, is temporal. To use an example, God manifests himself to us as love, but God has always been love (even prior to creation), and always will be love. This, in Byzantine thought, is not inconsistent with your contention that God is not, by nature, creator; that he did not have to create; and that creation is a free act of God’s will. However, the freedom in which God created, and the love by which God created are both eternal and necessary, for God cannot be other than love and God cannot be bound.

I suppose the true difference is that with us, God’s love is his essence- it’s not a manifestation or something other than the divine essence.

 

[Marybeloved]

Marybeloved,

What we are, creatures made in the likeness of Christ*,* is different than what we experience. We receive the gift of participation which is above our nature (supernatural).

Yes- I agree with this. God gives me Grace when I convert/baptized (That’s a created/temporal act) what he communicates to my soul on the other hand, is NOT temporal, but the Divine life that is himself. In the west, the act of giving me sanctifying grace is not God, but the grace in my soul that hallows is God. My point was that we are created by the Divine will (God) in a temporal act that cannot be said to be him since he is not in any way temporal. The same Divine will in the divine being (eternal processions) is God- fully.