Debate on Essence and Energies

[dbacks5439]

Basically, every encounter you can have with the Divine is the energies of God.

God is beyond your power (or mine) to understand completely, by anyone. Thus, God cannot be “known” in essence. God cannot be ‘contained’ in your mind nor in your heart.

That includes the Holy Theotokos, even she cannot ‘know’ God in essence. Impossible for creatures. This is why the name of God could not be uttered in the Old Covenant, naming is a way of categorizing, defining…even limiting.

God is unreachable…this is why there is no “final theosis” as has sometimes been claimed by certain individuals. It is actually a continuing eternal striving.

God is infinity (not merely infinite, infinity itself)…we are not. In that sense only God is capable of knowing God, to know God one must BE God. That is basically what is meant by all of this, the ‘essence’ in our terminology can represent for us the concept of the unknowable of the Divine. In other words, “essence” to us is that quality of the Divine that we cannot encapsulate, it’s that transcendence.

Sometimes I think that many Christians really do not get the concept of transcendence, really. I have met more than a few who seem to be something like what has been called “pantheists” although they would never understand that. I think that for many years I was a pantheist in reality, though I thought I was a Christian.

“God is all” of course, but beyond “all” as well, that’s the part that befuddles us.

Analogically one might think of how the universe is sometimes described: having no edge, and no center either. How does one wrap their mind around that? As Frank Sheed might say, one can conceive of, but not imagine it.

If we lack the ability to understand the universe of matter and energy, how much more impossible would it be to understand the Divine, who transcends all? Infinitely impossible, actually.

So back to the original point…everything you can ever know about God is what He has chosen to reveal, and that is just a glimpse…through His energies.

I get the feeling that through this discussion people are metally dividing God up…like in a diagram of some sort. Like perhaps a circle with a dark inner core, like the yolk of an egg that cannot be known. That’s a bad image.

Perhaps we should imagine ourselves in the yolk, and God’s essence everything to infinity outside of the shell! Still an inadequate image, but possibly more helpful.

All you can really know is that you don’t know, and a little bit of His image He has given you to experience. A gift…through Jesus Christ Our Lord.
*
Michael*

Just like an infinite hole cannot be filled by a finite thing. Only something that is infinite can fill an infinite hole. I’m understanding this better, thanks!

 

[jimmy]

Sounds like falicious reasoning to me. One essense means one being. Period. It doesn’t matter where you start from: plurality of persons, or oneness of being. The fact that they are one in essence means that they are one God.

It is actually the logic of the Capadocians. The Capodocians started with the person of the Father. They said the Father is God. The Father begot the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

It is not falacious, it is the foundation of the Trinitarian dogmas. As the creed says, ‘we believe in one God, the Father the almighty’. It doesn’t say there is one essence therefore it doesn’t matter how many sources there are in the Trinity. It starts from the Father as God. The Father is the unity and from Him all Godhead comes. A definition of essence is not the foundation of the union of the Trinity. That is why you will see references to the Monarchy of the Father in EO sources and in western documents like the clarification on the filioque by the Roman Church.

 

[East_and_West]

-]/-]

It is actually the logic of the Capadocians. The Capodocians started with the person of the Father. They said the Father is God. The Father begot the Son and the Spirit proceeds from the Father.

It is not falacious, it is the foundation of the Trinitarian dogmas. As the creed says, ‘we believe in one God, the Father the almighty’. It doesn’t say there is one essence therefore it doesn’t matter how many sources there are in the Trinity. It starts from the Father as God. The Father is the unity and from Him all Godhead comes. A definition of essence is not the foundation of the union of the Trinity. That is why you will see references to the Monarchy of the Father in EO sources and in western documents like the clarification on the filioque by the Roman Church.

One essence is one essence. Sorry buddy. your arguement still does not address this reality.

 

[jimmy]

One essence is one essence. Sorry buddy. your arguement still does not address this reality.

If you reject the capadocian theology you also reject the councils of Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon since their theology formed these councils. My arguement is actually very true. You can deny it all you want but you are denying the church fathers and the tradition of Christianity. Christianity is not based on Aristotles distinctions which is what you wish to make it into in this situation. The essence is not the source of unity, the Father is. Read the cappadocians. My arguement is not my own, it is that of the fathers.

 

[jimmy]

One essence is one essence. Sorry buddy. your arguement still does not address this reality.

It certainly does address it. There is one God and that is the Father. There is no superior essence which the Father draws from. The Father is the one God as the creed says. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the Father is the one essence of the Trinity. If that is wrong hopefully someone more knowledgable regarding the capadocians will correct me, but I don’t think it is wrong. The Son is begotten of the Father. And the Spirit proceeds from the Father. So, yes, one essence, but the fact is that that one essence is from the Father. It is not simply some shared essence, it is given from the Father. It is not seperate from the Father.

 

[jimmy]

I am done discussing the filioque, it is getting too far off track. I have made my point, which was that saying that the distinction between essence and energies leads to ditheism is equivalent to saying the filioque leads to ditheism. Neither the Byzantines nor the latins profess two gods so why would we argue about whether either view leads to ditheism? Just like the Son is begotten of the Father, the energies proceed from God. You say one essence of God, the Byzantines agree. So saying there is one essence of God is irrelevant to the discussion since no one disagrees with it.

 

[Alexius]

It certainly does address it. There is one God and that is the Father. There is no superior essence which the Father draws from. The Father is the one God as the creed says. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the Father is the one essence of the Trinity. If that is wrong hopefully someone more knowledgable regarding the capadocians will correct me, but I don’t think it is wrong. The Son is begotten of the Father. And the Spirit proceeds from the Father. So, yes, one essence, but the fact is that that one essence is from the Father. It is not simply some shared essence, it is given from the Father. It is not seperate from the Father.

I think you are correct as far as the Cappadocians are concerned. I struggle to comprehend this, but I don’t know…I actually understand both positions being discussed and they both have pluses and minuses…A question for you is this:

How is it that the Son and Holy Spirit are not two gods…If the Father is God and the one essence, then how are the Son and Spirit one without being tritheistic or modalistic?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
:

 

[jimmy]

I think you are correct as far as the Cappadocians are concerned. I struggle to comprehend this, but I don’t know…I actually understand both positions being discussed and they both have pluses and minuses…A question for you is this:

How is it that the Son and Holy Spirit are not two gods…If the Father is God and the one essence, then how are the Son and Spirit one without being tritheistic or modalistic?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius
:

I am not all that knowledgable on the issue but that seems to me to be a question that I don’t think anyone could answer. How is God one? We can only say that it is beyond us. The latin theology will say this as well.

I am reading a book right now, Communion and Otherness, that goes into Trinitarian theology in later chapters. It is by Metr. Zizioulas. It is basically an explanation of the theology and philosophy of the person as developed by the Cappadocians. I haven’t gotten to the chapters that speak of the Trinity yet though. I just realized a little bit ago that a large part of what he says has to do with what I have been saying. One chapter is called, The Father as Source(or something like that). Maybe when I finish the book I will post a thread on Trinitarian theology from a Byzantine perspective.

 

[Alexius]

I am not all that knowledgable on the issue but that seems to me to be a question that I don’t think anyone could answer. How is God one? We can only say that it is beyond us. The latin theology will say this as well.

I am reading a book right now, Communion and Otherness, that goes into Trinitarian theology in later chapters. It is by Metr. Zizioulas. It is basically an explanation of the theology and philosophy of the person as developed by the Cappadocians. I haven’t gotten to the chapters that speak of the Trinity yet though. I just realized a little bit ago that a large part of what he says has to do with what I have been saying. One chapter is called, The Father as Source(or something like that). Maybe when I finish the book I will post a thread on Trinitarian theology from a Byzantine perspective.

It is perplexing to me that the fathers held councils that condemned certain ideas pertaining to God, yet we are unable to distinquish any easier who God is…How were they able to distinguish with all the philosophical terms without messing up. How should I picture God, somewhere between modalistic and tritheistic?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Woodstock]

It is perplexing to me that the fathers held councils that condemned certain ideas pertaining to God, yet we are unable to distinquish any easier who God is…How were they able to distinguish with all the philosophical terms without messing up. How should I picture God, somewhere between modalistic and tritheistic?

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

The eastern response being don’t even try to picture Him because you won’t be able to, and neither could the Fathers. They were only able to say in their limited way what God is not, based on what has been revealed to us.

 

[East_and_West]

If you reject the capadocian theology you also reject the councils of Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon since their theology formed these councils. My arguement is actually very true. You can deny it all you want but you are denying the church fathers and the tradition of Christianity. Christianity is not based on Aristotles distinctions which is what you wish to make it into in this situation. The essence is not the source of unity, the Father is. Read the cappadocians. My arguement is not my own, it is that of the fathers.

Yawn. Look buddy, one essence is still once essence. Whether this is essence is the source of unity or not is irrelevant. That fact that they are one in essence means that the members of the Trinity are one. As for the Monarchy of the Father, the Filioque does not deny this, for although the Holy Spirit Proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father, and anything that comes from him ultimately comes from the Father. That is why western Catholics can say from the Son or through the Son and believe the statements mean the same thing.

 

[jimmy]

Yawn. Look buddy, one essence is still once essence. Whether this is essence is the source of unity or not is irrelevant. That fact that they are one in essence means that the members of the Trinity are one. As for the Monarchy of the Father, the Filioque does not deny this, for although the Holy Spirit Proceeds from both the Father and the Son, the Son is begotten of the Father, and anything that comes from him ultimately comes from the Father. That is why western Catholics can say from the Son or through the Son and believe the statements mean the same thing.

Believe as you will.

 

[The_Augustinian]

Dear E&W,

I read this thread with interest, because I confess much ignorance on this topic. I’m not even sure what an energy is, to be exact! I certainly know it is a philosophical term used by Aristotle and others, but other than that…

Anyway, you don’t seem to like the Energies and Essence of God to be distinguished. How do you define these terms, and what exactly do you think is the relationship between the Energies and Essence? And what allows us to “experience” the Essence of God in the Beatific Vision?

Thanks for your help,

The Augustinian

 

[East_and_West]

It certainly does address it. There is one God and that is the Father. There is no superior essence which the Father draws from. The Father is the one God as the creed says. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the Father is the one essence of the Trinity. If that is wrong hopefully someone more knowledgable regarding the capadocians will correct me, but I don’t think it is wrong. The Son is begotten of the Father. And the Spirit proceeds from the Father. So, yes, one essence, but the fact is that that one essence is from the Father. It is not simply some shared essence, it is given from the Father. It is not seperate from the Father.

Certainly is wrong. The three members of the Trinity all posses the same essence. And yes, the Father has Monarcy, but i disscussed that already.

 

[East_and_West]

Dear E&W,

I read this thread with interest, because I confess much ignorance on this topic. I’m not even sure what an energy is, to be exact! I certainly know it is a philosophical term used by Aristotle and others, but other than that…

Anyway, you don’t seem to like the Energies and Essence of God to be distinguished. How do you define these terms, and what exactly do you think is the relationship between the Energies and Essence?

Essence, when refering to the manner in which term is used with relationship to God, is what God is. His inner being, so to speak. The Eastern Idea of energies is a foreign to metaphysics and was arbitrarily created by some Eastern Christians as a result of the influence of Platonism. They describe energies as the sort of like the rays from the sun. It is like another piece of God. But is also God. If you will read through my previous posts, you will see why such an idea is untenable and, in fact, dangerous for Christians.

And what allows us to “experience” the Essence of God in the Beatific Vision?

Thanks for your help,

The Augustinian

God allows us to experience the Beatific Vision. It would be impossible to do so without him. It is his Grace that is the vehicle that allows this. We partake in his divine life/nature as the scriptures state. In this partaking, we experience God himself. As the scriptures state, “We shall see him as he is”.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I am going to go out on a limb here and say that the Father is the one essence of the Trinity.

Jimmy, I don’t think you can say that the Father is the one essence of the Trinity as, to my mind, that would confuse Person with Essence–it is make the Essence into the Person of the Father. I think it is more accurate to say that the Person of the Father fully possesses the Essence in his personal way such that he is the source of unity in the Trinity–that’s part of what makes him the Father, however paradoxical that might sound.

But then, what do I know? I’m just a poor sinner and this is a great mystery!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

 

[East_and_West]

Every One might wanna take a look at this. Although it is directed at Eastern Orthodox Christians, it does address the essence/energies issue and I think that makes it relevant to the disscussion at hand.

christianorder.com/features.html

 

[mardukm]

Daer brother Woodstock,

The eastern response being don’t even try to picture Him because you won’t be able to, and neither could the Fathers. They were only able to say in their limited way what God is not, based on what has been revealed to us.

Actually, to us Orientals, the Easterns are as “guilty” (in its own way) as the West (in its own way) in trying to define “too much” the ontological reality of God. Personally, I don’t even understand why there is such debate between Easterns and Westerns (as distinct from Orientals) on the issue of Essence and Energies.

It is so simple. God permits us to experience Him - at the same time, God is completely “other.” The funny thing is, BOTH EASTERNS AND WESTERNS RECOGNIZE AND BELIEVE THE SAME THING!!!

Brother Woodstock has stated concisely and truly “They were only able to say in their limited way what God is not.” The problem I have with this debate is that both Easterns and Westerns are trying to base their arguments on that “limited way.”

Those who want to express the reality that “God permits us to experience Him, yet is completely other from creation” by speaking about the Essence and Energies of God should be left free to express it that way.

Those who want to express that same reality by simply stating it exists without recourse to the language of Essence and Energies should be left free to express it that way.

Those who want to express that same reality by additionally recognizing that the Essence is God and the Energy is God should be left free to express it that way.

WE ALL - CATHOLICS IN COMMUNION WITH ROME - BELIEVE IN THE SAME REALITY - "GOD PERMITS US TO EXPERIENCE HIM, YET IS COMPLETELY OTHER FROM CREATION." Those who want to enforce one form of expression on the other is not being a true Catholic, IMHO.

What benefit does it give to the Church as a whole for one group to try to convince the other that their way of expressing the SAME faith is wrong or dangerous?

I would ask people to meditate on St. Paul’s words contained in my signature below.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[East_and_West]

I really don’t believe this is an expression of the same belief. The idea that God comes in parts is extremely dangerous.

 

[jimmy]

Grace & Peace!

Jimmy, I don’t think you can say that the Father is the one essence of the Trinity as, to my mind, that would confuse Person with Essence–it is make the Essence into the Person of the Father. I think it is more accurate to say that the Person of the Father fully possesses the Essence in his personal way such that he is the source of unity in the Trinity–that’s part of what makes him the Father, however paradoxical that might sound.

But then, what do I know? I’m just a poor sinner and this is a great mystery!

Under the Mercy,
Mark

Deo Gratias!

What led me to say what I said was the fact that the Greeks believe the Father to be the one God and the Trinity flows from Him. Further, I think that in Trinitarian theology, eastern and western, there is no distinct property that makes God Father rather than simply essence. The whole point of defining that God is person and not speaking about essence is to say that there is no idea of essence that underlies God(or even man for that matter) because essence as an underlying principle would bind God. Personhood is the foundation of being(or essence). So the person of the Father is the source of the being(essence) of the Trinity.

Your proposition seems to me to imply that there is some way that the essence could exist apart from the Father. When you say that the Father ‘possesses’ the essence it seems like it implies that the essence is something that is higher than the person of the Father.

Certainly is wrong. The three members of the Trinity all posses the same essence. And yes, the Father has Monarcy, but i disscussed that already.

Yes, all three possess one essence. The Father is the source of the essence. No essence underlies the persons of the Trinity, the personhood is the foundation for the essence.