Divinization?

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt16_18:

Okay, so we are in agreement on the concept that we can neither know nor comprehend God fully. That’s the starting point for most Eastern theology.

Now, moving beyond that, what can we know of God? We can know what He Himself has revealed either through Scripture or though His Son or through our own experiences of Him (Fr. Edward Schillebeex has described the sacraments/mysteries as encounters with the Risen christ). In addition to this, however, we can experience God through His energies, that is, through what He has done in the world: creation, love, mercy, forgiveness, etc. These are the “uncreated energies” of God. They are not God, but they are of God. The energies are “uncreated” because if they had been created it would have meant a change in God – and that’s not possible. Therefore, the energy of love has always been of God – but love is not God (note the sequence, it’s important). Mercy has always been a part of God – but mercy is not God. Creation has always been a part of God – but creation is not God. (Note that St. Augustine says the same thing:

To this is added another testimony which the Apostle John offers, when he says, “For God is love.” For here, in like manner, what he says is not, “Love is God,” but, “God is love;” so that the very Godhead is taken to be love.

in his *De Fide et Symbolo, *Chapt. 9 – Of the Holy Spirit and the Mystery of the Trinity).

When we say “God is love” do we exclude all else that God is? When we say that “God is merciful” do we exclude all else that God is? St. Clement of Alexandria helps us to understand this in his Comments on the First Epistle of John where he writes:

He signifies by the appellation of Father, that the Son also existed always, without beginning. Ver. 5. “For God,” he says, “is light.”

He does not express the divine essence, but wishing to declare the majesty of God, he has applied to the Divinity what is best and most excellent in the view of men. Thus also Paul, when he speaks of “light inaccessible.” But John himself also in this same Epistle says, “God is love:” pointing out the excellences of God, that He is kind and merciful;and because He is light, makes men righteous, according to the advancement of the soul, through charity. God, then, who is ineffable in respect of His substance, is light.

Clement asserts that John is not describing the essence of God but, rather His energies, His actions in the world. That is, these are *characteristics *of God rather than the substance or *essence *of God.

Deacon Ed

 

[4_marks]

Deacon Ed:

In both Eastern and Western theology the teaching is that we remain ourselves, our individuality remains for that is an aspect of our soul. What we gain is awareness of others in a way that is impossible for us to understand today. We will be totally aware (through Jesus) of each other. It will be totally intimate for we will be sharing completely who and what we are. We will be branches on the vine sharing in the Divine Life.

Deacon Ed

Even the people who go to hell or just for those who merit heaven?

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

Therefore, the energy of love has always been of God – but love is not God (note the sequence, it’s important). Mercy has always been a part of God – but mercy is not God.

Look at what you are saying – mercy is a part of God, but mercy is not God. Such a statement is irrational; you assert that mercy is both a part of God and not God. God is simple and not divisible into parts. Is there any Father of the Church that taught otherwise?

Using your train of reasoning, what God knows is something other than who God is . But that cannot be the case, because God is what he knows. God IS the truth. God IS love.

I am the way, and the truth, and the life
John 14:6

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

Look at what you are saying – mercy is a part of God, but mercy is not God. Such a statement is irrational; you assert that mercy is both a part of God and not God. God is simple and not divisible into parts.

One has to sympathize with Matt16. The Catholic Encyclopedia in its extremely unintelligent assessment of hesychasm nevertheless manages to get some things right.

For example, it agrees with Matt16…

The other element of fourteenth-century Hesychasm was the famous real distinction between essence and attributes (specifically one attribute – energy) in God. This theory, fundamentally opposed to the whole conception of God in the Western Scholastic system,

Is there any Father of the Church that taught otherwise?

Yes, the Greek Fathers in the main.

Does anybody have to hand something to contribute on the Greek Fathers?

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt16_18:

Look at what you are saying – mercy is a part of God, but mercy is not God. Such a statement is irrational; you assert that mercy is both a part of God and not God. God is simple and not divisible into parts. Is there any Father of the Church that taught otherwise?

If I show mercy to someone, is that God or is that *of God? *If I show love to someone is that God or is that of God?

Or, to make it a little easier, is creation God or is it of God? The attributes of God are not God, they are attributes. God is. Period. I refer you again to the citation from St. Augustine:

To this is added another testimony which the Apostle John offers, when he says, “For God is love.” For here, in like manner, what he says is not, “Love is God,” but, "God is love;" so that the very Godhead is taken to be love.

I am saying *exactly *the same thing. St. Clement of Alexandria puts it in perspective by telling us that these are attributes of God.

The fact that God is infinitely simple and not divisible ought to lead you to a correct understanding. If God were divisible then we could say God is Mercy, God is Love, God is Creator, God is Source of the Son – but God is simple, not divisible so these must be attributes rather than essence.

BTW, this discussion would be a lot better if you would refrain from attacking me and address the issues. I don’t think that ad hominems serve any purpose at all. You could have said “Your argument makes no sense to me, it seems irrational” but to accuse me of being irrational doesn’t address the issue.

Deacon Ed

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

If I show mercy to someone, is that God or is that of God? If I show love to someone is that God or is that of God?

If you show mercy, then you may be indeed may be manifesting grace from that comes from God. You cannot identify your very being with divine mercy. You can only show divine mercy when you are in union with Christ. But when the Apostle John says that “God is love”, he is making a sublime statement about the nature of God, and your analogy cannot be used because God is not created.

To illustrate, if I say that Deacon Ed is a loving person that always speaks truthfully, that would be a rational statement. But if I say Deacon Ed is love, or that Deacon Ed is the truth, then I would not be making a rational statement. I would either be making the statement of a person without a command of proper grammar, or the statement of a nutcase. But the Apostle John is not a nutcase, nor is he making a grammatical error when he says God is love, and that Jesus is the truth. These statements of John mean exactly what they say, and when you assert that love is of God, but not God, you have missed the mark.

BTW, this discussion would be a lot better if you would refrain from attacking me and address the issues. I don’t think that ad hominems serve any purpose at all. You could have said “Your argument makes no sense to me, it seems irrational” but to accuse me of being irrational doesn’t address the issue.

I am sorry that you have misunderstood me. I am disagreeing with the arguments that you present, not accusing you of being an irrational man.

I refer you again to the citation from St. Augustine: Quote: “To this is added another testimony which the Apostle John offers, when he says, “For God is love.” For here, in like manner, what he says is not, “Love is God,” but, “God is love;” so that the very Godhead is taken to be love.”

Right. St. Augustine is saying that the “very Godhead is taken to be love”, which is exactly what St. John is saying. Reread the quote given in post # 38 and you will see that St. Augustine does NOT think that love is of God, but not God.

(from post # 38) Augustine condensed the entire dogmatic teaching of the Church on this subject into one pregnant axiom, viz.: “Deus quad habet, hoc est—God is what He has.” (Pohel-Preuss, God: His Knowability, Essence, and Attributes, 1941, pp. 146-148.)

The fact that God is infinitely simple and not divisible ought to lead you to a correct understanding. If God were divisible then we could say God is Mercy, God is Love, God is Creator, God is Source of the Son – but God is simple, not divisible so these must be attributes rather than essence.

I disagree. Because I am created and divisible into parts, I cannot make the statement, Matt16_18 is love. But because God is simple and not divisible into parts, his being is not divisible from his love, his mercy, his justice or his fecundity.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr. Ambrose

“The operations of God are various, but his essence is simple”
(Basil the Great, Letters 234:1 [A.D. 367]).

“We are not by nature simple; but the divine nature, perfectly simple and incomposite, has in itself the abundance of all perfection and is in need of nothing”
(Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogues on the Trinity1 [A.D. 420]).

"God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. Nothing can be added to him. He has in his nature only what is divine”
(Ambrose of Milan, The Faith 1:16:106 [A.D. 379]).

“[The Father] is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason”
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

“God [is] a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind.”
(Origen, Fundamental Doctrines1:1:6 [A.D. 225]).

“God is simple and of an incomposite and spiritual nature … a solitary essence and illimitable, he is composed of no numbers and parts”
(Didymus the Blind, The Holy Spirit 35 [A.D. 362]).

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt16_18,

I still think we’re talking past each other. Since I see no other way, perhaps the Socratic method will lead to a mutual understanding. BTW, I am a bi-ritual deacon serving both the Latin and Melkite Churches. What I am presenting here is common Eastern Catholic teaching, it is neither heretical nor contrary to what the West teaches and believes – it is simply a different way of looking at the reality that is God.

Are God’s works and God the same thing?

Deacon Ed

 

[Matt16_18]

Deacon Ed:

Are God’s works and God the same thing?

The created is not the creator. Created grace is not identical with uncreated grace.

The whole problem revolves around the way that you are using the word uncreated. The real issue is this: you are asserting that the uncreated energies of God can be wholly other than the uncreated essence of God. This cannot be true, for that would mean that there is something uncreated that exists in and of itself that is apart from God. The truth is that God is simple - what God has, is who God is. God is what he knows. God is love. God is truth.

As a creature, I am born with a nature that knows moral truth – i.e. by nature, I possess an infused knowledge of the natural law. The moral truth that I know has a reality that is quite apart from my being. Whether I exist or not, does not affect the uncreated reality of moral truth. Before anything was created, moral truth existed, because moral truth is an absolute, and not something that is created by God. We must not imagine that there is an absolute truth that exists apart from God, and that God knows about moral truth because of his attribute of omniscience. All that is uncreated IS God.

When John says that Jesus is the truth, he is making an astounding statement. The moral absolutes that I know through the natural law became flesh and dwelt among us!

It is because Jesus is the truth that the moral law that the Catholic Church teaches cannot ever change. Many people mistakenly think that God created moral laws for humans to obey, and that if God desired, he could change those moral laws. This is a mistaken way of thinking, and it betrays a misunderstanding of who God is, and what the moral absolutes are.

 

[Matt16_18]

bump

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt16_18:

The whole problem revolves around the way that you are using the word uncreated. The real issue is this: you are asserting that the uncreated energies of God can be wholly other than the uncreated essence of God. This cannot be true, for that would mean that there is something uncreated that exists in and of itself that is apart from God. The truth is that God is simple - what God has, is who God is. God is what he knows. God is love. God is truth.

Okay, we can address this issue. Let’s look at another passage from St. Basil the Great to see if we can find some common touchstone upon which to build.

St. Basil writes:

We must, then, maintain that Christ has two energies in virtue of His double nature. For things that have diverse natures, have also different energies, and things that have diverse energies, have also different natures. And so conversely, things that have the same nature have also the same energy, and things that have one and the same energy have also one and the same essence, which is the view of the Fathers, who declare the divine meaning. One of these alternatives, then, must be true: either, if we hold that Christ has one energy. we must also hold that He has but one essence, or, if we are solicitous about truth. and confess that He has according to the doctrine of the Gospels and the Fathers two essences, we must also confess that He has two energies corresponding to and accompanying them. For as He is of like essence with God and the Father in divinity, He will be His equal also in energy. And as He likewise is of like essence with us in humanity He will be our equal also in energy. For the blessed Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, says, “Things that have one and the same energy, have also absolutely the same power.” For all energy is the effect of power. But it cannot be that uncreated and created nature have one and the same nature or power or energy. But if we should hold that Christ has but one energy, we should attribute to the divinity of the Word the passions of the intelligent spirit, viz. tears and grief and anguish.

in short, Basil is saying that a given nature has associated with it a given energy. That energy, however, is not the nature but the product of the nature. We, as human beings, acquire a certain energy by virtue of being human, and all of us share the same energy because we share the same nature.

Christ, because He is unique, has both divine essence and energy and human essence and energy. He has two wills that govern the use of these energies. The divine nature is possessed fully by Christ, fully by the Father and fully by the Spirit – they are *homoousias *-- the same substance. Yet we attribute different works to them even though they have the same energy: the one creates, the one redeems, the one sanctifies (and I know this is getting very close to modalism).

No, here’s the issue – are these energies (works) created or uncreated? St. Basil again provides and answer for us:

If Christ our Master has one energy, it must be either created or uncreated; for between these there is no energy, just as there is no nature. If, then, it is created, it will point to created nature alone, but if it is uncreated, it will betoken uncreated essence alone. For that which is natural must completely correspond with its nature: for there cannot exist a nature that is defective. But the energy that harmonises with nature does not belong to that which is external: and this is manifest because, apart from the energy that harmonises with nature, no nature can either exist or be known. For through that in which each thing manifests its energy, the absence of change confirms its own proper nature.

So, in Christ there existed both created and uncreated energies, but in the Father exists only uncreated energy.

How are we doing so far?

Deacon Ed

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr. Ambrose

“The operations of God are various, but his essence is simple”
(Basil the Great, Letters 234:1 [A.D. 367]).

“We are not by nature simple; but the divine nature, perfectly simple and incomposite, has in itself the abundance of all perfection and is in need of nothing”
(Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogues on the Trinity1 [A.D. 420]).

"God is of a simple nature, not conjoined nor composite. Nothing can be added to him. He has in his nature only what is divine”
(Ambrose of Milan, The Faith 1:16:106 [A.D. 379]).

“[The Father] is simple, not composed of parts, without structure, altogether like and equal to himself alone. He is all mind, all spirit, all thought, all intelligence, all reason”
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:13:3 [A.D. 189]).

“God [is] a simple intellectual being, admitting within himself no addition of any kind.”
(Origen, Fundamental Doctrines1:1:6 [A.D. 225]).

“God is simple and of an incomposite and spiritual nature … a solitary essence and illimitable, he is composed of no numbers and parts”
(Didymus the Blind, The Holy Spirit 35 [A.D. 362]).

Dear Matt16,

I am not sure that running a search on the word “simple” and then lumping all the resulting quotes together and then saying: “Look, the East is wrong, even their own Fathers say so!” – I am not sure that this does justice to what is an age old approach to God in the East. It predates scholasticism and the medieval philosophical approach which came to the fore in the West. As the Encyclopedia says: the two understandings of God are radically opposed to one another.

Therefore, it seems to me that those who are unacquainted with the thought of the Eastern Church should sit back and learn, at least for a while, until they have a rudimentary grasp of the richness and complexity of Eastern theology and praxis.

We know our God in His energies. For although His energies descend to us, His essence remains inaccessible.
St. Basil the Great (Letter 234, PG.32, col.869)

… to participate in these deifying energies are intelligible creatures, i.e., the angels - pure images, to whom the soul is likened. But God remains unknown in Himself, incomprehensible in His nature.
St. Gregory of Nyssa(Oracle XXVIII, 4, PG.36, col.32)

The divine essence surpasses intelligence, and though they may contemplate the Trinity, though they may receive the plenitude of His light [energy], human intellects cannot know God in His essence."
St. Gregory of Naziansus(Oracle XXVIII, 4, PG.36, col.32)

By nature God is above being and knowledge. What we say of God affirmatively does not indicate His nature, but His energies."
St. John Damascene (cf. Ch.IV, PG.94, col.800)

For though He is called Good, and Just, and Almighty and Sabaoth, He is not on that account diverse and various; but being one and the same, He sends forth countless operations of His Godhead, not exceeding here and deficient there, but being in all things like unto Himself.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (Catechetical Lectures: Lecture 6 no. 7)

God is comprehensible in our contemplation of His divine energies, but God is incomprehensible in our contemplation of His divine essence."
St. Maximus the Confessor(Cent. On Charity, IV, 7, trans. Pegon, Sources Chretiennes 9, p.153)

God then is infinite and incomprehensible: and all that is comprehensible about Him is His infinity and incomprehensibility. But all that we can affirm concerning God does not show forth God’s nature, but only the qualities of His nature. For when you speak of Him as good, and just, and wise, and so forth, you do not tell God’s nature but only the qualities of His nature. Further there are some affirmations which we make concerning God which have the force of absolute negation: for example, when we use the term darkness, in reference to God, we do not mean darkness itself, but that He is not light but above light: and when we speak of Him as light, we mean that He is not darkness.
St. John of Damascus, Exposition on the Orthodox Faith

“…to God pertains both incomprehensibility and comprehensibility, though He Himself is one. The same God is incomprehensible in His essence, but comprehensible from what He creates according to His divine energies: according, that is, to His pre-eternal wisdom with regard to us, and - to use the words of St. Maximos - His infinite power, wisdom and goodness.”
St. Gregory Palamas (Topics of Natural and Theological Science no. 81, The Philokalia Vol. 4 edited by Palmer, Sherrard and Ware; Faber and Faber pg. 384)

…and there is much, much more, but this is enough to show that the quotes which you have given us are not sufficient to give us the complete picture.

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr. Ambrose

Note that none of the quotes you have given speak about the uncreated energies of God.

 

[Matt16_18]

St. Basil:

We must, then, maintain that Christ has two energies in virtue of His double nature.

The quote that you have given by St. Basil seems to be part of an argument that addresses the two natures of Christ. Christ is indeed unique among all beings, because Christ has both an uncreated divine nature and a created human nature. Since Christ has two natures, he possesses both human energies and divine energies. It seem to me that all St. Basil is arguing is that Christ does not possess only the divine energies because Christ possesses only the divine essence. I don’t see in this quote from St. Basil an argument that the uncreated energies of God exist apart from God’s uncreated essence.
Deacon Ed:

in short, Basil is saying that a given nature has associated with it a given energy. That energy, however, is not the nature but the product of the nature. We, as human beings, acquire a certain energy by virtue of being human, and all of us share the same energy because we share the same nature.

I don’t understand what you mean when you say human energies are a product of human nature, nor do I understand what you mean when you say “We, as human beings, acquire a certain energy by virtue of being human.” Can you give a concrete example of human energies that are a product of human nature? Do we acquire human energies after we are created?

I can understand how a human being can use his human energies to create a statue. I can see how the statue is the product of human energies, but not how the human energies are a product of human nature.

… in Christ there existed both created and uncreated energies, but in the Father exists only uncreated energy

St. Basil was not, of course, a modalist. He is saying that the Father did not become incarnate, and that the Father does not have two natures, a human nature and a divine nature. I can see that from the quote that you have given that St. Basil does believe that there exists uncreated energies. What are the uncreated energies of the Second Person of the Trinity? How did they operate before anything was created? How would uncreated energies manifest in the person of Jesus? Can a human being that is in union with Christ also manifest uncreated energies?

… here’s the issue – are these energies (works) created or uncreated?

A work that is created can be the product of energies, as when a human being uses his human energies to create a statue. Can we say that when God creates human energies, the created human energies are a product of the energies of God? In this sense, human energies would be a created work, just as our human nature is a created work. But God cannot create his uncreated energies - such a statement would be a contradiction of the meaning of uncreated. The uncreated energies of God would be exactly that - uncreated, but the human energies of man are created by God, at least in their potency. So to answer your question, “are these energies (works) created or uncreated”, we must first ask if we are talking about human energies or the divine energies that existed before anything was ever created.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

Note that none of the quotes you have given speak about the uncreated energies of God.

If they were merely in the order of creation they would be unable to accomplish our own deification. Grace, which brings deification to humankind, is uncreated.

You will see that some of the quotes speak of “deifying energies” - they must be themselves divine to accomplish deification. In another passage St Maximos speaks of the "divine energies"and so does St Gregory Palamas. What is capable of “deifying” and and what is intrinsically “divine” must be uncreated. It cannot be a “creature.”

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

Note that none of the quotes you have given speak about the uncreated energies of God.

Dear Matt16,

I don’t know how deeply you want to investigate uncreated energies but the Jesuit George Maloney has written a great deal on the topic. Fr Maloney puts aside the Catholic vs. Orthodox polemics of past centuries on this theology and presents a better understanding of Orthodox theology.

"Uncreated Energy: A Journey into the Authentic Sources of Christian Faith"
by George A. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0916349209

**“Theology of Uncreated Energies of God” **
(Pere Marquette Lecture Ser.)
by George S. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0874625165

 

[Matt16_18]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear Matt16,

I don’t know how deeply you want to investigate uncreated energies but the Jesuit George Maloney has written a great deal on the topic. Fr Maloney puts aside the Catholic vs. Orthodox polemics of past centuries on this theology and presents a better understanding of Orthodox theology.

"Uncreated Energy: A Journey into the Authentic Sources of Christian Faith"
by George A. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0916349209

**“Theology of Uncreated Energies of God” **
(Pere Marquette Lecture Ser.)
by George S. Maloney S.J.
ISBN: 0874625165

I see that you also recommended these books on this board:
CCF Discussion Groups, Topic #45

You also made this comment on the CCF board:
** “ God’s energies are not created … They are God.”** Isn’t that exactly what I have been saying all along?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matt16_18:

I see that you also recommended these books on this board:
CCF Discussion Groups, Topic #45

Yes, I find that people want to dispute the teaching of God’s essence and God’s energies but they are reluctant to put in the homework which will empower them to understand the teaching. I do not have you in mind. I recommend these books to Roman Catholics because they are written by a Catholic priest.

You also made this comment on the CCF board:
** “ God’s energies are not created … They are God.”** Isn’t that exactly what I have been saying all along?

Yes, God’s energies are God and they are not created, but they are not His essence. I think this distinction is what troubles you?

---

The Jesus Prayer in Irish:
A Thiarna Iosa Chriost, Mac De, dean trocaire orm-se peacach

 

[Deacon_Ed]

Matt16_18:,

I don’t understand what you mean when you say human energies are a product of human nature, nor do I understand what you mean when you say “We, as human beings, acquire a certain energy by virtue of being human.” Can you give a concrete example of human energies that are a product of human nature? Do we acquire human energies after we are created?

For a moment let’s shift to the use of Latin terms substance and accidents. If I see a rose and it’s red, I know it’s a rose because the accidents of a rose are present, but “red” is not a rose, it’s an accident of the rose.

The “energies” of which we are speaking may, in a sense, be thought of as the accidents of the essence, the nature. Because you and I have a human nature we have human energies. When you speak of making something that is not what I’m speak of. Even if you were unable to move you would still have human energies because it goes hand-in-hand with the nature of a human being.

God, being God, has a divine nature and a corresponding energy. That energy is (and must be) uncreated because God is uncreated. But that energy is not the essence, the ousia, of God any more than human energies are our human nature. They are distinct, but not discrete.

We can experience the energies of God (grace is one of those) but we cannot experience the nature of God.

It’s both simple and hard to understand.

BTW, I second Fr. Ambrose’s suggestion of Fr. Maloney’s book.

Deacon Ed

 

[FCEGM]

I think this speaks beautifully to the topic of discussion:

“In the measure in which we are united with God in this friendly commerce by the bonds of true and intimate knowledge and filial love and are inflamed with the fire of His charity, in that measure shall we succeed in purging ourselves of all earthly dross. Being transformed from glory to glory, we shall cleave to Him and be one spirit with Him (1 Cor. 1:7).

“Thus, living in God and by God, we can even now have all our conversation in heaven, for from that moment we exercise the functions characteristic of eternal life and we are able to know God as He is in Himself, to love Him with the same love with which He loves Himself and us, to possess Him as He possesses Himself, and to lose ourselves in the abyss of His eternal happiness.

“Then we no longer tend to God as something which is outside ourselves. We possess Him here on earth in essentially the same way as the way we hope to possess Him in glory. To enjoy Him beatifically it is sufficient to develop that seed of eternal life which has been sown in our souls, to remove the earth that covers it, and to clear away the obstacles that impede its growth, and to fix all our attention on Him. We should enter within ourselves and converse with God in our heart, who is our portion forever. Discovering His glorious kingdom in our heart and drinking at the fount of living water which springs from life eternal, we shall see that our happiness lies in union with Him and we shall swoon with love. This fountain is the Spirit whom we have received and from whom incessantly flow the graces from which our souls receive moisture, are beautified, purified and made fertile.” The Mystical Evolution in the Development and Vitality of the Church, Vol. 1, Fr. John G. Arintero, O.P., TAN Books, pp. 107-108.