Essence and Energies - True Distinctions?

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

I know that there exist a distinction between Latin and Greek understandings of God with regard to Essence and Energies.

Could we discuss these differences civilly?

 

[Aramis]

Grace and Peace,

I know that there exist a distinction between Latin and Greek understandings of God with regard to Essence and Energies.

Could we discuss these differences civilly?

my understanding:

The essence of God is the part we can neither comprehend, nor experience prior to the final judgement.

The Energies are those aspects which we are able to perceive, and which take an active role in the world.

 

[chrisb]

my understanding:

The essence of God is the part we can neither comprehend, nor experience prior to the final judgement.

The Energies are those aspects which we are able to perceive, and which take an active role in the world.

Yes, but is this really taught to be a substantial distinction in God apart from the Trinity in the East?

Is God’s action (enerleia, actus, operatio) really a hard distinction from His essence (ousia) in Eastern Theology?

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, but is this really taught to be a substantial distinction in God apart from the Trinity in the East?

no.

The distinction is that you, being a creature, can only experience the Divine through God’s energies.

It is not because God is divided, it is because of your (and my) limitations as creatures that the very essence of God cannot be known.

If it could be known, we would be God.

 

[chrisb]

no.

The distinction is that you, being a creature, can only experience the Divine through God’s energies.

It is not because God is divided, it is because of your (and my) limitations as creatures that the very essence of God cannot be known.

If it could be known, we would be God.

Is creation God’s energies?

 

[Taboric_Light]

Is creation God’s energies?

If I am understanding the distinction correctly, no. The act of creating and the sustaining of creation are an energy of God, but created things are not God’s energy. However, God is energetically present in all of creation. That is why we are able to say, “God is in all things,” or “all things are in God,” but not “these things are God.”

I hope this helps. It’s a great topic.

In Christ through Mary

 

[Taboric_Light]

my understanding:

The essence of God is the part we can neither comprehend, nor experience prior to the final judgement.

Aramis,

Even after the final judgement we will not be able to comprehend or experience the essence of God. Because our being creatures doesn’t change even when we are deified God is essentially still incomprehensible.

In Christ through Mary

 

[jimmy]

The essence/energy distinction in Byzantine thought is meant to explain how God is immanent yet remains completely transendant. God is absolutely transendant to man because man is created and God is uncreated. But at the same time God has revealed Himself and is imminent and therefore we can know Him. So God’s transendance is not simply due to His being to great for us to take in now but because He is of a whole different order than us. In every revelation God remains absolutely transendant. The distinction between essence and energy says basically that we can know God through His energies but can never know His essence. God’s energies are in all of creation and sustain it and they also make creation a revelation of God.

This distinction is a soteriological one though as well. It explains what salvation is. What it points out is that we recieve the divine nature through the divine energies but we never become God by recieving the divine essence. They would say that if there is no distinction then we can not recieve the divine nature as 2Peter says.

I would like to point out that a distinction is not the same as a division. God is not divided because of this distinction.

 

[Ghosty]

Thank you, ChrisB, for starting this thread! I’ve been meaning to do a follow up on the Palamas thread for just this purpose, but every time I’ve sat down to post I’ve decided not to (the thread seemed dead at this point, so I figured I wouldn’t resurrect it).

I’ve been reading St. Gregory’s writings every day for the past few weeks, and it’s wonderful stuff that I would recommend to anyone, Eastern or Western.

To add to what everyone else has said, the Divine Essence and Energies basically two modes of the Divine Nature (to use Palamas’ approach and terminology). The Energies (or, really, Energy) aren’t merely external actions, but really are the Divine Nature as it is present to, and shared with, creatures. A better way to think of it would be that the Divine Energy is the expression of the Divine Nature, while the Essence is the internal and self-possessed** Divine Nature. It’s similar to how we can have an idea in our mind, and we can share that idea with others; the idea remains the same, but it has different modes.

Likewise, the Divine Essence is like the “internal” idea, the idea comprehended by the mind, while the Energy is the “expressed” idea, shared externally. Just as the hearer of the idea gains the idea, but doesn’t gain the mind of the speaker, we can receive the Divine Nature in Energy, but not in Essence. Like the expressed idea, there is at once both a communication and a distinct seperation between the receiver and the original thinker, and while the idea remains the same, it exists in distinct modes.

Another reason for this distinction, or at least for the terminology used to highlight the distinction, is that the Energy, or expression, necessarily follows on the Essence, or internal idea. So while it is the same “thing” (Divine Nature), we can say that the Divine Nature in Itself “exists prior” to the expression of the Divine Nature (this doesn’t mean it exists before, in the sense of time, but rather that it is the foundation of the expression. Like the idea example, I can’t express an idea I don’t have in my mind. On the other hand, the Divine Essence is never without its Energy; even without factoring in Creatures, the Persons of the Trinity Love eachother (and Know eachother, ect), and therefore the Divine Nature is expressed just as it is also shared in Essence. The Divine Nature is always operating, eternally towards itself in the Three Persons, so the Divine Energy is co-eternal with the Divine Essence.

Now, because this topic will inevitably bring up the question of how this relates to Latin theology saying that we share in the Divine Essence, it’s important to remember that in Latin theology the term Divine Essence is synonymous with the Divine Nature and is used interchangably. In the Palamite distinction there is one utterly simple Divine Nature in two modes, Essence and Energy, while in the typical Thomistic Latin theology there is the Divine Essence (Nature) existing in and of Itself, and the Divine Nature as participated in by creation both naturally (as all things are from the Divine Mind, and therefore bear some likeness to the Divine Mind, and can be said to be an expression of the Divine Mind just as my writing is an expression of my mind), and supernaturally by Sanctifying Grace (which is properly the sharing of the Divine Nature, in a manner that is beyond anything creaturely; not merely a reflection, like my writing is a reflection of my thought, but an elevation of the creature up to a direct sharing in Divinity).

So when in Latin theology it’s said that we share in the Divine Essence by Grace, and especially in Glory and the Beatific Vision, what’s being referred to is the Divine Nature in general, not to the comprehensive, infinite mode that belongs to God alone. This is why Latin theology distinguishes between knowing the Divine Essence, and comprehending the Divine Nature.

Peace and God!

 

[Aramis]

Is creation God’s energies?

The act of Creation was, for certain. Our souls are created by the energies at work.

The distinction is very soft.

The Essence of God is beyond comprehension. That of God that we perceive, that portion, which may not be the same portion now and tomorrow, that is the Energy of God.

Your essence, for example, is a combination of your soul and your mind. We can never know them due to our own limited existence. Your energies include all that you do, and how you act, and the process of acting… we can know that. We can infer a lot about your essence from your energies, but that isn’t the same as knowing it.

Same for each of the persons of the Trinity, save that the foundational essence of the Trinity is shared, but the actions, the energies, are three discernable persons.

 

[Aramis]

Aramis,

Even after the final judgement we will not be able to comprehend or experience the essence of God. Because our being creatures doesn’t change even when we are deified God is essentially still incomprehensible.

In Christ through Mary

In one way of looking, yes we will experience what we currently perceive as the Essence of God after the final judgement. Comprehend it? We can not know, and it will be irrelevant anyway, for we will be with God.

 

[jimmy]

Same for each of the persons of the Trinity, save that the foundational essence of the Trinity is shared, but the actions, the energies, are three discernable persons.

Person and energy are not the same thing. There is only one divine energy that is common to all three persons.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

What I’m trying to understand is it Eastern understanding that the Energies of God ‘is’ reality… are the Energies of God what make up Creation?

Correct me if I’m misunderstanding but everyone seems to agree that the Essence and Energies of God are ‘not’ actually substantial distinctions but that, as creatures, we can only comprehend in a limited fashion His Essence and that part that we do comprehend we call His Energies? Is this correct?

So the Taboric Light ‘is’ the Essence of God being seen. Is this correct?

 

[Nickkname]

On one occasion I was reflecting on the Holy Trinity, on the essence of God. I absolutely wanted to know and fathom who God is. … In an instant my spirit was caught up into what seemed to be the next world. I saw an inaccessible light, and in this light what appeared like three sources of light which I could not understand. And out of that light came words in the form of lightning which encircled heaven and earth. Not understanding anything, I was very sad. Suddenly, from this sea of inaccessible light came our dearly beloved Savior, unutterably beautiful with His shining Wounds. And from this light came a voice which said, Who God is in His Essence, no one will fathom, neither the mind of Angels nor of man. Jesus said to me, Get to know God by contemplating His attributes. A moment later, He traced the sign of the cross with His hand and vanished. (Divine Mercy In My Soul, 30)

 

[chrisb]

On one occasion I was reflecting on the Holy Trinity, on the essence of God. I absolutely wanted to know and fathom who God is. … In an instant my spirit was caught up into what seemed to be the next world. I saw an inaccessible light, and in this light what appeared like three sources of light which I could not understand. And out of that light came words in the form of lightning which encircled heaven and earth. Not understanding anything, I was very sad. Suddenly, from this sea of inaccessible light came our dearly beloved Savior, unutterably beautiful with His shining Wounds. And from this light came a voice which said, Who God is in His Essence, no one will fathom, neither the mind of Angels nor of man. Jesus said to me, Get to know God by contemplating His attributes. A moment later, He traced the sign of the cross with His hand and vanished. (Divine Mercy In My Soul, 30)

I can only say ‘wow’.

 

[Ghosty]

What I’m trying to understand is it Eastern understanding that the Energies of God ‘is’ reality… are the Energies of God what make up Creation?

Creation isn’t Divine Energy per se, but rather is by the Divine Energy. If creatures were Divine Energy then we’d be extensions of God, which is pantheism. The Divine Energy works everywhere and always to make created things, however. It’s kind of like how the light from the lightbulb is separate from the electrical current, but the electrical current works to make the light, and without the electricity the light does not exist. Creatures are like the light, the Divine Energy is like the electricity.

Correct me if I’m misunderstanding but everyone seems to agree that the Essence and Energies of God are ‘not’ actually substantial distinctions but that, as creatures, we can only comprehend in a limited fashion His Essence and that part that we do comprehend we call His Energies? Is this correct?

This would be more like the Latin theological approach, but with that caveat it’s correct. At least in the Palamite language, you would never see the Divine Essence at all, not even in a limited way, since the Divine Essence is by definition that mode of God that is utterly inaccessible to creatures. It would be more correct, by Palamite definitions, to say that we understand the Divine Nature in a limited fashion, and that mode of the Divine Nature that we understand is the Divine Energy.

So the Taboric Light ‘is’ the Essence of God being seen. Is this correct?

Again, in Latin terms this is correct, since “Essence” is synonymous with “Nature”. In Palamite terms we would say that the Taboric Light is the Divine Nature being seen and shared, and not the Essence.

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

Creation isn’t Divine Energy per se, but rather is by the Divine Energy. If creatures were Divine Energy then we’d be extensions of God, which is pantheism. The Divine Energy works everywhere and always to make created things, however. It’s kind of like how the light from the lightbulb is separate from the electrical current, but the electrical current works to make the light, and without the electricity the light does not exist. Creatures are like the light, the Divine Energy is like the electricity.

So the only distinction which separates our Theology from that of Pagans is the distinction of Divine Energy (Current) from it’s Products (Light)?

This would be more like the Latin theological approach, but with that caveat it’s correct. At least in the Palamite language, you would never see the Divine Essence at all, not even in a limited way, since the Divine Essence is by definition that mode of God that is utterly inaccessible to creatures. It would be more correct, by Palamite definitions, to say that we understand the Divine Nature in a limited fashion, and that mode of the Divine Nature that we understand is the Divine Energy.

So, in Palamite language, is the Divine Essence a substantial barrier that is impassable? As I understand it, from the Latin approach, their is no substantial barrier… this is God’s Nature and this is God’s Energy. This distinction would be only seen subjectively on an individual basis and not a substantial distinction. In fact, St. Gregory of Nyssa spoke of our ever deepening participation in the Divine Nature ad infinum. Are you saying that, in Palamite language, this is not so? Is the distinction between God’s Essence and Energies substantial? You seem to be suggesting that it is.

Again, in Latin terms this is correct, since “Essence” is synonymous with “Nature”. In Palamite terms we would say that the Taboric Light is the Divine Nature being seen and shared, and not the Essence.

Again this seem to suggest a substantial distinction between God’s Essence and Energies. Is this so?

 

[Ghosty]

So the only distinction which separates our Theology from that of Pagans is the distinction of Divine Energy (Current) from it’s Products (Light)?

Oh no, there are plenty of other things that distinguish Apostolic belief from Paganism of various stripes. This is just one of them, and it happens to distinguish between the Faith and pantheism.

So, in Palamite language, is the Divine Essence a substantial barrier that is impassable? As I understand it, from the Latin approach, their is no substantial barrier… this is God’s Nature and this is God’s Energy. This distinction would be only seen subjectively on an individual basis and not a substantial distinction. In fact, St. Gregory of Nyssa spoke of our ever deepening participation in the Divine Nature ad infinum. Are you saying that, in Palamite language, this is not so? Is the distinction between God’s Essence and Energies substantial? You seem to be suggesting that it is.

In the Latin approach there is still a “limit” to what we can attain of the Divine Nature. We can share in it, but we can’t become it; we can know it, but we can’t comprehend it. I can drink the river, but I can’t drink up the river. The fact that I can’t drink up the river is not a “substantial barrier” to drinking the river; it’s the same thing I’m drinking either way, just that one way is impossible.

In Palamite terminology the Divine Essence doesn’t mean Divine Nature, it means the infinite and inaccessible mode of the Divine Nature. Using this terminology we’d say that only the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share the Divine Nature in this manner, sharing the one Essence between them since they share the fullness and eternity of Divinity as the very root of their being. Since we don’t have that relationship with the Divine Nature, we don’t share in the Essence; to share in the Essence you have to be an infinite, Divine Person.

In Latin terminology we do share in the Essence, because Essence has a different connotation in Latin than in Palamite theology. It doesn’t mean there is a contradiction, it means that the same term is being used to represent something slightly different. When Latins say Essence, they mean what Palamites call Divine Nature, and visa versa. Latin theology doesn’t have a single term to match what Palamites mean by Divine Essence, but it does speak of it in various ways, such as “knowledge of comprehension”, or “infinite being”; these things are never shared with creatures because they are attributes of Divine Personhood, of being the Divine Nature as opposed to sharing in it.

So no, the distinction is not substantial, because the substance in question is the Divine Nature. Essence and Energy refer to modes of this single, simple substance. Since we don’t take on the infinite and eternal mode of the Divine Nature when we aquire it, but rather aquire it in the mode of participation, as creatures, in Divinity by substantial Grace, we are said to not access the Divine Essence, though by the Energy we access the same substance as the Divine Essence.

Again this seem to suggest a substantial distinction between God’s Essence and Energies. Is this so?

No, because in bringing up the Latin terms I’m more translating like a dictionary, rather than demonstrating a contradiction. It’s not that the Latin view and the Palamite view are opposed; on the contrary I believe they affirm the exact same thing, particularly Thomism and Palamism. I’m simply explaining that, since the terms are used differently, they must be properly understood before comparing.

For example, if the Thomists were using Palamite terminology they would adamantly state that we can’t share in the Divine Essence; Aquinas, for example, explicitely and in many places says that creatures by definition can’t possess Divinity as the Divine Persons possess it, but that we do possess it in a manner befitting our nature (i.e. by Grace, adoption, and supernatural infusion). This last part is identical to what Palamas says, incidently, and is why I think it’s appropriate to speak in terms of modes of the same substance in explaining the distinction between Essence and Energy.

Hope that helps more than it hurts!

Peace and God bless!

 

[chrisb]

I’m just going to let that sink in for a minute…

 

[jimmy]

Grace and Peace,

What I’m trying to understand is it Eastern understanding that the Energies of God ‘is’ reality… are the Energies of God what make up Creation?

Correct me if I’m misunderstanding but everyone seems to agree that the Essence and Energies of God are ‘not’ actually substantial distinctions but that, as creatures, we can only comprehend in a limited fashion His Essence and that part that we do comprehend we call His Energies? Is this correct?

So the Taboric Light ‘is’ the Essence of God being seen. Is this correct?

Creation is not the Energy of God. There is no sense in which it is pantheistic. The Energy of God is the eternal manifestation of the divine essence. It is not the Essence itself. The Energies of God sustain creation though and are within all of creation thereby making it a revelation of God. You can only see the Energy of God, not the Essence. As Exodus says, no one can look upon the divine essence and live.