Essence-Energies Distinction?

[Jehoshua]

I’ve come to an understanding on the Eastern Orthodox stand on this issue concerning differing theological views between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views on this matter, however i have not yet come across an article which adequately compares the comparative Eastern Orthodox and Catholic views regarding the energies and essence of God and there distinction or non-distinction in a non-biased equitable way.

Therefore im posting this thread on the forums in the hope that the members of the Eastern Orthodox Church will be able to provide further detail on this matter of theology within the eastern understanding and in the hope that the educated and informed catholics on this forum can enlighten me as to the Catholic view on the divine essence/energies issue beyond the complexitudes of Thomas Aquinas which unfortunately did not succinctly describe the Catholic understanding.

 

[Barbkw]

I’m clueless to your subject (Essence-Energies) however it rings of New Age spiritualism.

Could you explain more about this topic?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I’ve come to an understanding on the Eastern Orthodox stand on this issue concerning differing theological views between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox views on this matter, however i have not yet come across an article which adequately compares the comparative Eastern Orthodox and Catholic views regarding the energies and essence of God and there distinction or non-distinction in a non-biased equitable way.

Therefore im posting this thread on the forums in the hope that the members of the Eastern Orthodox Church will be able to provide further detail on this matter of theology within the eastern understanding and in the hope that the educated and informed catholics on this forum can enlighten me as to the Catholic view on the divine essence/energies issue beyond the complexitudes of Thomas Aquinas which unfortunately did not succinctly describe the Catholic understanding.

I doubt very much if I can be of much assistance. However, as an Eastern Catholic who loves reading about this fascinating subject, the Divine Essence or God’s Divine Nature is like the sun itself with the Divine Energies like the rays proceeding from it. Our deification in Christ through the Holy Spirit is through the Divine Energies to become like God via Grace. We cannot become God in God’s Essence.

The only real difference here with Aquinas is that Aquinas had asserted that Grace is created whereas the Divine Energies are uncreated (as God Himself is uncreated). And I’ve not heard of a particular Latin Catholic understanding of this matter. It is only in recent decades that Roman Catholic theologians have come to understand and appreciate Hesychasm and Palamism to the extent that St Gregory Palamas has been acknowledged a saint by Rome.

Alex

 

[Ghosty]

The only real difference here with Aquinas is that Aquinas had asserted that Grace is created whereas the Divine Energies are uncreated (as God Himself is uncreated). And I’ve not heard of a particular Latin Catholic understanding of this matter. It is only in recent decades that Roman Catholic theologians have come to understand and appreciate Hesychasm and Palamism to the extent that St Gregory Palamas has been acknowledged a saint by Rome.

This is a common misunderstanding of Aquinas, and comes about when trying to understand Aquinas’ words without their theological context. When Aquinas referred to Grace as "created", he was not referring to the substance of Grace (which is Divine and beyond created nature), but rather its “accidental being” within us. To put it in layman’s terms, he said that Grace is the eternal Divine Nature, but our relationship with it is created (say, with Baptism for example). An analogy would be painting a car red; the “redness of the car” is created when the car is painted, but red pre-exists the painting of the car.

This is to avoid the error of pantheism, in which we are all naturally extensions of the Divine Nature; our direct sharing in Divine Nature has a distinct beginning, and is not eternal because a) we are not eternal, and b) we are not created with the Divine Nature, which would be a contradiction in terms (created Divine Nature).

Bottom line is that the Essence-Energy distinction is merely a theological construct used to explain how we can participate in Divinity without becoming Divinity Itself. It is wonderful for highlighting this, but it is not the only way to do so, and it is not the only ancient way of doing so. This terminology became perfected after the Schism, and solidified in the Byzantine world; the Latin world followed a different set of terminology and theological approach to explain the same Divine participation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Then that is still the distinction to be made re: Aquinas (of course, the source of Grace is God Himself).

At not time could such a view exist in Eastern Christianity and Aquinas’ distinction need not have been made in such a case.

IF by “created grace” he meant how God recreates us through the process of deification in Christ by the Holy Spirit - then there is no problem. But if Grace = Divine Energies, then at no time can they be said to have been created, even while at work within us.

Also, Roman Catholic scholastic theologians in the past NEVER taught that Aquinas’ theology in this respect equalled the Eastern Palamite theology of the Energies of God. They, in fact, derided the theology of the Divine Energies and also the thought of St Gregory Palamas (through misunderstanding, to be sure). It is only now that RC theologs would agree with you on this score.

Perhaps this was also a misunderstanding of Aquinas on their part. What do you think, Revered Ghosty? (Your moniker still scares me a bit).

Alex

 

[dcointin]

I found an excellent explanation of this issue on another forum called orthodoxchristianity.net, by poster akimel, which is as follows:

"To return to the question of the original poster: both the Catholic and Orthodox construals of grace are attempts to state in words a mystery that cannot be captured in words–namely, our participation by grace in the infinite life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Orthodox theologian seeks to express this mystery by making a distinction within God between his imparticipable essence and his participable energies. The Catholic theologian seeks to express this mystery by making a distinction between uncreated grace and created grace. But both theologians agree completely that, by grace, we are truly given to share in the divine nature and participate in God through the Son by the Holy Spirit.

For my part, such an agreement is more than sufficient, but theologians, being theologians, like to push these questions to the nth degree. An example is the famous conversation between Eric Mascall and Vladimir Lossky, fictionalized in Mascall’s book Via Media. Eric Mascall briefly compares the Thomist understanding of grace with the Palamite understanding. “For the Thomist,” Mascall writes, “grace means a communication of the Creator to the creature in the created mode under which alone a creature can receive anything; for the Palamite, it means a communication of the uncreated energy of God, though not of his incommunicable essence.” Mascall then offers a conversation between a Thomist and a Palamite based on a conversation between Lossky and Mascall hiimself:

Palamite: “You make no distinction between the essence of God and his energy and you say that God gives himself to the creature in a finite mode. On your showing, this must mean that the divine essence is given in a finite mode, and this is plainly impossible. Either what is given is finite, in which case it cannot be God, or what is given is God, in which case it cannot be given finitely. In the former case there is no real deification of man; in the latter case man ceases to be a creature. Neither alternative is admissible, so your theory must be false.”

Thomist: “The whole matter is, of course, a profound mystery, but you have not been fair to my thought. I did not mean that God-in-a-finite-mode was given to the creature, but that God was received by the creature in a finite mode. The finitude is in the mode of participation, not in the object participated. And here is a dilemma for you, in return for that on which you tried to impale me. You say that the creature participates in the divine energy, though not in the divine essence. Now listen. Either the energy and the essence are identical, or else in participating in the energy the creature does not really participate in God. In the former case your own theory is false, in the latter it fails to provide for a real deification of man.”

Palamite: “No, now it is you who are being unfair to me. The energy is divine, and therefore in participating in the divine energy the creature participates in God. God is present, really present, in his energy as much as in his essence. The only difference is that the energy is communicable and the essence is not. Thus God is really communicated in his energy, though he remains incommunicable in his essence.”

Thomist: “Really, this is intolerable. God and his essence cannot be separated. If the energy communicates God it communicates his essence. And then you need my theory to explain how the creature can participate in God without losing its creatureliness.”

I suggest that the Eastern and Western theologians are asking different questions. The Eastern theologian asks, “How is it that God can truly communicate God to creatures?” He answers this question by positing a distinction within God between his imparticipable essence and his participable energies. His answer is theological. The Western theologian, particularly within the scholastic tradition, asks, “How is it possible for the human creature to receive deity? In what ways must he be transformed and altered to make this supernatural union possible?” He answers this question by invoking a distinction between uncreated and created grace. His answer is metaphysical.

The classic Eastern concern is to insist that the human creature, by the gift of grace, truly participates in divinity. The classic Western concern is insist that participation in God does not obliterate human nature but rather sanctifies and transforms it. These concerns are not incompatible, even though the Orthodox and Catholic theologian typically reflect upon the mystery of divine union through different conceptualities. Orthodox and Catholic are united in their common conviction that in his unmerited love God communicates himself to sinners and incorporates them into the mystery of his Trinitarian life."

I think it’s important to remember that while east and west use different expressions, we’re confessing the same mystery, and our expressions are not mutually exclusive. I think this post did an excellent job of demonstrating that.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

The Reverend Father Al Kimel is a most excellent theologian . . .



Alex

 

[Ghosty]

Then that is still the distinction to be made re: Aquinas (of course, the source of Grace is God Himself).

At not time could such a view exist in Eastern Christianity and Aquinas’ distinction need not have been made in such a case.

Such a distinct does indeed exist in Eastern theology, it’s just not named as such. In Eastern theology Grace comes to the creature and is not an eternal aspect of created nature. Therefore the “state of Grace” is created. In fact, even if the creature possessed Grace from the beginning of its existence the state of Grace would be created, because the “state” refers to the creature which necessarily has a beginning.

IF by “created grace” he meant how God recreates us through the process of deification in Christ by the Holy Spirit - then there is no problem. But if Grace = Divine Energies, then at no time can they be said to have been created, even while at work within us.

If you check out the link I put in my post, you’ll see that Aquinas was indeed referring to the recreation of the creature through Divine participation.

He also says that Grace, considered in itself, is greater than created nature (i.e. it’s Divine). “Created” never refers to the substance of Grace, but rather to its possession as an attribute of the creature, which begins to possess the Divine Nature and is not itself eternal.

Also, Roman Catholic scholastic theologians in the past NEVER taught that Aquinas’ theology in this respect equalled the Eastern Palamite theology of the Energies of God. They, in fact, derided the theology of the Divine Energies and also the thought of St Gregory Palamas (through misunderstanding, to be sure). It is only now that RC theologs would agree with you on this score.

Oh, on the contrary brother, the Scholastics always taught this about “created Grace”.

They derided St. Gregory’s distinction because they viewed it has dividing the indivisible God, not because it would mean that creatures directly participate in Divinity. In fact, they derided St. Gregory’s approach precisely*** because*** they believed that Divinity is directly shared with humanity; they viewed the distinction of Essence/Energies as creating a “sub-deity” with the Energies, while Scripture and tradition clearly assert that we share in the very being of God. Here’s a nearly century-old explaination of St. Thomas Aquinas by Fr. Garrigou-Garrange, who was a Dominican friar and certainly no “Palamite sympathizer”:

By divine nature is meant the radical principle of the divine operations by which God sees Himself intuitively and loves Himself.

But sanctifying grace imitates physically and formally this radical principle of properly divine operations, for it radically disposes man to see God intuitively and to love Him with the beatific love.

Therefore sanctifying grace is a physical and formal participation in the divine nature.

and:

Therefore Deity as such cannot be partaken of except by some essentially supernatural gift. And, conversely, grace cannot be essentially supernatural unless it is a formal and physical participation in the divine nature as divine, that is, in the intimate life of God, or Deity as Deity, ordaining us to the knowledge of God as He Himself knows Himself immediately and to the love of God as He loves Himself.

Furthermore, sanctifying grace is a participation in Deity as it is in itself and not merely as it is known to us. For it is produced in our soul by an immediate infusion altogether independently of our knowledge of the Deity; and just as Deity as such is communicated to the Son by eternal generation, so Deity as such is partaken of by the just, especially by the blessed, through divine adoption.

Hence, materially, grace is a finite accident, an entitative habit, but formally it is a formal participation in Deity as it is in itself, as it subsists in the three persons.

This final line of the final quote sums up how Grace is said to be “created”, namely that it is a finite accident (it applies to this entity or that entity, when speaking in terms of a state of Grace), but that it is a formal (i.e. it gives the form) participation in infinite Divinity.

The Thomists didn’t misunderstand St. Thomas, they just didn’t understand St. Gregory Palamas. Since they approached the problem of how a creature could share directly in the Divine Nature through the avenue of looking at accidents and states, St. Gregory’s approach from the direction of Divine operation (Energies) didn’t fit. Likewise, in the other direction, Palamites were not accustomed to speaking in terms of accidents when it comes to Divine participation, and so any talk of “created accidents of eternal Divinity” didn’t make sense.

Both approaches are valid, and actually say the same thing, but it’s the difference between describing a car accident in terms of who hit whom, and describing the car accident in terms of the interplay of physical forces.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Ghosty]

I suggest that the Eastern and Western theologians are asking different questions. The Eastern theologian asks, “How is it that God can truly communicate God to creatures?” He answers this question by positing a distinction within God between his imparticipable essence and his participable energies. His answer is theological. The Western theologian, particularly within the scholastic tradition, asks, “How is it possible for the human creature to receive deity? In what ways must he be transformed and altered to make this supernatural union possible?” He answers this question by invoking a distinction between uncreated and created grace. His answer is metaphysical.

The classic Eastern concern is to insist that the human creature, by the gift of grace, truly participates in divinity. The classic Western concern is insist that participation in God does not obliterate human nature but rather sanctifies and transforms it. These concerns are not incompatible, even though the Orthodox and Catholic theologian typically reflect upon the mystery of divine union through different conceptualities. Orthodox and Catholic are united in their common conviction that in his unmerited love God communicates himself to sinners and incorporates them into the mystery of his Trinitarian life."

Bingo!

I have a funny story that relates to this miscommunication. I was taking a class taught by a brilliant young Dominican theologian, and we were learning about Grace. He made an off-hand remark that the Eastern Orthodox, unlike the Catholics (and, specifically, the Latins) deny that humans participate in Divinity because they believe we only participate in the Divine Energies (which, in Latin translation would refer simply to God’s activities, which include natural creation and such) rather than Divinity itself as the Scholastics taught.

I corrected him on this, but it was an eye-opening moment for me: the Latin attack on Palamism is almost entirely based on defending the very truth that Palamism also intends to uphold.

Another interesting aspect of this discussion is that the key theological difference between early Protestants (like Luther) and the Catholic Church was that Protestants denied real, direct participation in Divinity itself. The Latins, in upholding the Traditional view of Divine Grace (which they held in common, essentially, with St. Gregory Palamas) were distinct from Luther and Calvin who believed that Holiness was not an imparting of the Divine Nature, but rather an external affirmation by God that this person was accepted as pleasing to Him.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Jehoshua]

I give my thanks to the posters here for clearing the air on this topic for me. Considering the history of miscommunication between east and west then its clear that confusion arose surrounding this area terminologically during my researches.

So surrounding this topic the idea is that the latin tradition approached the reality of God’s actions in the world in term of the interrelation of creation and divinity and the east focussed more on the theological aspects in terming the “actus” of God in terms of essence and energies. But that the reality is that the fundamental mystery described in both traditions is the same, merely that the terminology differs (As I believe is the case with miaphysitism at least according to statements between the Catholic/Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches)

---

Considering the previous post by Ghosty regarding the protestant view of the divine participation of creation with God. By affirmation of divine favour, would not that affirmation to transform a person in holiness require the initiation of an interrelationship with divinity? Only God is intrinsically holy and for holiness to be imparted without a participatory relationship with the Divinity is, to me at least, lacking in reason, as it would entail that holiness can be attained separately and distinct from God without his interaction within the created being. Which of course is known to be erroneous since separation from God and a lack of participation in Gods grace clearly would lead to perpetuation of the sinful state of man and in turn seriously call into doubt the reality of salvation which in itself is a relationship between God and Man.

Also how would this idea correspond with later protestant (evangelical and pentecostal) ideas of living within a direct relationship with God, (born again in the spirit sort of thing). Would this not logically require a participation in divinity?

---

To the first reply, I totally Reject, Condemn and turn away any and all new age ideas not in accord with pre-existing catholic dogma. I am an orthodox member with traditionalist leaning of the Holy Catholic Church.

just thought id clear the air

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Ghosty,

Thank you for your usual scholarly response!

Ecclesial separations and theological disagreements have often hinged upon a few words, or even one.

The word “created” - with the best of intentions and what have you - will continue to be a stumbling block for Catholic-Orthodox relations. Simply put, they won’t buy it, and they will understand this as being like “having your cake and eating it” after the fact.

I’ve no problem with your explanation or that of Fr. Al Kimel (who often defends Western theological tradition before a largely hostile Eastern Orthodox audience - God bless him). You are preaching to the converted here (as you know). But terminology can be changed and adapted. You will have, however, a greater time convincing the Orthodox on the score of Aquinas himself (even though he was much esteemed in the East, even by Scholarios Gennadios and some Orthodox even invoked him as “Blessed Thomas Aquinas”).

I will personally stick with the Eastern heritage, thanks!

All the best to you,

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

I give my thanks to the posters here for clearing the air on this topic for me. Considering the history of miscommunication between east and west then its clear that confusion arose surrounding this area terminologically during my researches.

So surrounding this topic the idea is that the latin tradition approached the reality of God’s actions in the world in term of the interrelation of creation and divinity and the east focussed more on the theological aspects in terming the “actus” of God in terms of essence and energies. But that the reality is that the fundamental mystery described in both traditions is the same, merely that the terminology differs (As I believe is the case with miaphysitism at least according to statements between the Catholic/Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches)

---

Considering the previous post by Ghosty regarding the protestant view of the divine participation of creation with God. By affirmation of divine favour, would not that affirmation to transform a person in holiness require the initiation of an interrelationship with divinity? Only God is intrinsically holy and for holiness to be imparted without a participatory relationship with the Divinity is, to me at least, lacking in reason, as it would entail that holiness can be attained separately and distinct from God without his interaction within the created being. Which of course is known to be erroneous since separation from God and a lack of participation in Gods grace clearly would lead to perpetuation of the sinful state of man and in turn seriously call into doubt the reality of salvation which in itself is a relationship between God and Man.

Also how would this idea correspond with later protestant (evangelical and pentecostal) ideas of living within a direct relationship with God, (born again in the spirit sort of thing). Would this not logically require a participation in divinity?

---

To the first reply, I totally Reject, Condemn and turn away any and all new age ideas not in accord with pre-existing catholic dogma. I am an orthodox member with traditionalist leaning of the Holy Catholic Church.

just thought id clear the air

This issue perhaps hinges entirely on the different understanding as to how we are saved in Protestant theology, that is, that our sins are forgiven, but they remain with us, in us and Christ’s righteousness “covers our sins” but does not “cancel them” - and Christian living, as Stott wrote, is all about “penal servitude.”

Ghosty?

Alex

 

[dcointin]

As a former Protestant (Lutheran), I can confirm that this is exactly how salvation was understood. The focus was completely on “forensic justification”, being declared innocent by God as a man on trial before a judge. Luther called the doctrine of justification “the pillar on which the Church stands or falls”, and believed that salvation by grace through faith alone is the central dogma of the Christian faith. The Augsburg Confession, the earliest and most important Lutheran confession, stated:

“Also they * teach that men cannot be justified before God by their own strength, merits, or works, but are freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith, when they believe that they are received into favor, and that their sins are forgiven for Christ’s sake, who, by His death, has made satisfaction for our sins. This faith God imputes for righteousness in His sight. Rom. 3 and 4.”

This view makes salvation something soley external, and with no accompanying ontological change in the Christian.*

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Thank you for explaining it so succinctly!

Deification is also at the root of the veneration of the Saints in Orthodoxy, as you know.

Alex

 

[Ghosty]

Jehoshua:

Also how would this idea correspond with later protestant (evangelical and pentecostal) ideas of living within a direct relationship with God, (born again in the spirit sort of thing). Would this not logically require a participation in divinity?

I don’t know much about modern evangelical theology, but in what little I’ve seen they don’t tend to have a concept of deification/theososis as the Catholics and Orthodox do. There’s a belief in conforming ourselves to Jesus, and having a personal relationship with God, but this takes on more of the sense of human imitation (What would Jesus do?) and less of actual participation in Divinity. I’m only voicing my limited experience, however, and not speaking with any kind of authority as I’ve never been Protestant, and never been close to any Protestants of that persuasion.

Alexander Roman: While I also follow the Byzantine approach to explaining deification, and I agree that reunion would be easier if Latins dropped their theological terminology, I don’t think that would necessarily be a good idea. The Eastern Orthodox are in desperate need, IMO, of broadening their theological horizons. Not in the sense of adopting the language and traditions of other Apostolic groups, but of accepting them as legitimately Patristic and Apostolic (which they are).

There has been an unhealthy tendency towards “Byzantification” in the Eastern Orthodox Communion, and entire Apostolic traditions have been eliminated from them because of it (the original Melkite/Antiochian tradition, for example). I’m a firm believer that familiarity with, and acceptance of, other orthodox, Apostolic, Patristic traditions can only help breathe life into the Byzantine tradition and give it a robust presence within the Apostolic Communion.

Unity can’t come about by annihilating what is unique but orthodox in Apostolic Traditions. If Latins are to become comfortable with the Palamite theology that developed legitimately after the Schism, the Eastern Orthodox must also become comfortable with the legitimate theological approach that developed in the Latin world after the Schism. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Jehoshua]

Well perhaps if that is true (pentecostal/evangelical “living in the spirit” thing is purely imitatory).

I believe that logically that it is fundamentally flawed. This is because it opens up the door to sola fide (or at least the said groups interpretation of the original form of this doctrine) which implies that purely through faith in God one can achieve salvation. This implies that Gods agency through grace is unnecesary and one can achieve salvation without any divine involvement at all (clearly wrong) because all that is neccesary is faith in God (faith alone) as evident in particular in the “once saved always saved” ecclesial communites.

I think perhaps though that the whole point of “evangelicalism/pentecosolism” is the degeneration of historic christianity into a purely emotive experience without any true sense of mystery or phiolosophical insight and often without a fully developed theology. If this is the case then the previous statement is not really surprising in this environment of theological immaturity and focus on a shallow emotive experience.

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Jehoshua:

I don’t know much about modern evangelical theology, but in what little I’ve seen they don’t tend to have a concept of deification/theososis as the Catholics and Orthodox do. There’s a belief in conforming ourselves to Jesus, and having a personal relationship with God, but this takes on more of the sense of human imitation (What would Jesus do?) and less of actual participation in Divinity. I’m only voicing my limited experience, however, and not speaking with any kind of authority as I’ve never been Protestant, and never been close to any Protestants of that persuasion.

Alexander Roman: While I also follow the Byzantine approach to explaining deification, and I agree that reunion would be easier if Latins dropped their theological terminology, I don’t think that would necessarily be a good idea. The Eastern Orthodox are in desperate need, IMO, of broadening their theological horizons. Not in the sense of adopting the language and traditions of other Apostolic groups, but of accepting them as legitimately Patristic and Apostolic (which they are).

There has been an unhealthy tendency towards “Byzantification” in the Eastern Orthodox Communion, and entire Apostolic traditions have been eliminated from them because of it (the original Melkite/Antiochian tradition, for example). I’m a firm believer that familiarity with, and acceptance of, other orthodox, Apostolic, Patristic traditions can only help breathe life into the Byzantine tradition and give it a robust presence within the Apostolic Communion.

Unity can’t come about by annihilating what is unique but orthodox in Apostolic Traditions. If Latins are to become comfortable with the Palamite theology that developed legitimately after the Schism, the Eastern Orthodox must also become comfortable with the legitimate theological approach that developed in the Latin world after the Schism. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

Peace and God bless!

And Heaven forbid that it should be otherwise!

As you know, many Orthodox in history not only appreciated Aquinas, but even venerated him privately (John Meyendorff goes into this in his book on Byzantine Theology).

For Orthodox and others, and yes this is simply on the face of it, Aquinas’ “created grace” is an obstacle. The explanation of it often falls on deaf Orthodox ears given historic RC opposition to Palamism (which was considered a kind of “quietism”).

The rapprochement will have to not only deal with the terminology and its meaning in both history and in contemporary times, but also with how centuries old suspicions on both sides have tended to colour the entire discourse (a familiar thing in most discussions of this sort, to be sure).

At no time am I, or should anyone, suggest that the Latin Church give up its legitimate Apostolic and theological traditions.

As for the Orthodox widening their theology - actually, I don’t believe they need to at all. What they do need to do is to present the dynamism of their great liturgical and theological traditions in contemporaneous format so that more Christians of the West - and also non-Christians - may drink more deeply of those soul-quenching spiritual waters.

In my view, anyway.

Laudetur Jesus Christus!

Alex

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well perhaps if that is true (pentecostal/evangelical “living in the spirit” thing is purely imitatory).

I believe that logically that it is fundamentally flawed. This is because it opens up the door to sola fide (or at least the said groups interpretation of the original form of this doctrine) which implies that purely through faith in God one can achieve salvation. This implies that Gods agency through grace is unnecesary and one can achieve salvation without any divine involvement at all (clearly wrong) because all that is neccesary is faith in God (faith alone) as evident in particular in the “once saved always saved” ecclesial communites.

I think perhaps though that the whole point of “evangelicalism/pentecosolism” is the degeneration of historic christianity into a purely emotive experience without any true sense of mystery or phiolosophical insight and often without a fully developed theology. If this is the case then the previous statement is not really surprising in this environment of theological immaturity and focus on a shallow emotive experience.

Yes indeed. What you say goes back to the way Calvinistic Protestantism envisions salvation - the righteousness of Christ covers over our sins without, as our Orthodox friend said, causing any ontological change in our souls ie. eliminating the sins.

Calvinism saw the human will to be so ravaged by Original Sin so as to be incapable of doing anything save receiving salvation by “faith alone.” After such reception, there was nothing the human will could do for itself and was an entirely passive agent - which is why the will, once “saved” could not even “undo” the saving. If the will rejected Christ, then this would be infallible proof that the will had not been really saved to begin with. Therefore, the idea of merits and the veneration of saints was totally verboten in Calvinism - after all, how can one merit anything and be given credit for it with a will that is totally passive?

Calvinism and its passive stance was what was opposed by Wesleyan Methodism and Pentecostalism/holiness movements.

It was not enough to be saved by faith, one needed to live and grow in Christ through a life of intense, self-disciplined devotion i.e. prayer, reading of the scriptures, meditation, fasting, charitable works etc. Wesley even insisted on the reading of the Church Fathers and Methodism soon developed its own calendar of holy people whom they not only imitated and celebrated, but also came close to venerating. For example, Methodists have loved to stand in the spot where the great Methodist holy preacher, Francis Asbury once taught. Bricks from Wesley’s chapel became a prized “relic” for Methodists. There is the story of a Methodist Confederate officer taking pieces of cloth from the body of a Methodist preacher and distributing these to his men before a battle etc.

Martin Luther himself referred to Christians as “little Christs.” And Theosis has been variously and actually expressed by contemporary Protestant writers, but I don’t have my sources with me here where I am now so I could share them with you. My Baptist boss once showed me a passage from an Evangelical writer in a book he keeps on his desk - it was as succinct a statement of Theosis as ever I’ve seen.

Whether or not Theosis is systematically developed within Protestant theology is another matter and I simply don’t know this.

Alex

 

[Ghosty]

Alexander Roman:

As for the Orthodox widening their theology - actually, I don’t believe they need to at all. What they do need to do is to present the dynamism of their great liturgical and theological traditions in contemporaneous format so that more Christians of the West - and also non-Christians - may drink more deeply of those soul-quenching spiritual waters.

I completely agree. It’s not that I think the Eastern Orthodox should adopt non-Byzantine theology at all, but merely that the purpose of evangelization and unity would be best served by a growing familiarity and understanding of the other Apostolic traditions. I think such a process would enable those of the Byzantine tradition to better share the riches of our own tradition with others, especially since it would be much easier to explain things like Palamism if we are also familiar with how the Apostolic Tradition is expressed in other traditions.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Dear Ghosty,

Agree completely then! Hopefully, that’s not scary either . . .

What do you do for Hallowe’en?

Alex