God's "Energies"

[Aelred_Minor]

I’m sure this has been discussed many times on this forum, but I haven’t seen it myself and it doesn’t seem to be being discussed right now.

I would like to better understand the Eastern (or perhaps I should narrow it to “Byzantine”) theological approach to the idea of God’s “Energies” and the relationship between these and God’s Essence. For convenience in responding let me put it in a few concise questions (or clusters of questions).

1. In your view, are God’s Energies infinite or finite? If infinite, in what way are they to be distinguished from God’s Essence? If finite, would that mean something can be both finite and uncreated? How would that work?
2. In your view, where/how do God’s Energies originate? Are they eternal or did God ever exist only in His Essence? For example, do they eternally proceed from God’s Essence?
3. In your view, is “Divine Light” or “Tabor Light” a synonym for “Divine Energies”, or only one of several Energies, or something distinct from God’s Energies? If it is one of multiple Divine Energies, what are the others (if they are known), and what are their relationships with each other? For that matter, even if they are synonyms, why do you speak of “Energies” rather than “Energy”? What is the element of multiplicity here?
4. In your view, what do God’s Energies do if I may put it so bluntly? To me at least the word “energy” suggests some kind of activity.

 

[RyanBlack]

The distinction between God’s essence and God’s energies seems to have grown out of the belief that God is ultimately transcendent, but at the same time, revealed; and that God does not change.

In the East, the Fathers maintained the transcendence of God by insisting that God’s essence remains eternally unknowable and impenetrable. However, it is clear that God has revealed Himself to man and is encountered by man. It is through God’s energies that we encounter God. Because God does not change, God’s energies are eternal. Take, for example, God’s love. God has never been without love, so God’s love must be eternal.

 

[Wesley7]

From a book -the Jesus prayer- I learned the word ENERGEIA

 

[WoundedIcon]

Understand that when Easterners talk about His Essence they’re essentially speaking of His divinity, His God-ness. When they speak of His energies they are speaking of His actions. To understand the first we’d have to be God Himself, because only He has the capacity to understand that and therefore He is, as a God, wholly transcendent and otherly. But, His Energies are knowable because they show us who He is and what He does. His Energies thus understood are His Providence, and Grace. This introduces no real division into Him, allowing us to uphold Divine Simplicity.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The distinction between God’s essence and God’s energies seems to have grown out of the belief that God is ultimately transcendent, but at the same time, revealed; and that God does not change.

In the East, the Fathers maintained the transcendence of God by insisting that God’s essence remains eternally unknowable and impenetrable. However, it is clear that God has revealed Himself to man and is encountered by man. It is through God’s energies that we encounter God. Because God does not change, God’s energies are eternal. Take, for example, God’s love. God has never been without love, so God’s love must be eternal.

Lovely explanation. Interesting question. Is there an attempt to characterize the energies further?

 

[Vico]

I’m sure this has been discussed many times on this forum, but I haven’t seen it myself and it doesn’t seem to be being discussed right now.

I would like to better understand the Eastern (or perhaps I should narrow it to “Byzantine”) theological approach to the idea of God’s “Energies” and the relationship between these and God’s Essence. For convenience in responding let me put it in a few concise questions (or clusters of questions).

1. In your view, are God’s Energies infinite or finite? If infinite, in what way are they to be distinguished from God’s Essence? If finite, would that mean something can be both finite and uncreated? How would that work?
2. In your view, where/how do God’s Energies originate? Are they eternal or did God ever exist only in His Essence? For example, do they eternally proceed from God’s Essence?
3. In your view, is “Divine Light” or “Tabor Light” a synonym for “Divine Energies”, or only one of several Energies, or something distinct from God’s Energies? If it is one of multiple Divine Energies, what are the others (if they are known), and what are their relationships with each other? For that matter, even if they are synonyms, why do you speak of “Energies” rather than “Energy”? What is the element of multiplicity here?
4. In your view, what do God’s Energies do if I may put it so bluntly? To me at least the word “energy” suggests some kind of activity.

1. Finite but not objects. Uncreated means actions, attributes, and movement of God within creation, emanating from his essence.
2. His essence is infinite. What is communicated is finite.
3. There is more than one property of God. Energies is distinct from ‘energy’ of physics.
4. The communication of God’s glory and splendor, which are his properties.

 

[Cecilianus]

1. Finite but not objects. Uncreated means actions, attributes, and movement of God within creation, emanating from his essence.
2. His essence is infinite. What is communicated is finite.
3. There is more than one property of God. Energies is distinct from ‘energy’ of physics.
4. The communication of God’s glory and splendor, which are his properties.

Regarding #3: God’s Energy is one. To quote Damascene, “Further, the true doctrine teaches that the Deity is simple and has one simple energy, good and energising in all things, just as the sun’s ray, which warms all things and energises in each in harmony with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having obtained this form of energy from God, its Maker.”

And they are also multiple. St. Gregory Palamas: “Therefore the powers and energies of the divine Spirit - even though they are said in theology to be multiple - are uncreated and are to be indivisibly distinguished from the single and wholly undivided essence of the Spirit. The theologians affirm that the uncreated energy of God is indivisibly divided and multiple, as St. Basil the Great has explained above. And since the divine and deifying illumination and grace is not the essence but the energy of God, for this reason it comes forth from God not only in the singular but in multiplicity as well. It is bestowed proportionately on those who participate in it, and corresponding to the capacity of those who receive it the deifying resplendence enters them to a greater or lesser degree.” (Capita 68-69, in the Philokalia, Sherrard translation, IV:377-378)

 

[Alexander_Roman]

1. Finite but not objects. Uncreated means actions, attributes, and movement of God within creation, emanating from his essence.
2. His essence is infinite. What is communicated is finite.
3. There is more than one property of God. Energies is distinct from ‘energy’ of physics.
4. The communication of God’s glory and splendor, which are his properties.

But what is communicated is God Himself, the Holy Spirit - therefore, it cannot be “finite.”

This points to the real distinction between Western and Eastern theology - Grace is “created” and therefore “finite.”

Not so in the East.

Alex

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t think the “created/uncreated” distinction applies in this case. My existence is finite, but it is communicated by Divine Energy. Holiness is the communication of Divine Energy, yet it is not infinite in us because we increase in Holiness. So the effects are indeed finite because the receiver is finite, hence Damascene says the energy is received according to the nature and aptitude of the receiver.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Vico]

But what is communicated is God Himself, the Holy Spirit - therefore, it cannot be “finite.”

This points to the real distinction between Western and Eastern theology - Grace is “created” and therefore “finite.”

Not so in the East.

Alex

But that is not what I wrote. I wrote created and infinite.

 

[Cecilianus]

But that is not what I wrote. I wrote created and infinite.

The distinction between gratia creata and gratia increata is often thought to be a Western distinction. But Palamas also speaks of both a created grace and an uncreated grace: “There is a created grace and another grace uncreated… but since the gift which the saints receive and by which they are deified is not other than God Himself, how can you say that that is a created grace?” (Against Akyndinos, V, 26, quoted in Maloney, A Theology of Uncreated Energies, 81).

Lossky speaks of what is communicated as the “abundance of the divine nature, insofar as it is communicated to men… the divine nature which we partake through the uncreated energies” (Mystical Theology 112-113). I would say that our participation is finite, but it is a participation in something infinite. Since “participation” is not a “thing”, calling it “created” is a bit of a silly reification.