For the more astute Orthodox, what source would you point someone to if they wanted to learn about E/E? Why do you consider the doctrine important, what is at stake?
Essence-Energies Distinction
- Thread starter GodfatherPartTwo
- Start date
It’s not an easy topic really, I certainly don’t feel qualified, but there are some useful introductory videos on the topic. It’s considered essential theology for the possibility of Theosis (participation in God’s energies) and the experience of God, and it plays a big part in the difference between Eastern and Western theology.
The question of "what is at stake" is a good one.
One thing at stake is: What is meant by communion with God?
If His grace that we experience is actually "energies" this means direct communion with Him. God is still God and is ultimately unknowable in His essence, but energies mean that a very close communion with God is possible.
One thing at stake is: What is meant by communion with God?
If His grace that we experience is actually "energies" this means direct communion with Him. God is still God and is ultimately unknowable in His essence, but energies mean that a very close communion with God is possible.
Are the Energies uncreated or created? I've heard both. Seems to me like what Palamas had to say on that would be more definitive.
Probably the best source would be from St. Gregory himself. See this section of the Triads.
I always wondered why I never heard anything about essence vs energies until after I started encountering the online Orthodox and that David Bradshaw interview helped me understand why. According to him it actually had something to do with the Latin vs Greek text of the Scriptures and in particular with the most important theologian in Western Christianity (Augustine) not being really adept at Greek. Western Christianity not having this idea of the essence/energy distinction eventually led to it developing doctrines on predestination which never took off in Eastern Christianity. The essence/energy distinction is what allows for humans people to somehow participate in God's work and work with Him for salvation though in the video Bradshaw makes it clear that the parties (God and the believer) are not equal laborers.
Formally, the Eastern Orthodox Church does believe in predestination, though many online Orthodox reject the idea.
Another way to frame the debate is to see it as a question of Nature/Will. Nature referring to that which is necessary or predetermined. Will referring to that which is contingent or free. If God in His nature/essence is good, could He will Himself to be evil? Or if God in His nature is self-existant, could He will Himself out of existence? I submit that the Biblical answer is no. God cannot contradict His own nature.
More of the debate plays out when it comes to the creation. Is the creation necessary or could have God chosen not to create? I am persuaded that the creation itself is a necessary outworking of Divine Love. It was God's plan from before the foundation of the world to redeem a people for Himself and to reveal Himself to them. Not that there is an external force that compels Him to do anything, but that everything He does is done in reference to Himself, according to both His own Nature and Will. It is not prudent to pit God's Nature against His Will, but rather to see that it is both/and His Nature and Will.
Much has been made about Augustine's unfamiliarity with Greek, and looking into examples of it, I find these claims to be greatly exaggerated. It is not as though the Latin translation says anything fundamentally different from the Greek. Nor is it the case that Augustine singlehandedly invented the doctrine of predestination, after all, the Scriptures teach it and so do other earlier Church Fathers.
When the Bible speaks of energies, your English translation will render it as works, and the Latin translation rendered it as operations. Being familiar with the language should remove most of the confusion to see what is really being said about each of these concepts.
So when an Orthodox Christian says that we are saved by the divine energies, I will say amen, we are indeed saved by the works of God. If they go on to say that the works of God cannot save us unless we first unite our works to His, then I will maintain that even while we were still dead in sin, Christ died to save us.
Last edited:
Yes, you're always preoccupied with this topic. I think you need to define what you are really saying. To most people this means that some are with God "in the end" and some are not. The problem with the idea that "others will go to Hell" from Pauline writings is that he never says it. He just talks about the purpose of the (human) creation. I've pointed this out before and in other places.
I agree, but again this is a created being and language problem. It's not that he "can't", it's that it is not what He is. The words can and cannot are irrelevant for such a being.
He saves us by defeating death and by adopting us, being a mediator, and participating in human life. That doesn't mean that we will accept Him, however. There is also something else going on here that we can't explain, since he "could have" (could he? real mind bender here) just snapped his fingers regarding the death thing, and he adopts us according to His will, and our conforming to that will, which He judges. These are understandable in some fashion, but are more archetypal in that we don't really understand the "point" of them but to convey meaning.
The question of who will accept Him or not is not even something the Bible is concerned with. For God, it is not even a question. He already knows who will believe in Him because He has foreordained their adoption according to His purpose, not according to their works. We've already been over this and it's besides the topic at hand. The topic is about essence/energies distinction, and what it means for Christians.
I'm comfortable with the Biblical language. I don't see any problem with it.
2 Timothy 2:13 If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself.
Everyone was foreordained. They are human. That's what it means to be human.
Indeed.
The energies of God have to do with Synergy; again, you like to extract everything out so your worldview isn't coherent with this framework.
I finished reading the page Lawrence87 linked to last night. Here's a quote from it that's relevant to your question
A lot of the confusion seems to come from from what it means to be uncreated and what it means to have a beginning. According to the author a thing can have a beginning but still be uncreated. The confusion stems from our common sense thinking that if someone has a beginning then it must have also been created during that beginning.