Pages

Sunday, August 12, 2007

Energetic Processions of the Quaternity

“Following John of Damascus, and especially Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), the East considers the essence of God to be unknowable, and only God’s energies or operations being revealed, the things around him (‘all that we can affirm concerning God does not shew forth God’s nature, but only the qualities of his nature’ [John of Damascus]). This dichotomy, as a sympathetic critic like T. F. Torrance argues, ‘implies that to know God in the Spirit…is not to know God in his divine Being—to know God is only to know the things that relate to his Nature as manifested through a penumbra of his uncreated energies or rays.’ This drives a wedge between the inner life of God and his saving activity in history, ruling out any real access to knowing God in himself,” R. Letham, Through Western Eyes: Eastern Orthodoxy: A Reformed Perspective (Mentor 2007), 233-34.

“The questions to be addressed to these developments are whether, firstly, a yawning chasm has not been opened between the economic trinity and the immanent trinity, and secondly whether there is not a tendency towards a quaternity—the unknowable divine essence plus the three revealed persons. Along these lines, Fairbairn suggests that the distinction tends to create ‘a crisis of confidence in God’s character. If we insist that we can know nothing of God’s inner life…then can we really be confident that God’s outer life is consistent with his inner life” ibid. 234.

“Gregory Palamas’ development of the distinction between the unknowable essence (being) of God and his energies has won widespread approval. However, this drives a wedge between the immanent and economic trinities, between God in himself and God as he has revealed himself. This threatens our knowledge of God with a profound agnosticism, since we have no way of knowing whether God is as he has revealed himself in Jesus Christ,” ibid. 283.

“It also defies rational discourse, since we cannot say anything about who God is. The acme of the Christian life becomes mystical contemplation rather than fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). As Barth says, ‘it goes beyond revelation to achieve a very different picture of God antecedently in himself’” ibid. 283.

“The point here is that this is not merely a development from the Cappadocians, whose work led to the resolution of the Trinitarian crisis. It is more than that—it is a distortion of the classic doctrine of the trinity. It introduces into God a division, not a distinction. As Dorthea Wendebourg comments, it results in the persons of the trinity having no soteriological functions. The classic doctrine affirmed that the three persons, each and together are the one God. By introducing a new level in God, the trinitarian settlement is undermined. It is the defeat of Trinitarian theology,” ibid. 283-84.

25 comments:

  1. orthodox said...

    “Far from cutting us off from the trinity, the essence and energies distinction is designed to bring us into the life of the trinity whilst acknowledging the fact that God ‘dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see.’ (1Ti 6:16) The distinction allows us to experience God, really and truly, without claiming to be able to do what the bible says we can't: enter the unapproachable light of his very being. To deny the essence energies distinction to to either deny the scriptures saying that God dwells in a place unapproachable, or to deny the scriptures saying that God's spirit can truly dwell in us. As soon as you come to deal with this problem, you have to draw some distinction, whatever name you want to assign it.”

    Here we’re treated to Orthodox’s Mickey Mouse appeal to Scripture. Notice that he doesn’t bother to exegete his prooftexts.

    i) We’re dealing with picturesque metaphors. “Light” is a visual metaphor. “Unapproachable” is a spatial metaphor. “Dwelling” is another spatial metaphor.

    A serious exegete or theologian would make some effort to ask what these metaphors literally mean in context.

    ii) God is not literally a luminous being, although God can effect a luminous manifestation that signifies his presence (the Shekinah).

    God is not literally “unapproachable,” as if he were far away “place.” That’s good Mormon theology, but poor Christian theology.

    The Holy Spirit is not a physical being who literally occupies a portion of space inside our bodies.

    So it’s necessary to determine the literal force of this figurative imagery.

    iii) There are probably two levels of divine transcendence in 1 Tim 6:16.

    a) One is metaphysical. As a spiritual being, God is a supersensible being. So he cannot be detected by the senses (although his economic effects are detectable).

    However, the scriptural possibility of knowing God or knowing about God was never predicted on our human ability to discover God, but on God’s ability to make himself known to us.

    God can make himself known by various means, viz. creation, providence, miracle, theophany, incarnation, and verbal revelation.

    For example, when God tells us about himself in Scripture, are these self-referential statements true? I say yes, but Orthodox says no.

    b) With its OT allusions, it’s likely that 1 Tim 6:16 also takes for granted the ethical transcendence of God. God is holy, but we are sinners.

    However, the ethical divide is bridged over by the Redeemer on behalf of the redeemed.

    iv) Orthodox says that “The [essence/energy] distinction allows us to experience God, really and truly,” but this is an assertion which is contradicted by the distinction itself.

    Either the energies are identical with the essence or distinct from the essence. If identical, then in what sense is there a distinction? If identical, then what’s the function of the distinction?

    But if the energies are not identical with the essence, then what we experience is not what God is really and truly like, but something else. And we’re in no position to compare the energies with the essence to judge the degree of correspondence.

    “The whole crux of Athanasius argument for the trinity is to draw a distinction between that created out of God's will, and that created out of his essence. Christ is created out of God's essence.”

    So Christ is a creature. This is Neoplatonic emanationism. Profoundly pantheistic. It turns the Son into a secondary grade of divinity. Degrees of deity.

    ReplyDelete
  2. “The whole crux of Athanasius argument for the trinity is to draw a distinction between that created out of God's will, and that created out of his essence. Christ is created out of God's essence.”

    So much for the Nicene Creed in Orthodox's theology.

    So much for his rule of faith being better than ours too, for Orthodox has just given us a prime illustration of what I've been saying about somebody having to interpret the creeds.

    And this is also what you get from Nicene subordinationism, for the subordinationist cast gives room this sort of thing.

    And wasn't Orthodox the one calling the competing view within Reformed theology "major heresy" just a few months ago?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Steve--

    You wrote:

    "But if the energies are not identical with the essence, then what we experience is not what God is really and truly like, but something else. And we’re in no position to compare the energies with the essence to judge the degree of correspondence."

    Regarding your first sentence, doesn't this assume that the energies cannot be called "God", and do not manifest what God is really and truly like?

    Regarding your second sentence, what kind of function would be served by our ability to intellectually compare the essence and energies to judge degrees of correspondence?

    And if we work from a position that denies the essence/energies distinction, are we in a more adequate position to know the divine essence? Wouldn't we only know the essence through created effects, which would be even less adequate for knowledgge of God's essence because of our inability to compare said essence with the effects?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Steve--

    You wrote:

    "ii) God is not literally a luminous being, although God can effect a luminous manifestation that signifies his presence (the Shekinah)."

    Does the Shekinah merely signify God's presence?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Regarding your first sentence, doesn't this assume that the energies cannot be called "God", and do not manifest what God is really and truly like?

    In this regard, we can reason from the Trinity itself, and Scripture in particular.

    The reason that Christ can reveal God to us is that He Himself is God. That's a standard Johnanine theme. We all agree that is due to Him being of the same essence with God, no matter if you take Nicene subordinationism as your paradigm or the Calvinist view in which the 3 Persons share one essence and are each "a se" in themselves, the Son and Spirit proceeding from the Father with respect to their Personhood.

    In sum, then, that by which God is truly known is that which truly reveals God. In the case of Jesus Himself, He shares God's essence. In the case of Scripture, it is "theopneustos."

    So, this is not an assumption, rather we can reason to it based on our common view of the Trinity. If the energies are truly distinct from the essence, then no, they cannot be called "God" for the reason that if Jesus is not, as to His divine essence, God, He cannot fully reveal God to us, for in the selected text, I might add, not from John but 1 Timothy, the focus is Jesus. No man has seen God, but Jesus here is depicted in his glory, for this doxology relates to His glory and His return (viz. "the proper time"). He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; God is unseen, but Jesus has been seen and, indeed, will be seen by all in that day. He is the God-man, the living Incarnation of the Invisible God, the Person the Son, one is essence with the Father and Spirit, yet fully man, thus making the "invisible" visible, the "unapproachable" approachable, the "unknowable," knowable.

    Now, one could, in theory say the energies are like the Son, but if the energies and essence are, indeed, distinct from the essence and yet uncreated, that would seem to me to fail at the critical point of comparison, for the Son and the Father and Spirit all share the same essence, though the Son is uncreated.

    We agree that men can have some natural knowledge of God via creation, but the way we know God - anything about God at all - is not by His uncreated "energies," but by His Word, whether the Written Word or the Incarnate Word when He appears. We should speak where Scripture actually speaks. If we assume the validity of the essence/energies distinction for the sake of argument, the point of discernment to adjudicate any truth about God from the energies would not be the energies but the Word of God and what it or He actually has to say about them in relation to God's essence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. mg said...
    Steve--__You wrote:__"ii) God is not literally a luminous being, although God can effect a luminous manifestation that signifies his presence (the Shekinah)."__Does the Shekinah merely signify God's presence?

    Literal “presence” is a spatial relation. A relation of proximity.

    God is a spiritual, supersensible being. As such, God is illocal and invisible—to human eyesight.

    The Shekinah (as well as the Transfiguration, and other theophanies) was a sensory phenomenon, using visual stimuli to be perceived by the observer. Sensory input exciting the observer's sensory relays.

    Unless you’re a pantheist, God is not a spatiotemporal being with sensible properties.

    God can effect sensory manifestations, which signify his presence, but God is not composed of light waves or sound waves.

    ReplyDelete
  7. mg said...

    “Regarding your first sentence, doesn't this assume that the energies cannot be called ‘God’, and do not manifest what God is really and truly like?”

    i) The Orthodox would regard the energies as divine inasmuch as the energies are uncreated. However, when you also set up a disjunction between the essence of God and his energies, then they can only be divine by making God a composite being. So you pay a price for your statement.

    ii) How can the energies manifest what God is really and truly like if God is essentially unknowable, and his energies are distinct from his essence?

    “Regarding your second sentence, what kind of function would be served by our ability to intellectually compare the essence and energies to judge degrees of correspondence?__And if we work from a position that denies the essence/energies distinction, are we in a more adequate position to know the divine essence? Wouldn't we only know the essence through created effects, which would be even less adequate for knowledgge of God's essence because of our inability to compare said essence with the effects?”

    i) Our knowledge of God isn’t limited to his created effects. There is his verbal self-revelation.

    ii) But even at the level of created effects, the question at issue here is not merely a metaphysical distinction (whether between essence and energy or essence and effect), but an epistemic dichotomy between an unknowable essence and something else.

    That dichotomy is generated by the Palamite disjunction. But if we don’t begin with the Palamite disjunction, then there is no dichotomy to overcome.

    If we deny the Palamite disjunction, then we are not saddled with a dichotomy between God’s inscrutable essence and his scrutable effects.

    Indeed, it would be more biblical to set up a revelatory relation between God’s exemplary essence and the creaturely effects that exemplify his nature.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Gene--

    You wrote:

    "Regarding your first sentence, doesn't this assume that the energies cannot be called "God", and do not manifest what God is really and truly like?

    In this regard, we can reason from the Trinity itself, and Scripture in particular.

    The reason that Christ can reveal God to us is that He Himself is God. That's a standard Johnanine theme. We all agree that is due to Him being of the same essence with God, no matter if you take Nicene subordinationism as your paradigm or the Calvinist view in which the 3 Persons share one essence and are each "a se" in themselves, the Son and Spirit proceeding from the Father with respect to their Personhood.

    In sum, then, that by which God is truly known is that which truly reveals God. In the case of Jesus Himself, He shares God's essence. In the case of Scripture, it is "theopneustos."

    So, this is not an assumption, rather we can reason to it based on our common view of the Trinity. If the energies are truly distinct from the essence, then no, they cannot be called "God" for the reason that if Jesus is not, as to His divine essence, God, He cannot fully reveal God to us, for in the selected text, I might add, not from John but 1 Timothy, the focus is Jesus. No man has seen God, but Jesus here is depicted in his glory, for this doxology relates to His glory and His return (viz. "the proper time"). He is the King of Kings and Lord of Lords; God is unseen, but Jesus has been seen and, indeed, will be seen by all in that day. He is the God-man, the living Incarnation of the Invisible God, the Person the Son, one is essence with the Father and Spirit, yet fully man, thus making the "invisible" visible, the "unapproachable" approachable, the "unknowable," knowable."

    Now, one could, in theory say the energies are like the Son, but if the energies and essence are, indeed, distinct from the essence and yet uncreated, that would seem to me to fail at the critical point of comparison, for the Son and the Father and Spirit all share the same essence, though the Son is uncreated.

    We agree that men can have some natural knowledge of God via creation, but the way we know God - anything about God at all - is not by His uncreated "energies," but by His Word, whether the Written Word or the Incarnate Word when He appears. We should speak where Scripture actually speaks. If we assume the validity of the essence/energies distinction for the sake of argument, the point of discernment to adjudicate any truth about God from the energies would not be the energies but the Word of God and what it or He actually has to say about them in relation to God's essence."

    1. If Im understanding you correctly, you're saying that Jesus is an adequate revealer based on his union with the divine essence. You say that the way we know God is by his Word.

    I think this depends on what you mean by "God". By God do you mean "the divine essence"? I would say no. If by God you mean one of the divine persons, then I would say "yes".

    2. You wrote:

    "If the energies are truly distinct from the essence, then no, they cannot be called "God" for the reason that if Jesus is not, as to His divine essence, God, He cannot fully reveal God to us"

    If the persons of the Trinity are truly distinct from the essence they share in, then can He adequately reveal God to us?

    3. You say we should speak where Scripture speaks. Doesn't Scripture teach the essence/energies distinction?

    4. According to Orthodox theology, the divine persons manifest themselves by means of their energies. And all the energies manifest the one essence of God (they are all dependent upon it and inseperably connected to it). Does this not serve to adequately fulfill the criteria of what an adequate revelation would consist in, by your standards?

    5. If I'm correct, the Scriptures only contain created effects made by God on your account (barring one more possibility, of which I am not sure...). In what sense do these created effects, which do not share in the divine essence, serve as comparison-tools for seeing if the energies manifest the essence?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Steve--

    You wrote:

    "Literal “presence” is a spatial relation. A relation of proximity.

    God is a spiritual, supersensible being. As such, God is illocal and invisible—to human eyesight.

    The Shekinah (as well as the Transfiguration, and other theophanies) was a sensory phenomenon, using visual stimuli to be perceived by the observer. Sensory input exciting the observer's sensory relays.

    Unless you’re a pantheist, God is not a spatiotemporal being with sensible properties.

    God can effect sensory manifestations, which signify his presence, but God is not composed of light waves or sound waves."

    The Glory is called "God" in Lev 16:2, Revelation 22:5, and Isaiah 6:1 (see John 12:41).

    Can your theology encompass the identification of God himself with his Glory? Orthodoxy's understanding of the divine energies does permit us to say that God can visibly manifest Himself. You don't have to be a pantheist to hold that God can be literally identified with something that is visible and local.

    Also, in what sense would God be "present" when you say the Shekinah would signify his presence? Do you mean his omnipresence (perhaps the connection of all things to the essence of God, ala Augustine)? This seems a peculiar way of looking at the glory, which seems to be a unique manifestation of his presence. If it were God's omnipresent essence, there could be no degrees of presence. If it is not God's essence that is present, though, what is it that uniquely makes God *specially* present in some places and not others?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Steve---

    You wrote:

    "i) The Orthodox would regard the energies as divine inasmuch as the energies are uncreated. However, when you also set up a disjunction between the essence of God and his energies, then they can only be divine by making God a composite being. So you pay a price for your statement."

    1. Aren't you committed to the fact that God is composite in virtue of the person-essence distinction?

    2. I don't see why this is a bad thing. What is bad about saying there are distinctions within God? That would be bad in a neoplatonic framework, where simplicity is to be identified with the One. But why is that so bad for a Christian? We say that God's energies are a part of Him without flinching.

    "ii) How can the energies manifest what God is really and truly like if God is essentially unknowable, and his energies are distinct from his essence?"

    1. If the energies are truly God, then they *by definition* manifest what God is really and truly like. We just define "really and truly" differently. You say that God is only *really* his essence. I say that God is really and truly essence, energies, and persons.

    2. If only God's essence is really and truly God, then what of the persons of the Trinity? If you answer "well, they share in the essence" then I could answer "the energies are manifestations of the persons". Hence the energies do indeed manifest God himself.

    3. And if you went this route, what exactly would you say manifests the divine persons? Is it their created effects? (Christ's human nature and the Bible, for instance)

    “Regarding your second sentence, what kind of function would be served by our ability to intellectually compare the essence and energies to judge degrees of correspondence?__And if we work from a position that denies the essence/energies distinction, are we in a more adequate position to know the divine essence? Wouldn't we only know the essence through created effects, which would be even less adequate for knowledgge of God's essence because of our inability to compare said essence with the effects?”

    "i) Our knowledge of God isn’t limited to his created effects. There is his verbal self-revelation."

    1. If God's words are not his essence, then they are probably just created effects on your view. Are God's words his essence? Or are they his created effects? Or is there a third category?

    "ii) But even at the level of created effects, the question at issue here is not merely a metaphysical distinction (whether between essence and energy or essence and effect), but an epistemic dichotomy between an unknowable essence and something else.

    That dichotomy is generated by the Palamite disjunction. But if we don’t begin with the Palamite disjunction, then there is no dichotomy to overcome.

    If we deny the Palamite disjunction, then we are not saddled with a dichotomy between God’s inscrutable essence and his scrutable effects."

    1. Given a denial of the distinction between essence and energies, in what sense do we know God's essence from created effects?

    "Indeed, it would be more biblical to set up a revelatory relation between God’s exemplary essence and the creaturely effects that exemplify his nature."

    1. What do you mean by "exemplify his nature"? Are you equating essence and nature (which seems to be the framework you're working with)?

    2. Do you mean they share in his essence? If so, are you saying that the created effects possess God's essence?

    3. If you mean they show his essence, and not possess it, then in what sense do they do this?

    4. Also, if the Glory is God, and if it is uncreated (as Jesus teaches), then it does seem that it is biblical to speak of God revealing himself in his activities, which would not be identical to created effects.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MG SAID:

    “The Glory is called ‘God in Lev 16:2.”

    That’s not what the text says. It says that God will appear in the form of a cloud. It’s a theophany. In particular, the Shekinah.

    There are many theophanies in Scripture. Take the appearance of the Holy Spirit as a dove at the baptism of Christ. Do you think the Holy Spirit literally became a bird? Is the Holy Spirit a shapeshifter, like Odo?

    Or is this a case in which the Holy Spirit created a tangible emblem that signified his presence?

    Or consider the theophany in Gen 15:17. Is the smoking firepot an uncreated firepot? Is the torch an uncreated torch? Is there an eternal firepot subsisting within the godhead? Do wisps of smoke emanate from the godhead?

    Or did God create these inanimate objects to signify his presence?

    Or take Ezk 1:28. Notice the distancing formula. Did Ezekiel see God? No. What he saw was the *appearance* of the *likeness* of the *glory* of the Lord. God is four steps removed from what the seer beheld.

    That’s the point of theophanies. They’re mediating structures. God qua God cannot be seen by human eyes. But God can indirectly manifest himself through audiovisual media that symbolically externalize his intangible attributes—whether it’s a theophanic bird or cloud or firepot.

    “Revelation 22:5.”

    If you interpret Revelation the way Tim LaHaye would. But I beg to differ. There are several different levels in play.

    i) Unlike Lev 16:2, which involves an external sensory stimulus, this is a case of visionary revelation. In Scripture, a vision is basically an inspired daydream. There is no external stimulus. And the sensory organs are not in use.

    To the contrary, the seer is in an altered state of consciousness, in which he is processing simulated visions and auditions. His eardrums aren’t vibrating from sound waves. His optical nerve isn’t excited by light waves. The point of a trance is to suppress his sensory awareness of the external world so that he can process information through a different modality, like a dream—except that God is producing the content of the vision.

    ii) In addition, Rev 22:5 is using picture language. We are intended to visualize a sky in which God is, in effect, a solar deity. He takes the place of the sun. He is shining on the earth.

    But this is figurative. A theological cartoon.

    iii) More generally, the Apocalypse carries over a lot of stock imagery from the OT. Imagery that’s creatively reconfigured in the Apocalypse. In Rev 21-22, a lot of this imagery is taken over from Isaiah and Ezekiel. And in particular, Rev 21:23 and 22:5 are reworking Isa 60:19.

    “And Isaiah 6:1 (see John 12:41).”

    i) Once again, we’re dealing with visionary revelation.

    ii) Here God is depicted in humanoid form as an oriental king, seated on his throne, surrounded by his courtiers. This is how God presents himself to the seer.

    Do you think there’s an uncreated throne? An uncreated robe? An uncreated altar? Uncreated smoke? Uncreated tongs and burning coals? Uncreated seraphim?

    Have you thought through the details of your position?

    “Can your theology encompass the identification of God himself with his Glory?”

    Aside from the other problems with your identification (see above), you’re also committing a word=concept fallacy. You’re equating the uncreated light of hesychasm with the “cloud” in Lev 16:2, the “glory” in Isa 6:3, and the quasi-sunshine in Rev 21:23 & 22:5.

    This isn’t exegesis, and it isn’t lexical semantics.

    “You don't have to be a pantheist to hold that God can be literally identified with something that is visible and local.”

    That’s an assertion, not an argument. You need to explain and defend your claim.

    “Also, in what sense would God be ‘present’ when you say the Shekinah would signify his presence?”

    Symbolically.

    “Do you mean his omnipresence?”

    “Omnipresence” is another case of picture language. It’s a figurative way of expressing the fact that God’s sphere of action isn’t delimited by spatiotemporal barriers.

    “If it is not God's essence that is present, though, what is it that uniquely makes God *specially* present in some places and not others?”

    i) Literally nothing. Sacred time and sacred space involve cultic categories of ritual purity. Inanimate objects aren’t literally holy.

    But they can signify purity. And mishandling them can signify defilement. Moreover, God can assign concrete consequences to these rituals.

    However, I also believe that the ceremonial law was fulfilled in Christ.

    ii) At the same time, there are various ways of glossing “presence.”

    a) Da Vinci is present if you have a face-to-face meeting with Da Vinci. He’s in your living room, speaking with you.

    b) Da Vinci’s also present, one step removed, if he sends you a self-portrait.

    c) Da Vinci is still present, two steps removed, if he sends you one of his paintings, which is not a self-portrait.

    It is not a painting of Da Vinci, but it reveals his artistry.

    d) Da Vinci is not present if you have an El Greco rather than a Da Vinci hanging in your living room.

    i) Or, to change illustrations, your girlfriend is present when you spend time in her company.

    ii) She is present to a lesser degree when she speaks to you on the phone, or writes you a love letter.

    iii) She is present in the sense of (ii), whereas she’s absent if, instead of a love letter, you get a notice from the IRS

    I’d suggest that you cultivate or expand your imagination when it comes to what it means for someone to be present in your life.

    “If the persons of the Trinity are truly distinct from the essence they share in, then can He adequately reveal God to us?”

    They aren’t distinct from the essence they share. Rather, they are distinct from one another.

    How we finesse this distinction depends on our conceptual apparatus.

    “If I'm correct, the Scriptures only contain created effects made by God on your account (barring one more possibility, of which I am not sure...). In what sense do these created effects, which do not share in the divine essence, serve as comparison-tools for seeing if the energies manifest the essence?”

    It doesn’t have to be based on a comparison. A comparison involves a similarity or dissimilarity between two or more objects, viz. does a copy resemble the original? Does a portrait resemble the subject who stood for the portrait? Does one signature resemble another? That sort of thing.

    But, in Scripture, we’re dealing, among other things, with propositions by God and about God. It’s not a question of whether the effect resembles the cause, in the sense that a copy resembles the original.

    Now, we can get deep into God-talk if you like, but I’m merely drawing a preliminary distinction to forestall further confusion.

    ReplyDelete
  12. mg said...

    “Aren't you committed to the fact that God is composite in virtue of the person-essence distinction?”

    i) I deny a person-essence distinction. A person-essence distinction would give us a quaternity rather than a trinity. It’s a form of modalism, with the essence as the primary God, and the members of the trinity as secondary divinities.

    ii) Perhaps you means distinct in the sense that no one person of the trinity is exhaustively identical with the essence to the exclusion of the other two persons.

    One could spend a lot of time on that. But, to make a preliminary point, when dealing with a spiritual being we need to avoid the part/whole relations that exist when dealing with bounded objects in space and time. There are no surfaces or subdivisions within the Trinity.

    “I don't see why this is a bad thing. What is bad about saying there are distinctions within God?”

    That was never the issue. It isn’t a generic question of distinctions within the godhead, but a specific question of driving a wedge between a divine, unknowable, essence, and a divine, knowable “energy.”

    “We say that God's energies are a part of Him without flinching.”

    I don’t know if you’re using “part” in a colloquial sense. Metaphysically speaking, God has no parts. A being that subsists outside of time and space is inherently incomposite and indecomposable.

    “If the energies are truly God, then they *by definition* manifest what God is really and truly like.”

    Not if, by definition, you also posit that the essence is unknowable in contradistinction to the energy.

    What is unknowable cannot be made known. There is nothing knowable to reveal. At most, the energies could reveal *that* there is an unknowable essence, but never reveal *what* the unknowable essence is like.

    Come on, MG. You’re a bright guy. But you don’t seem to have thought through the rather elementary implications of your adopted position.

    If one stipulates at the outset that the essence is unknowable, then there’s no conceptual content for the energies to disclose. They either manifest a blank, or else they manifest something other than what the essence is like.

    “If only God's essence is really and truly God, then what of the persons of the Trinity? If you answer ‘well, they share in the essence’ then I could answer ‘the energies are manifestations of the persons’. Hence the energies do indeed manifest God himself.”

    You’re attempted parallel breaks down because you’re equivocating. If you set up a blackbox between the unknowable essence, on the one hand, and the energies of the persons, on the other, then whatever else the personal energies manifest, they do not and cannot manifest the unknowable essence.

    I’m skimping over some other questions that I’ve already answered in the comment I posted just before this one. As for the remaining questions, I’m alluding to medieval exemplarism. For a basic orientation, you could start by looking up the various entries on this general topic in the New Catholic Encyclopedia.

    In addition, you keep missing a point I already explained to you. The problem with the Palamite distinction isn’t about the bare idea of drawing distinctions within the godhead.

    The problem, rather, is when you posit an *unknowable* essence. Is there some reason you’re not absorbing this point?

    If, by contrast, we do not posit an unknowable essence, then a mere distinction between exemplar and exemplum does not involve any insuperable, epistemic impediment to the revelatory translucency of the exemplum.

    Try to focus on these points.

    ReplyDelete
  13. “If only God's essence is really and truly God, then what of the persons of the Trinity? If you answer ‘well, they share in the essence’ then I could answer ‘the energies are manifestations of the persons’. Hence the energies do indeed manifest God himself.”

    Steve's already dealt with the eisegesis you've committed, MG, but this is something I specifically dealt with, so why are you repeating it?

    This analogy would fail at the critical point of comparison, for the Persons share the same essence and truly are God of God. The Palmite distinction denies this, for the energies are not God Himself, and if God's essence is unknowable, then what can the energies tell you? Do the energies tell you that God is unknowable? If so, then they express nothing at all, since what they are expressing cannot be expressed. All the energies can do is tell you that they exist and what they themselves are, not what God is like.

    By way of contrast, the Son is true God of true God. He is not simply an "energy" or, put another way, an expression of God's essence. That will get you into emanationism and/or modalism.

    This, MG, is why we should not go where Scripture does not go.

    ReplyDelete
  14. orthodox said...

    “So Nicea was wrong. Athanasius was wrong. Everyone was wrong until Calvin apparently, although I don't recall him repudiating Nicea. What I think we've got here is everyone being wrong up until Steve.”

    Another diversionary tactic. The only question of interest to me is what God has revealed about himself in his Word.

    Orthodox’s hyperbole is beside the point.

    “Far away or not far away is not the issue. Unapproachable has a very clear meaning which you won't interact with.”

    Dumb statement since I specifically interact with its meaning. Orthodox offers no counterargument, just a lame denial.

    “Eccl. 5:2 Do not be hasty in word or impulsive in thought to bring up a matter in the presence of God. For God is in heaven and you are on the earth; therefore let your words be few.”

    This is picture language, using spatial metaphors. God is up there, we are down here. Merely quoting this verse of Scripture does nothing to unpack the figurative usage.

    “He doesn't occupy a physical ‘portioin’ of space in our bodies, but he does indwell our actual physical bodies.”

    All Orthodox has done is to string some words together without successfully articulating a coherent concept.

    “Dwelling” is a metaphor, like other metaphors used in conjunction with the work of the Spirit, like filling, fruition, and outpouring.

    But Orthodox will no doubt tell us how many cubic volumes of space are taken up the Spirit’s filling, indwelling, and outpouring, or how many hectares are co-opted by his fruition. For him, the work of the Spirit is quantifiable in units of space. Measurements, please!

    “Not content with denying the Nicean trinity, now Steve is denying the incarnation. Yes we can see God. Many people in the 1st century at least did so.”

    Now he resorts to patent equivocations. What they saw was the human nature of Christ, which is in union with his invisible divine nature.

    Suppose the one-armed man is dressed in a trench coat that conceals his prosthesis. Suppose I “saw” the one-armed man. What did I see?

    Did I see a man with one arm? No. Did I see a man who is the one-armed man? Yes.

    But it would require a modicum of intelligence to draw these elementary distinctions, which are lost on a mental midget like Orthodox.

    Orthodox doesn’t want to be orthodox, he only wants to sound orthodox. To get a cracker for being a good little parakeet. So he resorts to transparent sophistries.

    “There is a sense in which God is not here, he is in heaven.”

    God is literally nowhere. God subsists outside of space and time.

    But everything that happens in the world is an effect of divine agency.

    “Ezek. 43:1 Then he led me to the gate, the gate facing toward the east; and behold, the glory of the God of Israel was coming from the way of the east. And His voice was like the sound of many waters; and the earth shone with His glory.”

    Ezekiel, in this passage, uses “glory” as a synonym for the Shekinah, and not as a synonym for the “uncreated light” of hesychasm. Orthodox hasn’t moved a single inch towards exegeting hesychasm from Ezk 43:1.

    Rather, he begins with the a priori of the divine “energies,” and maps that back onto Ezk 43:1.

    “Distinction is not separation: it does not divide God into knowable and unknowable. God reveals Himself, totally gives Himself in His energies.”

    I’ve already been over this ground with MG—more than once. You’re the guys who insist that God’s essence is unknowable, and distinguish his unknowable essence from his energies. So there’s nothing to reveal.

    “The energies of Christ's divine nature completely interpenetrate his human nature.”

    More picture language—like a sponge, interpenetrated by water. And where is the literal idea which the picturesque metaphor is intended to illustrate?

    A metaphor is no substitute for an idea. It’s, at best, an illustration of an idea. Where’s the underlying concept once we drop the metaphor?

    “By your belief that Christ is God "in himself", you are denying the foundation of Christianity, that Christ is the begotten Son of God. You deny that the Father is the unoriginate one, and that Christ is the image of the unoriginate one and reveals the unoriginate one.”

    i) Orthodox operates at the mental level of a young child. “To beget” is literally a sex act. It’s the way a human male fathers a child.

    So we are, at most, dealing with a procreative metaphor. It is therefore necessary, unless one is a Mormon, to ask what this figurative image stands for.

    In Gen 5:1-3,the focus is on the result, which entails resemblance. Adam’s image and likeness is reproduced in Seth.

    I’m taking the position that if and when the NT uses the metaphor of sexual reproduction to describe the relation between the Father and the Son, the point of the analogy lies on the figurative effect (likeness) rather than the figurative process.

    ii) I’d add that most lexicographers and Johannine scholars don’t even think that passages like Jn 3:16 are properly rendered as “only-begotten.”

    iii) Incidentally, when a couple of Jehovah’s False Witnesses recently paid a visit to Triablogue, who stood up for the deity of Christ? Did any of our Orthodox commenters defend the deity of Christ against the allegations of the Jehovah’s False Witnesses?

    No, it was the T-bloggers like Jason, Gene, and me to went head-to-head with them, challenging their erroneous exegesis. The Orthodox commenters maintained radio silence throughout this debate.

    How would they answer a Jehovah’s False Witness? They wouldn’t because they couldn’t. They don’t know how to do exegesis. So they are helpless when confronted with one of these. They can recite the Nicene creed, but they lack the exegetical competence to prove it from Scripture.

    So they sat mutely on the sidelines while Jason, Gene, and I rose to the challenge.

    ReplyDelete
  15. ORTHODOX SAID:

    “Apparently your modus operandi yet again is simply state that something is a metaphor”

    I state that something is a metaphor when it is. If you appeal to metaphors, then I’ll identify them as such.

    “And it therefore doesn't meant what it says.”

    Orthodox has an inexhaustible supply of dumb statements. A metaphorical statement means whatever the author intended it to mean.

    But it doesn’t literally mean what it says—otherwise it wouldn’t be a metaphor. Rather, it metaphorically means what it says.

    If we take Orthodox as a representative spokesman for Orthodoxy, then all he’s accomplished is to show you must operate at the level of a petulant five-year-old to be an Orthodox believer.

    “But then offer no explanation of what it does mean.”

    Yet another dumb statement, right on cue. I specifically explained in some detail what “unapproachable” means.

    “And as in all cases where you have to argue that such and such is a metaphor, you make yourself your own pope and magisterium, because most of the time nobody can prove what is and isn't a metaphor.”

    So when the Bible says that God is a rock, nobody can prove that this is or isn’t a metaphor, and only a self-appointed pope would declare it to be a metaphor.

    Okay, it’s fine with me of Orthodox worships a rock. After all, to treat the statement as figurative would be, according to Orthodox, to deny that it means what it says.

    So, for Orthodox, God is really and truly a rock. The only remaining question is what kind of rock. Does Orthodox worship a piece of flint, granite, lava, limestone, marble, slate, topaz, or carbuncle?

    “Yet John says that he saw the glory of the only-begotton Son. Oh I forgot, everything is a metaphor.”

    Notice that he sidesteps the actual argument I presented. He has no counterargument. All he can do is raise his voice and stamp his feet.

    “Ahh yes, 2000 years of Christians are mental midgets.”

    No, just you—because you’re special.

    “Then for you, God is truly unknowable, since you can have no contact with the divine.”

    Another dumb statement. Contact? As in physical contact? Do I have to be in contact with the number three to know the number three?

    “Most of the time the bible is quite content to leave us with these metaphors.”

    Orthodox is beyond parody. He’s like the worst possible caricature of a backwoods, KJV-only, snake-handlin’ fundy.

    “Which is a purely speculative assumption on your part.”

    Fine. Be a good little Mormon and take the begat language literally with reference to Christ.

    “And that's before we even get to discussing the counter evidence. Things like Heb 1:5, Acts 13:33 where begotten seems to clearly be describing an action, not an effect.”

    Different context than Johannine usage. But still figurative. The adoptive language is figurative for a coronation ceremony. Try reading Ps 2:7 in the context of ANE literary and political conventions.

    “What do you think: that your blog is the centre of the universe?”

    To judge by the amount of time you spend here, you apparently think we’re the center of the universe.

    “I know enough to know that I don't know enough to go head to head with the smartest JW minds. Some of those discussions make my head spin. Not because I can't follow the arguments, but because I don't know how to evaluate their weight beyond what seems wrong or right to me.”

    In which case you’re equally unqualified to evaluate the arguments for Eastern Orthodoxy and its theological rivals.

    “So we don't know how to do exegesis huh? Oh big guy, tell us how to do exegesis?”

    I do it all the time. Watch and learn.

    “Actually, I think you are the one who is helpless against JWs because you argue back and forth about count nouns, and greek grammar and avoid the real issue: authority.”

    The NT is authoritative, and the NT was written in Greek. Hence, Greek grammar is hardly irrelevant to the “real” issue: authority.

    ReplyDelete
  16. orthodox said...

    “All hail our new pope who defines what scripture is and defines what scripture means, and has to justify neither.”

    This is part of Orthodox’s old shtick. When he doesn’t have an argument to offer, he plugs in his “you’re your own pope” trope, as if that proves anything.

    There were no ecumenical councils in the OT, so if that was unnecessary for God’s people back then, when did it suddenly become a necessity?

    I take my cue from divine precedent. What’s good enough for God is good enough for me.

    “No you didn't.”

    The record speaks for itself.

    “Otherwise known as the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum. If one metaphor is clearly such then all metaphors must be clearly such. Obviously a logical fallacy there.”

    i)All hail our new pope who defines what scripture is and defines what scripture means, and has to justify neither. Orthodox presumes to be his very own pope, telling us that the divine “rock” is “clearly” a metaphor. So he instantly abandons his original position.

    That’s a problem when dealing with a disputant as dishonest and double-tongued as Orthodox. He would make Pinocchio look snub-nosed by comparison.

    ii) This is then connected with his straw man argument. I was not the one who said everything in Scripture was metaphorical. We’re discussing metaphors because that happens to be the only arrow in Orthodox’s quiver.

    The logical fallacy is of his own making. He’s the one who resorted to his trademark use of evasive hyperboly in the first place. Hyperbole is another one of his rhetorical gimmicks when he doesn’t have a real counterargument to offer.

    He begins by attacking a hyperbolic straw man. Then he attacks his hyperbolic straw man as a logical fallacy. Indeed it is. But he’s too thickheaded to see that he’s now attacking his own hyperbolic caricature.

    “That WAS a counter argument.”

    Once again, he has the attention span of a two-year old. This was the counterargument:

    Now he resorts to patent equivocations. What they saw was the human nature of Christ, which is in union with his invisible divine nature.

    Suppose the one-armed man is dressed in a trench coat that conceals his prosthesis. Suppose I “saw” the one-armed man. What did I see?

    Did I see a man with one arm? No. Did I see a man who is the one-armed man? Yes.

    “The number three is an abstraction. God is not.”

    Orthodox has plainly done no reading in the philosophy of mathematics. Try boning up on realism the next time.

    “I see, 2000 years of Christians are the worst charicature of snake handlin fundies. Oh sorry, that's just me, not those who agree with me.”

    According to Orthodox, 2000 years of Christians agree with him that we shouldn’t attempt to distinguish literal from figurative predications in Scripture. You’re welcome to now document your sweeping claim.

    “To call the Fathers of Nicea ‘Mormons’ is a tad anachronistic wouldn't you say?”

    If the Nicene Fathers take a verb denoting sexual reproduction literally with reference to the Son, then, yes, that would be proto-Mormonism.

    “Which is in no way an argument that these verses describe an action not a state.”

    i) I never said that those verses describe an action rather than a state. As usual, Orthodox is too feebleminded to remember who said what.

    ii) And I’ve already addressed his erroneous understanding of those verses as well.

    “All that Greek grammar doesn't tell you who has the authority to proclaim the canon.”

    And what’s the official canon of the Orthodox church? You've been fudging on that for too long.

    ReplyDelete
  17. orthodox said...

    Depending on which side of the bed he gets up in the morning:

    “So Nicea was wrong. Athanasius was wrong. Everyone was wrong until Calvin apparently, although I don't recall him repudiating Nicea."

    "Straw man. Never claimed Ecumenical councils are a necessity."

    ReplyDelete
  18. ORTHODOX SAID:

    “All hail our new pope who defines what scripture is and defines what scripture means, and has to justify neither.”

    “According to the Greek Fathers of the Church, what the Apostles saw at the Transfiguration of Christ was a natural consequence of the divinization of Christ's humanity.”

    As you can see, Orthodoxy has its own papacy. The Greek Fathers define what scripture is and define what scripture means, and has to justify neither.

    Each Father is his own pope, while an ecumenical council is merely a council of Orthodox popes. Orthodoxy is established, not by truth, but majority vote or imperial coercion.

    Our amateur Orthodox commenter has simply chosen to bow the knee to Eastern bishops rather than Western bishops.

    ReplyDelete
  19. By your belief that Christ is God "in himself", you are denying the foundation of Christianity, that Christ is the begotten Son of God. You deny that the Father is the unoriginate one, and that Christ is the image of the unoriginate one and reveals the unoriginate one. You deny the Nicean creed that Christ is light from light, true God from true God.

    A. The Nicene Creed is not our rule of faith.

    B. And to say this ignores a great deal of church history, particularly the theologians that have stated that the view that he says denies the Nicene Creed is perfectly legitimate within its bounds, and that comes from both Catholic and Orthodox theologians. If he'd bother to do his homework, he'd know that, or does he think Bellarmine, for example, was errant in that regard?

    3. And I don't think Orthodox understands the Calvinist distinction here.

    Those of us who hold to this don't deny the Father is the unoriginate one at all. Rather, we hold that each person is "a se" with regard to essence, but with regard to generation of the personhood of the Son and Spirit, we agree with Nicea. The difference lies at the level at which this generation takes place; at Nicea it is at essence, for those of us who affirm the other view, it is at the level of personhood.

    ReplyDelete
  20. ORTHODOX SAID:

    The Greek fathers are but one example of the witness of Christ's body to its continuing experience of God. The experience of the whole of Christ's body is the antithesis of a papacy.”

    And the Protestant Reformers are but another example of the witness of Christ’s body to its continuing experience of God.

    “How do you know the canon again? By way of the Greek fathers! ROFLOL.”

    Must you always be such a knucklehead? Is this genetic with you?

    One of your many intellectual deficiencies is that you never make the slightest effort to consider the most glaring counterexamples to your sweeping claims.

    As far as the historical witness to the canon is concerned, the evidence is by no means limited to the Greek Fathers. In includes Jews, many non-Greek-speaking Christians, heretics, MS evidence, and so on.

    In addition, as I’ve explained times without number, the evidence for the canon isn’t limited to external evidence. But you’re too feebleminded to remember your opponent’s actual, oft-stated position.

    "You've already admitted you are teaching contrary to Nicea."

    But you've already said that ecumenical councils are unnecessary. So why is it necessary for Gene to agree with an unnecessary council like Nicea?

    ReplyDelete
  21. ORTHODOX: Zzzz. Which you would speak English and not Latin. Even Greek would be preferable. I think I'll have to flash the yellow card every time you pull out a latin term.

    How do you have generation of the person but not of the essence?


    Pardon? You're the one who is making claims that this position is out of step with orthodox trinitarianism, but you don't understand the terminology and the argument?

    I would also point out, Orthodox, that I have been over this with you already. I pointed you to some source material - namely Post Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 4. Robert Reymond, I believe, in his text on systematic theology also discusses it. So, if you haven't availed yourself of these resources, I can only assume you don't really care to know, and I'm not going to spoon feed you since you can't conduct yourself in an intellectually responsible manner. It is well past time you start doing some homework before coming here, and that means, when you are pointed to a resource, you actually make a good faith effort to do some research.

    In addition you say: It is necessary that you agree with the body of Christ. The body of Christ agrees with Nicea. That doesn't make ecumenical councils necessary but it does make it necessary for you to agree with them when they exist.

    Aside from the fact that councils are not my rule of faith, I have no problem with addressing you on your own grounds here.

    There have been several theologians from the Greek and Latin churches who have examined this view and have declared it NOT to be out of bounds of orthodox trinitarianism, so, if you feel it is necessary to agree with the body of Christ,it is you, not I, who is in disagreement with it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. : It is necessary that you agree with the body of Christ. The body of Christ agrees with Nicea. That doesn't make ecumenical councils necessary but it does make it necessary for you to agree with them when they exist.

    This is an outstanding example of illogic.

    Nicea is unnecessary.

    The body of Christ believes Nicea (a question begging assumption).

    If one does not walk lock step with Nicea, then one is not part of the body of Christ.

    Yet, Nicea is not necessary?

    Orthodox is too incompetent to recognize the regressive fallacy when he commits it, for his claim only moves the question back a step.

    Tell us, Orthodox, has Nicene subordinationism been the doctrine of the Church from the beginning? If so, where can we find it?

    ReplyDelete
  23. ORTHODOX: So everytime you name drop somebody from some book, I'm supposed to rush out and buy it? I tell you what, you send me the $60 cost of the book and I'll go read it. Deal?

    Orthodox is lazy. He wants to have discussions and get information,and to some extent we've been willing to comply, but increasingly he acts like everybody has to do his homework for him. The problem here is that this isn't an isolated incident. He refuses to even look in the archives here, so why should we be the ones to fill him in on the details? He's the one claiming that something about which he's been given a bare sketch is "heresy," and yet he displays a remarkable ignorance of the opposing position. When told where to find the pertinent material, he refuses citing the price of books. No, Orthodox, is is high time you stepped up to the plate. It takes a sense of duty to read the material, so let's see you show it.

    One of the primary sources of infidelity is ignorance. Books are expensive, Orthodox. If you want to have a conversation about these things, then take the time to acquaint yourself with the relevant literature. Otherwise, you'll be trapped in vicious cycle of ignorance and unbelief that feeds prejudice while prejudice feeds unbelief—like using one credit card to pay off another.

    GENE: There have been several theologians from the Greek and Latin churches who have examined this view and have declared it NOT to be out of bounds of orthodox trinitarianism

    ORTHODOX: You say it differs from Nicea. I don't need to listen to any theologian to know that if it contradicts Nicea it contradicts historic Christianity.


    On the contrary, some of those theologians fall would thus fall into "Holy Tradition" since they come from your own communion. You talk about having a duty to follow the body of Christ, but you're unwilling, it seems, to follow it when pressed.


    ORTHODOX: The Church can know its own doctrine without a council. In that sense it isn't necessary. But since the church had a council and affirmed its truth, it is necessary for you to affirm it.


    A. If the Church can know its own doctrine without a council, then how is this that superior to Sola Scriptura? What is the proper warrant for doctrine?

    B. No, it is only necessary that I affirm what Scripture warrants I affirm. Where does Scripture warrant I affirm an ecumenical council?

    GENE: Tell us, Orthodox, has Nicene subordinationism been the doctrine of the Church from the beginning? If so, where can we find it?

    ORTHODOX: The job of the council was to define that which was believed from the beginning. The job of the church is affirm whether the council teaches that which has been believed from the beginning. Since both happened, the answer is it is found in the church and in the council.


    A. So, the way to know if it was believed from the beginning is to look to the council. So, it is necessary after all, or else you have nothing to tell me that the church has believed it from the beginning.

    B. How do you know the Church's affirmation of the Council is correct?

    C. And this still doesn't answer my question. If Nicene subordinationism was taught "from the beginning," then where can I find a record documenting it?

    D. This is a vicious regress.

    The assertion is that the Church believed this "from the beginning."
    The Council is proof of it.
    The church is to affirm the council's decision and that its doctrine is that which was taught from the beginning.

    That means that "the Church" must have some standard by which to know that council was correct. What is that standard? "The experience of the Church?" How then can one know if that is the right standard and that this standard is "from the beginning?"

    ReplyDelete
  24. ORTHODOX SAID:

    "No, they're not a valid witness because they are not in the church."

    All assertion, no argument.

    "In your case with the emphasis on heretics."

    A sophistical way of concealing the fact that you're backing down from your original overstatement.

    "Ahh yes, 2 Peter is by 2 Peter because 2 Peter says so. Forgot about that."

    Ahh, yes, the Orthodox church is the true church because the Orthodox church says so. Forgot about that.

    "It is necessary that you agree with the body of Christ. The body of Christ agrees with Nicea."

    What did the body of Christ believe before Nicea, and how do you document the ante-Nicene Christology of the body of Christ?

    ReplyDelete
  25. orthodox said:

    "I don't need to document the ante-Nicene Christology. The Church agreed on Nicea so Nicea is truth. I might just as well ask you to document the Christology of the Maccabean period and prove it agrees with you."

    You constantly make claims you can't substantiate. I, by contrast, can substantiate my Christology from Scripture.

    ReplyDelete