Essence Energy Distinction in the Bible
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 07. 2024
- The doctrine of the divine energies in so-called "Palamism" is very controversial and seen as a 14th century innovation, but it in fact has a very strong scriptural basis for its existence, this video aims to explore this by looking at various biblical passages that uses the word "energy" and its forms.
Dr. David Bradshaw, The Divine Energies in the New Testament: cdn.discordapp.com/attachment...
Timestamps
0:00 Intro & What Is "Divine Energy"?
5:37 Receiving an Energy (Energoumeni/Energeisthai)
7:48 The Relationship between Energy and Power
10:30 Energeia and Energein
10:55 Ephesians 1:19-20
11:55 Ephesians 3:7
12:50 Ephesians 4:16
13:32 Philippians 3:21
14:12 Colossians 1:29 [IMPORTANT]
15:55 Colossians 2:12
16:23 2 Thessalonians 2:9
17:40 2 Thessalonians 2:11
17:51 Matthew 14:2 & Mark 6:14
19:46 1 Corinthians 12:6 [IMPORTANT]
20:41 1 Corinthians 12:10-11
21:33 St. John Chrysostom on 1 Corinthians 12:11
24:14 Galatians 2:8
26:16 Galatians 3:5
27:42 Ephesians 1:11
28:35 Ephesians 2:2
29:06 Philippians 2:12-13
30:18 Romans 7:5
32:04 2 Corinthians 1:6
32:20 St. John Chrysostom on 2 Corinthians 1:6
33:16 2 Corinthians 4:12
33:38 James 5:16 [IMPORTANT]
34:19 St. Maximus the Confessor on James 5:16 [IMPORTANT]
36:15 Galatians 5:6 [IMPORTANT]
36:38 Martin Luther Refuted on Galatians 5:6
41:13 Ephesians 3:20
41:42 1 Thessalonians 2:13
42:22 2 Thessalonians 2:7
42:58 Wisdom of Solomon 7:26 [IMPORTANT]
46:14 Isaiah 11:2 & St. Gregory the Theologian's Commentary [IMPORTANT]
47:52 The Transfiguration
49:03 St. John of Damascus on the Transfiguration [IMPORTANT]
49:55 Exodus 33 [IMPORTANT]
51:53 St. Gregory the Theologian on Exodus 33:23 [IMPORTANT]
57:11 Genesis 2:2 & St. Maximus the Confessor
All of my Links: linktr.ee/therealMedWhite
Check out Patristic Faith: www.patristicfaith.com/our-te...
Follow on Twitter: / medwhiteacolyte
Donate to my Patreon: / therealmedwhite
Subscribe to my Telegram: t.me/therealmedwhite
My Discord: / discord
BTC wallet: bc1q7lszxzfwv2vmsfyx24kzpjhpyyrzse374hhp44
My Substack if you want to read my articles: therealmedwhite.substack.com/
Rokfin: www.rokfin.com/therealmedwhite
Odysee: odysee.com/@therealmedwhite
*Calvinists leave the chat*
Very informative video David. May God bless you in your ministry.
The Dimond Brother clowns refuted
Will The Person!!
See my comments above - Palamas and his clownish theology refuted!!!
@@thomaspalmieri6038 not impressed. Created Grace is wrong
@@willtheperson7224 I didn't talk about created grace, I talked about the Divine Light being the essence of God. I talked about the vision of God as taught by Christ and the Apostles Paul and John. I talked about the Nicene faith of the fathers. I talked about Gregory the Theologian expressing his opinion that the blessed in heaven will see the essence of God. I talked about the logical absurdity of referring to the so called divine processions as both Primary Beings created and substantiated by God and as uncreated energies of God. I talked about the divine processions as being nowhere made mention of in Sacred Scripture, and of the divine processions as being pagan divinities dressed up in Christian garb. I talked about the Pagan Platonization of the Gospel. You have no answer for any of this other than to say "created grace is wrong". Not impressed. Dimond Brothers not refuted.
@@thomaspalmieri6038 You can't see the Essence of God unless you wanna be a Eunomian!
czcams.com/users/shorts52BKK_ke88Y
Thank you and may the Lord bless you!
Superbe, merci David !
Thank you!
Been asking around for interaction on this: in Heidelberg disputation Luther critiques Aristotle (thomists by extension) for not recognizing God’s potentiality. In Freedom of a Christian his description of how Holy Spirit works in us sounds much like what I hear from EO. Martin Chemnitz uses the essence energy distinction fairly clearly to defend to bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist. He does this in chapter 23 of his work the 2 natures of Christ. This is also present in brief and less distinctive way in the Lutheran confession the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord article 8. I am just looking for some EO interaction on this as I have never heard or seen any
yes the abilities of God!
♡
Can you recommend a good book/s on the topic?
Triads of saint Gregory Palamas is the best
This sounds like a Nestorian interpretation of scripture, how can Christ be energized by The Father if he is one with the Father?
What do you make of the oriental orthodox ‘disagreements’ with Eastern Orthodoxy? Is it all down to language barrier, with the idea generally the same?
There is a playlist on it on his channel.
@@luisferreira7194 Thank you
Dr. Bradshaw presents one little snippet of a quote from Luther on this verse in Galatians. I read Dr. Bradshaw’s paper. It would have been nice if he realized we Lutherans actually have much space devoted to this in our confessional material. Luther’s lectures on Galatians were earlier in his life than his Great Galatians commentary from 1535. In there, working from the Greek and not the vulgate, he says faith without love is pointless and that idle faith is not justifying faith and not sincere. In his larger catechism on the Lord’s prayer he spends much time on the Holy Spirit empowering the life of the Christian. There is also a whole section of the Defense of the Augsberg Confession by Philip Melanchthon devoted to love and faith. Btw Philip Melanchthon wrote more of our confessional material than Luther did. The same goes for Martin Chemnitz. Most none Lutheran’s have no idea about that though. The point is however, that after spending much time reading Dr. Bradshaw’s excellent paper, I find his points about the energy of the Spirit quite harmonious with what is in our actual Lutheran confessions. You might also be pleased to know that Luther openly rejected actus purus in 1518, criticizing Aristotle’s god of no potential.
So you deny limited atonement and accept theosis as well as recapitulation? If not the whole pist of saying we beleive in the same thing is pointless
@@shiningdiamond5046 Lutherans have always denied limited atonement. We have not historically used the term theosis but you will find it taught in various of our writings, particularly in article VIII of the Formula of Concord, along with recapitulation. Indeed, some of the things Luther wrote, when Reformed and other Protestants hear them, they say “oh your teaching Christus Victor theories of atonement.” As if that’s an insult. Also, I didn’t say we “believe the same thing,” I simply wished he had spent more time looking at Lutheranism beyond Luther. Because we go by our confessions, not by everything Luther wrote. However it is also true that Dr Bradshaw was working with Luther’s earlier Galatians commentary, which differs somewhat from his later one in the 1530s where he was working with the Greek. His later one is the one Lutherans typically study. But my real point was simply we might have similar views on the essence energies distinction, not that we believe “the same thing” in everything.
@@AnUnhappyBusiness That's cool and all but your confession still denies the uniqueness of prayers of the saints rejecting the bible when in Says that prayer effects things in 2 Chronicles or that the righteous prayer is beneficial and heard by God, also you believe in impanation which is heresy and denies the transubstantiation of the Eucharist into Christ Himself
@@shiningdiamond5046 lol again never said we agreed on everything
@@shiningdiamond5046 oh and btw Jaroslav Pelikan was one of the primary editors of the English editions of Luther’s works. He eventually converted to Orthodoxy, and although he confessed the Lutherans were wrong in certain things regarding the Eucharist, he did not interpret the Lutheran position as either impanation or consubstantiation. Typically we just say it is the true body and blood of Christ, and how it is so is a mystery. What we rejected with transubstantiation was the philosophical interpretation of the annihilation of the elements. How the Eucharist is Christ’s Body and Blood is a mystery beyond human reason
PART TWO: Where does the Palamite doctrine of eternal uncreated energies come from? It comes from the Platonists, from Proclus especially, via the Pseudo Dionysius. ‘Dionysius’ adopted/adapted the Proclean doctrine of participation in his work On the Divine Names, and compacted the notion of the participle divinity of the superessential divine Henads and the ontic participle character of the Primary Beings (Being itself, Life itself, Intellect/Wisdom itself, etc.) - for Proclus had taught in Elements of Theology Propositions 18 + 19 that the Primary Beings impart being, life + wisdom, etc., to angels, men and animals - into his own notion of the divine processions as both Primary Beings (Being itself, Life itself, Wisdom itself, etc.) as the first beings created and given substance to by God (DN 5.4 + 11.6), and as energies + powers of God (DN 9.9 + 11.6). The theological predication of ONTIC ENERGIES on the part of the Pseudo Dionysius amounts to the predication of logically impossible objects, but he is trying to fit the square peg of Neoplatonic ontology into the round hole of Judeo-Christian monotheism. Maximus then follows ‘Dionysius’ in 200 Texts On Theology Chs 48-50, and states that the divine processions (Being itself, Life itself, etc.) are both works of God (Chs 48 + 49) and have been created by God (Ch 50). ‘Dionysius’ and Maximus respected Proclus’ teaching that individual beings participate in the very nature of the universal (Primary) Beings, in order to be actual beings themselves, and so retained the notion of the divine processions as created, and argued that in this way the imparticiple superessential God is participated. Gregory Palamas wanted to emphasize the Eastern patristic notion of God’s energy as uncreated (cf. John of Damascus, OTOF 3.15), but he retained the ‘Dionysian’-Maximian notion of “essential energies”, even as he maintained that they were uncreated (150 Chapters, Ch 92). That is, he maintained that in God essence differs from energy (150 Chapters , Ch 75), and that God’s energies are essential (150 Chapters, Ch 92), inasmuch as they participate in absolute Being/Essence (150 Chapters, Chs 88 + 92). Mark the brilliance and logical cohesion of his formularies! Palamas then mischaracterized the teachings of his mentors ‘Dionysius’ and Maximus, and outright lied in stating that they also taught that the divine processions are uncreated, for in 150 Chapters Ch 85, he states that “Dionysius demonstrates also the uncreated character of these processions and energies, for he calls them divine” - 'Dionysius' for his own part having referred to God as the Hypostates (one who gives substance/subsistence to) and Creator/Demiurge (DN 5.4 + 11.6) of the divine processions, so that if we are to believe this falsifier of the teachings of the fathers, ‘Dionysius’ had CLEARLY TAUGHT that God is the Creator/Demiurge/Substantifier of the uncreated! Palamas then states in 150 Chapters Ch 90 that Maximus ‘showed that the processions are uncreated’ - who for his own part had declared that the divine processions are God's works (200 Texts, Ch 48), and that God is their Creator (200 Texts, Ch 50), such that if we are to believe this fabulator of the doctrines of the fathers, Maximus most CLEARLY TAUGHT that God is the Creator/Demiurge of His uncreated works! Thus are we instructed by the saintly liar!
Where is it taught in Sacred Scripture that God is both Hypostates/Substantiator of the universal Primary Beings and of individually existent beings such as men, angels, plants and animals and inanimate objects, as 'Dionysius' teaches (DN 1.7, 5.4 + 11.6)? Or that the Primary Beings are both created and eternal, as Maximus teaches (200 Texts Chs 48-50)? Nowhere! But the Neoplatonist philosopher Proclus Diadochus does indeed teach these very things...
The conclusion that is to be drawn from all of this then is that Palamas' so called eternal uncreated energies/divine processions are nothing more than the Proclean pagan divinities, which are said by Proclus to mediate between the imparticiple Supreme Monad and individually existing beings - dressed up in Christian garb.
Likewise it must be asked, does the uncreated Divine Light of Godhead energize, or is it itself uncreated divine energy that is infinitely transcended by the invisible Divine Essence, as Palamas taught? Maximus stated that God infinitely transcended the divine processions inasmuch as He created them and they were works of God. Palamas mangles this idea and states that God’s uncreated essence infinitely transcends His uncreated energy - a thought that never occurred to Maximus, at least in the passage cited. ‘Dionysius’ falsely claimed that all Divine Names relate to God’s providential operation. How, pray tell, does Divine Wisdom as the pure outflowing of the glory of the Almighty and as the brightness of eternal light, that is to say, how does the eternal begetting of the Son from out of the essence of the Father, indicate God’s providential operation/energizing? The Holy Spirit is not limited in what He can reveal to His creation, else how would we know that the Trinity and not God the Father alone created the world, as related in Psalm 33:6?
A ‘theology’ with all of these lamentable defects and incoherencies and abject rejections of the teachings of the Nicene fathers and councils has no business whatsoever pronouncing anathemas upon those who point out its many flaws and errors or who simply disagree with its teachings as being riddled with pagan polytheistic metaphysical speculation and as not being divinely revealed in Sacred Scripture.
As for Dr. Bradshaw, he thinks that he somehow refutes Western Christian critics who accuse Palamas of having drawn his teaching from the Neoplatonists, because he and other Eastern Christian scholars have demonstrated that Palamas largely derived his ideas from ‘Dionysius’ and Maximus, as if that purifies his doctrine of corrupting pagan polytheistic influences, inasmuch as Bradshaw himself admits that 'Dionysius' and Maximus derived their own ideas of divine procession from the Neoplatonists (Iamblichus and Proclus in particular) and from the Platonic tradition in general. The issue in question is not whether Palamas himself had read the writings of Proclus, and developed his doctrines in accordance with what he had learnt from him, but whether his theology of divine energetic procession is primarily of Biblical or of pagan polytheistic provenance, and the fact that Palamas’ theology of eternal uncreated energies/processions was derived from the pagan philosophers through the mediation of ‘Dionysius’ and Maximus does nothing whatsoever to establish its Biblical foundation. Thus Bradshaw’s ‘defense’ of Palamism is exposed for the shell game that it is.
If Gregory Palamas had been content to follow the sage counsel of Gregory of Nazianzen, who advised that apart from what had been determined at the ecumenical councils, ‘each may philosophize and judge as he will’ (Oration 28.17), who would really care what he taught, but since he was a dogmatist of the worst sort and had taken it upon himself to strong arm the Eastern Church into dogmatizing his theological formularies, and had proceeded to pronounce a virtual anathema upon 1000 years of Latin Christian teaching with respect to the vision of God in the age to come, which is better attested in the New Testament than the Eastern Christian interpretation, and had savaged the Latins for their adoption of the Filioque, even though his own mentor Maximus had accepted it as orthodox after the Latins had explained it to him while he was in Rome, for that reason do I hold his doctrinal errors up to scorn and ridicule, scorn for scorn, ridicule for ridicule, to give a taste to his partisans of the bitter obliquy which they have dished out to the Latins in their abject arrogance for over six centuries now. For where indeed in the word of God is it written that those of saintly mien will see a certain degree of the divine energy in this life, and then see a greater degree of the divine energy in the age to come? Rather, it is declared in the word of God that we shall see the glorious face of God through a glass darkly in this life, and that we shall see God face to face in the age to come, and know Him then as we are known by Him. The Synodikon of Orthodoxy abjectly rejects that most important article of doctrine which is declared in the Nicene Creed, wherein the Divine Light and Glory of the Godhead is identified with the Divine Essence itself - and that this was the intended meaning of the fathers of the council we have the confirming testimony of both Athanasius and Basil - and yet the Greeks have the audacity to pillory the Latins over the Filioque!
As the Lord Himself admonished: first remove the mote from thy own eye, and then point out the beam in thy brother’s eye (Mt 7:3).
When God operates does he operate in an uncreated way or by created forms and actions?
Saint John of Damascus mentioned saint Dionysius as a saint and uses says from his writings in ch 9 , 12 etc in his own writing. John the Damascian call s saint Dionysius as θείος in ch 12 meaning one that is divine by grace .
@@user-pj7sq7ce1f The Pseudo Dionysius was a late 5th - early 6th century AD Christian Neoplatonist who borrowed heavily from the writings of Proclus Diadochus. When John (Ch 9) quotes 'Dionysius' about God being the Good, this is simply the Pseudo Dionysius' adoption of the terminology of Plato and Proclus. There is nothing here that has been inspired by the Holy Spirit, unless you want to argue that the Holy Spirit inspired Plato and Proclus, who taught these things prior to the Pseudo Dionysius. Scholars have estimated that the Pseudo Dionysius quotes over 700 times from the writings of Proclus in the Corpus Dionysiacum.
You may say that he effected a brilliant synthesis between Neoplatonic and Christian theology in formulating his own particular brand of Christian theosophy, but to argue that he interpreted Sacred Scripture in anything other than a thoroughgoing Neoplatonist fashion does not pass the laugh test. Unlike Thomas Aquinas, who honestly identified himself to his readers and honestly acknowledged his reliance upon Aristotle and the Platonists, the Pseudo Dionysius hid his own true identity and passed himself as a first century associate of the apostles, and pretended that he was transmitting a hidden wisdom teaching of the apostles when his true object was to present a thoroughgoing revision of the Gospel along the lines of Neoplatonist philosophy, primarily that of Proclus Diadochus.
PART ONE: This video argues that the Palamite doctrine faithfully represents the Biblical and patristic teaching. This assertion belies the actual facts.
St. Paul speaks of the energizing of divine power (Eph 3:7). He also states that God’s power is eternal [ἀΐδιος] (Rom 1:20). John of Damascus states that energy is the motion/kinesis of essence (On The Orthodox Faith, 2.23) and nature (OTOF 3.15), and the outcome/result/effect of power (OTOF 3.15), and quotes Gregory Nazianzen to the effect that energy is energized and does not itself energize, and ceases to exist once the energizing is complete (OTOF 3.15). Gregory of Nyssa teaches the same thing (Against Eunomius 2.12). Therefore, energy is not eternal, contra Palamas. John of Damascus also states in OTOF 3.15 that energy is both “the essential movement/kinesis of nature” (ἐνέργεια φύσεώς οὐσιώδης κίνησις) and “the natural movement/kinesis of power” (ἐνέργειαν φυσικῆς δυνάμεως κίνησιν). Therefore if energy is the kinesis of both nature and power, the divine power = the divine nature = the divine essence. Therefore Basil erred in Letter 234 when he sought to differentiate the divine power itself from the divine essence.
As for the argument that the various “spirits” of God spoken of in the Scriptures indicate a multiplicity of eternal pre-existing energies in God, John of Damascus states that “[God] energizes at the same time in diverse ways with one simple energy” [κατὰ ταυτὸν διαφόρως ἐνεργεῖ μιᾷ καὶ ἁπλῇ ἐνεργεία] (OTOF 1.13).
Wisdom 7:25-26 refutes Palamas. It states that Divine Wisdom is the “pure outflowing from the glory of the Almighty” and “the brightness of the eternal light”. Hebrews 1:3 “the Son is the brightness of [Father’s] glory” is a gloss on Wisdom 7:25-26. Hebrews 1:3 + Wisdom 7:26 were two of the primary scriptures which the fathers used to demonstrate the co-eternity and homoousian between the Father and Son in order to defeat the Arian heresy. Hence the Nicene Creed of 325 A.D. declares that the Son is “only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light homoousian with the Father”. Athanasius (De Decretis 24) + Basil (Letter 52.2 to the Canonicae) both confirm that the council fathers identified the Light of Godhead with the Divine Essence. Athanasius also teaches in Discourse 3.65 Against the Arians that St. Paul taught in Hebrews 1:3 that the Son is the brightness of the Father’s own essence. Hence glory = essence. Gregory Palamas teaches on the contrary that “God is Light not according to His essence but is Light according to His energy” (Against Akindynos, PG 150, 823A), and the Synodikon of Orthodoxy in its Chapters Against Barlaam + Akindynos anathematizes anyone who teaches that the supremely divine light is the essence of God. Thus we read from the likes of the Palamite Protopresbyter / Bishop Michael Azkoul that “God dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Tim 6:16) means that ‘God is basking in His energies, even as the Lord on Mount Tabor' ("The Teachings of the Holy Orthodox Church" pp 59-63, 1986), whereas Gregory of Nyssa argues on the contrary that 1 Timothy 6:16 'God dwells in unapproachable light' means the Father dwelling in the Son, as per John 14:10 'I and the Father are one', i.e. essentially (Against Eunomius 12.2), while John Chrysostom states in Homily 6.1 On the Gospel of John that if Christ had revealed His unveiled essence to men while on earth, that no man could have endured the assault of His “unapproachable light” (την απρόσιτον του φωτός). Therefore unapproachable light = unveiled essence. Thus we observe that the Synodikon anathematizes the teaching of the fathers and the Council of Nicea. If the uncreated light is simply the divine energy, as Palamas teaches, Wisdom 7:26 + Hebrews 1:3 would have been of no use to the fathers in defeating the Arian heresy, and would rather have confirmed the teaching of the heretic Eunomius that the Son is the seal of the Father’s energy.
With respect to the vision of God, you acknowledge that Ex 33:18-23 indicates that the Son of God’s glory/face = His essence. This is a common Eastern Chistian interpretation. Well the same Son of God said “the angels do always behold the face of my Father in heaven” (Mt 18:10), and St. Paul taught that in this life we see the glory of God through a glass darkly (1 Cor 13:12; 2 Cor 3:18), but in heaven face to face (1 Cor 13:12). St. John the Apostle says we will then see God “as He is” (1 Jn 3:2). John Chrysostom says on the contrary that we will only see the appearance of the glory of the Lord in heaven. Well, then, if that really is the case, we will not see Him “as He is”, but only ‘as He appears to be’, and the Apostle John then will have prophesied falsely. But away with any such thought! Thus correlating the scriptures mentioned above we learn that we are promised a vision of the Divine Essence in heaven. Augustine in Letter 147 to Paula made this correlation and concluded that we shall indeed see the Divine Essence in the age to come, according to our creaturely capacity. All of the Latin luminaries, Pope Leo I the Great, Pope Gregory I the Great, Thomas Aquinas, etc., for 900 years taught the same doctrine - based upon the Scriptural testimony - and Pope Benedict XII, after consulting with Church theologians, promulgated the Papal Bull Benedictus Deus in 1336 A.D. (a few years prior to the Hesychast Councils) dogmatically defining that the blessed in heaven will see the divine essence without mediation.
John Chrysostom when confronted with Mt 18:10 implausibly argues that seeing the face of the Father means that the angels continually “phantasize” (mentally image) God to themselves. Augustine’s correlation of scriptures is more comprehensive, for once it is admitted that God’s glory/face = His essence, then the doctrine of the vision of the Divine Essence in heaven must likewise be admitted based upon the testimonies of Jesus and Paul, which are more authoritative than those of the OT prophets. Yes Gregory Nazianzen in Oration 28.3 stated that in this life we see only the back parts of God, the glory revealed to the creatures, but a little later in that very same work in Oration 28.17 he says: “What God is in nature and essence, no man ever yet has discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question which he who will may examine and decide. In my opinion it will be discovered when that within us which is godlike and divine, I mean our mind and reason, shall have mingled with its Like, and the image shall have ascended to the Archetype, of which it has now the desire. And this I think is the solution of that vexed problem as to “We shall know even as we are known.” But in our present life all that comes to us is but a little effluence, and as it were a small effulgence from a great Light.” Thus he acknowledges that St. Paul in the New Testament does indeed seem to promise a vision of the Divine Essence in the age to come, though he has his reservations due to certain Old Testament passages, but the rule of faith requires that the Old Testament be interpreted in the light of the New Testament, and not the New Testament in light of the Old Testament. Finally, the testimony of the Son of God that God’s glory/face = His essence, and that men in the flesh cannot see His face/essence and live, but that the angels in heaven do continuously behold His face/essence, is of greater authority than that of any other. END PART ONE
Saint john from Damascus saying that the energy is ουσιώδης κινησις της φύσεως shows that the quality of the energy is the same as the essence . Now if you go to col.2:12 the energy of God risen Jesus Christ Body.Can something created do such thing ???
Now if you see Paul as He said ενέργεια energy and δύναμις power are synonymous see col.2:12 and 1cor 6,14
In romans 1:20 that you mention it says αίδιος but not αιώνιος eternal is actually that word. Have you any idea why he uses the first word and not the word eternal αιώνιος , for the δύναμις power there ???
Because you read translations you got in a false belief see 1 cor 13:12 you avoid the last part of the verse that changes the meaning of what you said...
Now for 1 cor 1312 i guess because you read just translation did not want to deceive , but actually deceive changing all the meaning of the verse