Essence energy distinction

Work in Progress

1. Description and Theology

The essence energy distinction is the dogmatic theological formula of the Orthodox Church, in accordance with the Sixth (Seventh Century) and Ninth (Fourteenth Century) Ecumenical Councils. Such a dogmatic teaching is in regards to the one, eternal, and absolute Godhead being distinguished by the one divine and eternal essence by which the three Hypostases/Persons in Triune unity share and the uncreated energy of the essence. There logically can be no communication between God and man without the essence energy distinction, for both the Fathers and the Councils, and even the scripture, defines the essence of God as incommunicable and therefore, apothéōsis (participating in the essence) would be regarded as heresy within Orthodoxy. Without the essence energy distinction, God is only communicable and participable in regards to his relation with man, by his created effects, yet that which is created cannot be perfect according to St.Maximus of the Confessor in the Tenth Ambigua to John, for coming into being from non-being in of itself is an actualization/operation, and thus, and alteration within time and that which can be altered cannot be perfect, for it would rather make no sense for God to recreate his virtues and infuse them into man as a 'created effect' formally caused by divine grace, as asserted by the impious Post-Schism Western Theologian, Thomas Aquinas, in the Summa Theologiae Prima Secundae Partis, Q.110-114. Therefore, according to the holy Theologians and Fathers in the Church, such as St.John the Apostle, St.Basil the Cappadocian, St.Maximus the Confessor, and St.Gregory Palamas; we participate in the uncreated grace and therefore, the eternal love of God, by which we also participate in the divine and uncreated virtues, for all of such things are predicative on energy. For the holy Apostle and Theologian, St.John, in his First Epistle, Chapter IV, states,

"Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another. No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world. There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. We love him, because he first loved us." -- First Epistle of St.John the Theologian, Chapter IV.

It would be rather incoherent, for one to make such a claim that an accident (that which has a beginning and end within time, being a product of a causational relation) can truly be 'perfect' and lacking in flaw. How necessarily, could an accident be perfect? How could that by which was created in operation, being altered from non-being to being be sufficient and perfect? That which is perfect cannot be subject to alteration, for if such had non-being before being, therefore, it rather was never necessary for it to exist in the first place, in reality, for it's existence is just as needed as it's non-existence. For how would God recreate his attributes, by that which is an accident, coming into being, such as love, is created in perfection with no participation in a foreign agent? Why would these advocates truly believe the eternal love of God creates a new and accidental temporal love within us that is 'created in perfection'?

This is why we must relay back to the true faith, by which is stated by the holy Fathers, in regards to this 'eternal love'. As stated by St.Maximus in the Chapters on Knowledge, we participate in the uncreated workings of the divine and eternal virtues by the divine grace of God, which is defined as 'uncreated' in the Tenth Ambigua to Maximus in his Contemplation of Melchizedek. As stated in the Chapters on Knowledge by the holy and divine participant, St.Maximus the Confessor,

"Zealous people should look among God's works to know which of them he began to create and which, on the contrary, he did not begin. Indeed, if he has rested from all the works that he began to create, it is clear that he did not rest from those which he did not create. God's works which began in time are all beings which share, for example, the different essences of beings, for they have nonbeing before being. For God was when participated beings were not. The works of God which did not happen to begin to be in time are participated beings, in which participated beings share according to grace, for example, goodness and all that the term goodness implies, that is, all life, immortality, simplicity, immutability, and infinity and such things which are essentially contemplated in regard to him; they are also God's works, and yet they did not begin in time. For what does not exist is not older than virtue nor than anything else of what was just listed, even if beings which participate in them in these things began their existence in time. For all virtue is without beginning, not having any time previous to itself. Such things have God alone as the eternal begetter of their being. God infinitely transcends all things which participate or are participated. For everything claiming to have the term attributed to it happens to be a work of God, even if some begin their existence through becoming in time and others are implanted by grace in creatures, for example, an infused power which clearly proclaims that God is in all things. All immortal things and immortality itself, all living things and life itself, all holy things and holiness itself, all virtuous things and virtue itself, all good things and goodness itself, all beings and being itself, are clearly found to be works of God. But some began to be in time, for there was a time when they were not, and others did not begin to be in time. Thus there was never a time when there existed neither virtue nor goodness nor holiness nor immortality. What began in time is and is said to be what it is and is said, by participation with what did not begin in time. God is the creator of all life, immortality, holiness, and virtue, for he transcends the essence of all which can be thought and said." -- The Chapters on Knowledge by St.Maximus the Confessor, Chapters 48-50. (Maximus Confessor: Selected Writings (Classics of Western Spirituality) George C. Berthold)

And as the divine participant, St.Maximus also states within his interpretational Treatise of the Fathers, as in, the Ambigua, making rather evident that in regards to such an instance as an accident, which has that of a beginning and an end within time,

"Therefore no being is without a beginning if its existence presupposes even a single qualitative distinction; neither is it without limits if its existence is conditioned by relation to something else. If, then, no being is without beginning or limitation (as the argument has demonstrated, consistent with the nature of beings), then there was certainly a time when each being did not exist, from which it follows that, if it did not always exist, it was brought into being at a particular time, because there was certainly a time when it was not. Furthermore, nothing is susceptible both of being and becoming without also being subject to change and alteration, for whether it was and came to be, it changed, crossing over into what it was not through a process of becoming, or it was altered, receiving an addition of beauty which it lacked. For whatever is changed and altered or is lacking in form cannot be self-perfect. And whatever is not self-perfect obviously has need of something else from which it receives perfection—but not self-perfection— for it does not have this perfection from its own nature, but through participation, and that which needs something else for the perfection o f its form will stand in even greater need with respect to existence itself."

-- Ambigua of St.Maximus the Confessor to John, 10(On the Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, published by Nicholas Constas) Volume I

And as the holy St.Gregory Palamas states in regards to the divine illumination,

"This light, then, is not a knowledge, neither does one acquire it by any affirmation or negation. Each evil angel is an intelligence, but, as the prophets say, an "Assyrian" intelligence, which makes a bad use of knowledge. Indeed, it is impossible to make a bad use of this light, for it instantly quits anyone who leans towards evil, and leaves bereft of God any man who gives himself over to depravity. This light, then, is not a knowledge, neither does one acquire it by any affirmation or negation. Each evil angel is an intelligence, but, as the prophets say, an "Assyrian" intelligence, which makes a bad use of knowledge. Indeed, it is impossible to make a bad use of this light, for it instantly quits anyone who leans towards evil, and leaves bereft of God any man who gives himself over to depravity. them; just as one may call them "Divinity" because of Him who mysteriously energises this grace. For it is a divinising energy which is in no way separate from the energising Spirit. The man illuminated by purity has a beginning, in that he has received illumination—the Fathers for this reason call it "purity"—but the light and the illumination have no beginning. We see this particularly in the case of those men who have been illuminated in the manner of the angels, and have received deification; as Maximus says, 'Contemplating the light of the invisible and more-than-ineffable glory, they themselves also receive the blessed purity, together with the powers on high.'" -- Triads of St.Gregory Palamas, Section F. Essence and Energies in God, Chapter 17; Gregory Palamas: The Triads (Classics of Western Spirituality) published by Meyendorff

The divine and uncreated energies are also reviewed both by the holy Apostles and the Fathers, as a singularity of a energy and as a multiplicity/diversity of energies. As in, the Godhead by energy, is monad in immobility, and myriad in mobility, as stated by St.Maximus the Confessor in Quaestiones Ad Thalassium Response 55. The most basic illustration of this doctrine is revealed by the Apostle, St.Paul, himself within the scripture in his First Epistle to the Corinthians, in regards to the divine gifts. As stated,

"And there are diversities of operations (ἐνεργημάτων/energēmatōn), but it is the same God which worketh (ἐνεργῶν/energōn) all in all." -- First Epistle of St.Paul to the Corinthians Chapter XII.

This same "energōn" is also used by the holy Apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians,

"Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh (ἐνεργῶν/energōn) in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure." -- The Epistle of St.Paul to the Philippians Chapter II.

Therefore, it can be necessarily demonstrated that 'energōn' necessarily implies an energisational context, as when used by the holy Apostle, St.Paul.

This singularity and multiplicity is yet also revealed in the Ambigua of the blessed Father, St.Maximus the Confessor. As is stated,

"For different things would not be different from each other if their logoi, according to which they came into being, did not themselves admit of difference. If, then, just as when the senses apprehend material objects in a natural manner, they must, in receiving them, necessarily recognize that the perceptions of these objects (which underlie and are susceptible to their grasp) are many and diverse— so, too, when the intellect naturally apprehends all the logoi in beings and contemplates within them the infinite energies of God, it recognizes the differences of the divine energies it perceives to be multiple and—to speak truly— infinite. Then, as regards scientific inquiry into that which is really true, the intellect—for reasons one may readily appreciate—will find the power of any such inquiry ineffective and its method useless, for it provides the intellect with no means of understanding how God—who is truly none of the things that exist, and who, properly speaking, is all things, and at the same time beyond them— is present in the logos of each thing in itself, and in all the logoi together, according to which all things exist. If, therefore, consistent with true teaching, every divine energy indicates through itself the whole of God, indivisibly present in each particular thing, according to the logos through which that thing exists in its own way, who, I ask, is capable of understanding and saying precisely how God is whole in all things commonly, and in each being particularly, without separation or being subject to division, and without expanding disparately into the infinite differences of the beings in which He exists as Being." -- Ambigua of St.Maximus the Confessor to John, 22(On the Difficulties in the Church Fathers: The Ambigua, published by Nicholas Constas) Volume I

Therefore, it is rather justified, when Palamas states,

"In the first place, that essence is one, even though the rays are many, and are sent out in a manner appropriate to those participating in them, being multiplied according to the varying capacity of those receiving them. This is what Paul means when he speaks of "the parts of the Holy Spirit". Furthermore, the essence is superessential, and I believe no one would deny that these rays are its energies or energy, and that one may participate in them, even though the essence remains beyond participation." -- Triads of St.Gregory Palamas, Section F. Essence and Energies in God, Chapter 13; Gregory Palamas: The Triads (Classics of Western Spirituality) published by Meyendorff

In regards to the eternally actualized virtues, by which mortal men participate in by grace, St.Gregory Palamas states in the Triads,

"Moreover, every union is through contact, sensible in the realm of sense perception, intellectual in that of intellect. And since there is union with these illuminations, there must be contact with them, of an intellectual, or rather a spiritual, kind. As for the divine essence, that is in itself beyond all contact. Now, this union with the illuminations—what is it, if not a vision? The rays are consequently visible to those worthy, although the divine essence is absolutely invisible, and these unoriginate and endless rays are a light without beginning or end. There exists, then, an eternal light, other than the divine essence; it is not itself an essence— far from it!—but an energy of the Superessential. This light without beginning or end is neither sensible nor intelligible, in the proper sense. It is spiritual and divine, distinct from all creatures in its transcendence ; and what is neither sensible nor intelligible does not fall within the scope of the senses as such, nor of the intellectual faculty considered in itself. This spiritual light is thus not only the object of vision, but it is also the power by which we see; it is neither a sensation nor an intellection, but is a spiritual power, distinct from all created cognitive faculties in its transcendence, and made present by grace in rational natures which have been purified." --Triads of St.Gregory Palamas, Section F. Essence and Energies in God, Chapter 14; Gregory Palamas: The Triads (Classics of Western Spirituality) published by Meyendorff

and later,

"And if we look for the reason why this innovator has been led to imagine that the deifying grace of the Spirit (or rather, all the powers of God) are created, then apart from that wretched source of heresy, mentioned by us above, the only reason is the statement by Denys, that God has established these powers. But this word refers only to their existence, not to their mode of existence. One could thus apply it to those beings which proceed from God, whether created or uncreated. Indeed, Basil the Great used this term of the Son, when he said, "He who made the waterfloods, did He not establish the Son, just as He did these waters?" And, speaking of the Holy Spirit, he said: "He is the Spirit of the mouth of God, so that you should not take Him for an object deriving from outside God and so place Him among the creatures, but should consider that He has His hypostasis from God." And again: "This is the mark of His hypostatic individuation—to be made known through the Son, and to be established from the Father." Gregory the Theologian likewise often calls the generation of the Son before the ages an "hypostasis" (or "establishment"). So you may just as well demonstrate on the basis of such terminology that the Son and Holy Spirit are creatures, since the only reason that leads you to declare that the divine powers are created rests on the fact that the universal Cause has also "established" them. You have failed to notice that the great Denys has shown here that these powers are said not to exist by reason of their transcendence; for in speaking of the "providential powers sent by the God beyond participation", he adds, "The created beings which participate in them are called 'beings', in the sense that these powers transcend all that is." And Maximus, while stating that the participating beings have a beginning, affirms that that in which they participate has no beginning." --Triads of St.Gregory Palamas, Section F. Essence and Energies in God, Chapter 18; Gregory Palamas: The Triads (Classics of Western Spirituality) published by Meyendorff

The blessed and divine participant, St.Gregory Palamas, makes evident in his restating of the scripture and the holy Patristic, St.Maximus, that it's not the activity of God that has an accidental beginning in time, but rather, that time itself has a beginning in regards to its participation in the divine activity, as do created men. The divine and uncreated virtues; such as benevolence, holiness, immortality, illumination, and righteousness have not a beginning of activity in time, but rather, are eternally active; for God himself in being, is eternally active, according to the 140th of the One Hundred and Fifty Chapters, as written by Palamas. Therefore, it cannot be the works of man, by which men labor, but rather, the eternally active workings of God, such as goodness, by which man works not, but is enabled by the goodness in of itself, to cooperate and abide in, by which such cooperation is man's temporal working itself, but not the external working that proceeds, such as charity, by which is a virtue of benevolence/goodness, being a working of God with no beginning in time, but rather, and eternal activity, contrary to the written word of the impious Thomas Aquinas, written in Q.114 of Prima Secundae Partis of the Summa Theologiae, by which he states,

"Hence we must say that if temporal goods are considered as they are useful for virtuous works, whereby we are led to heaven, they fall directly and simply under merit, even as increase of grace, and everything whereby a man is helped to attain beatitude after the first grace. For God gives men, both just and wicked, enough temporal goods to enable them to attain to everlasting life; and thus these temporal goods are simply good. Hence it is written (Psalm 33:10): "For there is no want to them that fear Him," and again, Psalm 36:25: "I have not seen the just forsaken," etc. But if these temporal goods are considered in themselves, they are not man's good simply, but relatively, and thus they do not fall under merit simply, but relatively, inasmuch as men are moved by God to do temporal works, in which with God's help they reach their purpose." -- Prima Secundae Partis of the Summa Theologiae of Thomas Aquinas, Question 114.

This, in of itself cannot possibly regarded as scriptural, in regards to these 'created effects', by which grace merely formally causes a new and created goodness in relation to the participant. In reference to the First Epistle to the Corinthians and the Epistle to the Philippians, both written by St.Paul, and as stated by the same Apostle in the same First Corinthians, later in the Epistle,

"But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured (ἐκοπίασα/ekopiasa) more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me." -- First Epistle of St.Paul to the Corinthians Chapter XV

This same "ekopiasa" is used in the same Epistle to the Philippians, as mentioned earlier.

"Holding forth the word of life; that I may rejoice in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured (ἐκοπίασα/ekopiasa) in vain." -- The Epistle of St.Paul to the Philippians Chapter II.

Therefore, it can be necessarily demonstrated, that 'ekopiasa' is always, within scripture, used by the blessed Paul in the context of working. For it is not as if the divine and eternal energies in relation to man, such as illumination, regeneration, or justification begin within time as accidents, but rather, that man is a receptive participant of such eternal actualities/operations, and that such eternal activities are eternally active, only appearing to 'become visible' and 'begin within time as accidents' in accordance with the circumscribed intellectual and corporeal human sense perception, and this indicative from the passages referenced from Palamas, as posted earlier. St.John of Damascus also supports such a view as if God is only visible in regards to his energies, yet not his essence, which is incomprehensible, for he states,

"All things are far apart from God, not in place but in nature. In our case, thoughtfulness, and wisdom, and counsel come to pass and go away as states of being. Not so in the case of God: for with Him there is no happening or ceasing to be: for He is invariable and unchangeable: and it would not be right to speak of contingency in connection with Him. For goodness is concomitant with essence. He who longs alway after God, he seeth Him: for God is in all things. Existing things are dependent on that which is, and nothing can be unless it is in that which is. God then is mingled with everything, maintaining their nature: and in His holy flesh the God-Word is made one in subsistence and is mixed with our nature, yet without confusion.No one seeth the Father, save the Son and the Spirit. The Son is the counsel and wisdom and power of the Father. For one may not speak of quality in connection with God, from fear of implying that He was a compound of essence and quality. The Son is from the Father, and derives from Him all His properties: hence He cannot do ought of Himself. For He has not energy peculiar to Himself and distinct from the Father. That God Who is invisible by nature is made visible by His energies, we perceive from the organisation and government of the world." -- St.John of Damascus, First Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XIII.

This, in of itself is in reality, in reference to essence energy distinction, for he is rather not stating that God is visible by his created effects, but rather, by his eternal energisation, for he states in Chapters nine and ten, earlier in the letter,

"The Deity is simple and uncompound. But that which is composed of many and different elements is compound. If, then, we should speak of the qualities of being uncreate and without beginning and incorporeal and immortal and everlasting and good and creative and so forth as essential differences in the case of God, that which is composed of so many qualities will not be simple but must be compound. But this is impious in the extreme. Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy... The first name then conveys the notion of His existence and of the nature of His existence: while the second contains the idea of energy. Further, the terms ‘without beginning,’ ‘incorruptible,’ ‘unbegotten,’ as also ‘uncreate,’ ‘incorporeal,’ ‘unseen,’ and so forth, explain what He is not: that is to say, they tell us that His being had no beginning, that He is not corruptible, nor created, nor corporeaI, nor visible. Again, goodness and justice and piety and such like names belong to the nature, but do not explain His actual essence." -- St.John of Damascus, First Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Chapter IX.

and later,

"Therefore all these names must be understood as common to deity as a whole, and as containing the notions of sameness and simplicity and indivisibility and union: while the names Father, Son and Spirit, and cause, less and caused, and unbegotten and begotten, and procession contain the idea of separation: for these terms do not explain His essence, but the mutual relationship and manner of existence." -- St.John of Damascus, First Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Chapter X.

And finally, St.John of Damascus writes,

"For it is without form, and so cannot be contained as a body is. God, then, being immaterial and uncircumscribed, has not place. For He is His own place, filling all things and being above all things, and Himself maintaining all things. Yet we speak of God having place and the place of God where His energy becomes manifest. For He penetrates everything without mixing with it, and imparts to all His energy in proportion to the fitness and receptive power of each: and by this I mean, a purity both natural and voluntary. For the immaterial is purer than the material, and that which is virtuous than that which is linked with vice. Wherefore by the place of God is meant that which has a greater share in His energy and grace. For this reason the Heaven is His throne. For in it are the angels who do His will and are always glorifying Him. For this is His rest and the earth is His footstool. For in it He dwelt in the flesh among men. And His sacred flesh has been named the foot of God. The Church, too, is spoken of as the place of God: for we have set this apart for the glorifying of God as a sort of consecrated place wherein we also hold converse with Him. Likewise also the places in which His energy becomes manifest to us, whether through the flesh or apart from flesh, are spoken of as the places of God... The angel, although not contained in place with figured form as is body, yet is spoken of as being in place because he has a mental presence and energises in accordance with his nature, and is not elsewhere but has his mental limitations there where he energises. For it is impossible to energise at the same time in different places. For to God alone belongs the power of energising everywhere at the same time. The angel energises in different places by the quickness of his nature and the promptness and speed by which he can change his place: but the Deity, Who is everywhere and above all, energises at the same time in diverse ways with one simple energy." -- St.John of Damascus, First Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Chapter XIII.

Which concludes to the original premise, in which he stated,

"That God Who is invisible by nature is made visible by His energies"

In Chapter thirteen.

It must also be observed, that it was not Palamas who created the sun-rays analogy in regards to the essence and energies distinction, but rather, St.John of Damascus used such an analogy over five centuries before Palamas was even born, and six centuries before his Hesychastic controversy with Barlaam. For he wrote,

"Further, the true doctrine teacheth that the Deity is simple and has one simple energy, good and energising in all things, just as the sun’s ray, which warms all things and energises in each in harmony with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having obtained this form of energy from God, its Maker. But quite distinct is all that pertains to the divine and benignant incarnation of the divine Word. For in that neither the Father nor the Spirit have any part at all, unless so far as regards approval and the working of inexplicable miracles which the God-Word, having become man like us, worked, as unchangeable God and son of God." -- St.John of Damascus, First Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Chapter X.

Conclusion

Thus, it must be concluded that the essence energy distinction is both justified by scripture and Patristical historical exegesis. Truly, there can be no reasonable alternative in regards to the being of what the Godhead necessarily is, for one must conclude either that of apothéōsis (participating in the essence), or necessarily believe that God is only communicable and participable in regards to his relation with man, by his created effects in which God recreates his virtues and infuses them into men as 'created effects' that are formally caused by divine grace. We truly cannot regard the virtues to be non-participational possibilities within mankind, as in, the virtues cannot be merely 'created effects', by which the divine recreates it's own virtues as a 'created effect' in a formal causation upon man, by which man is made self-substistently righteous by the accidental (beginning within time) causation of grace. This means, the logical implication of this vain and impious philosophy leads to the divine virtues, such as benevolence, holiness, immortality, illumination, and righteousness being causationally created properties belonging to the man, instead of God, by which, in the one true faith of Orthodoxy, He allows the man's participation in the virtues to be his identity, yet such virtues are not the properties of such man, as St.Maximus the Confessor states within Quaestiones Ad Thalassium Response 59. Yet how could that which has a beginning in time, being a created effect of formal causation be perfect or even be that of a virtue, if all perfection and all virtue is of God? How could that which has a created beginning within time, or a "created effect", retain that of perfection in the first place if that which is perfect must be both eternal and immutable, by which if either of these two attributes are void, neither can subsist, for they can only be one in agreement without collapse. If that which is supposedly 'perfect' happens to be subject to motion or change or alteration, therefore, it must be regarded that such a perfection was never perfect in the first place, for if it changes, it's evident in such case, that such a change indicates that such perfection was lacking in a voidity in something by which it didn't have before, meaning it wasn't self-sufficient in the first place. Yet also, if such virtue is a created effect of an eternal grace, yet not the eternal energisation of grace itself, therefore, such created effect, not being eternal, can also disappear, ceasing to exist; especially if such man who was justified, receiving the virtue of that which is a created effect, apostatizes, thus losing such created effect, by which the created effect ceases to exist, and thus, cannot be immutable, yet if the First Epistle of John, in which it is written, states, "His love is perfected in us", and, "herein our love is made perfect", yet this truly has not any meaning, there absolutely is no coherency! It must be concluded there is rather no consistency in regards to such an interpretation, yet essence energy distinction is the coherent Biblical exegesis.