Eternal Manifestation, Simplicity & The Uncreated Energies – Jay Dyer

“The Athanasian distinction between “Generation” and “Creation,” with all its implications, was already commonly accepted in the Church in his own time. A bit later, St. Cyril of Alexandria simply repeated his great predecessor. Indeed, his Thesaurus de sancta et consubstantiali Trinitate depended heavily upon the Athanasian “Discourses.”” Only instead of “will” and “deliberation,” St. Cyril spoke of Divine “energy”:  [Note here the RC ADS proponent is shown to be completely ignorant and confused. This is a devastating point] (Thesaurus, ass. 18, PG 75, 313; cf. ass. 15, PG 75, 276: [Greek not included] also ass. 32, PG 75, 564-565). And finally, St. John of Damascus, in his great Exposition of the Faith, repeated St. Cyril. “For we hold that it is from Him, that is, from the Father’s nature, that the Son is generated. And unless we grant that the Son co-existed from the beginning with the Father, by Whom He was begotten, we introduce change into the Father’s subsistence, because, not being the Father, He subsequently became the Father. For the creation, even though it originated later, is nevertheless not derived from the essence of God, but is brought into existence out of nothing by His will and power, and change does not touch God’s nature. For generation means that the begetter produces out of his essence offspring similar in essence. But creation and making mean that the creator and maker produces from that which is external, and not of his own essence, a creation which is of an absolutely dissimilar nature.” The Divine Generation is an effect of nature, tes phusikes gonimotetos Creation is, on the contrary, an act of decision and will-Theleseos ergon (De fide orth. 1 8, PG 94, 812-813). This antithesis: gonimotes and thelesis or oulesis is one of the main distinctive marks of Eastern theology.” [And that is what every Roman Catholic fails to understand or believe] It was systematically elaborated once more in late Byzantine theology, especially in the theology of St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359). St. Gregory contended that unless a clear distinction had been made between the “essence” and “energy” in God, one could not distinguish also between 11 generation” and “creation.”” And once again this was emphasized, somewhat later, by St. Mark of Ephesus.’ It was a true Athanasian motive, and his arguments again came to the fore.

Now, the question arises: Is the distinction between “Being” and “Acting” in God, or, in other terms, between the Divine “Essence” and “Energy,” a genuine and ontological distinction-in re ipsa; or is it merely a mental or logical distinction [as the Thomists and RC proponents openly say above], as it were, kat epinoian, which should not be interpreted objectively, lest the Simplicity of the Divine Being is compromised.” There cannot be the slightest doubt that for St. Athanasius it was a real and ontological difference. Otherwise his main argument against the Arians would have been invalidated and destroyed. Indeed, the mystery remains. The very Being of God is “incomprehensible” for the human intellect: this was the common conviction of the Greek Fathers in the Fourth century-the Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, and others. And yet there is always ample room for understanding. Not only do we distinguish between “Being” and “Will”; but it is not the same thing, even for God, “to be” and “to act.” This was the deepest conviction of St. Athanasius.”

This is devastating to the absurd Roman Catholic attempt to misuse St. Athanasius as a proponent of absolute divine simplicity and completely refutes them.  I highly recommend reading his famous essay.  However, that is not all that needs to be said: as Fr. Florovsky notes at the end of the paper, the development of the precision of the essence-energy distinction into the Cappadocians like St. Basil is undeniable to any who have read them – and this also refutes apologists like Ybarra and Dr. Taylor Marshall.  When we look at St. Basil’s explication of the essence-energy distinction in his well-known Letter 234 we see the Orthodox doctrine clearly, even to the point of calling the equating of all the attributes as the same and synonymous as :

“Do you worship what you know or what you do not know? If I answer, I worship what I know, they immediately reply, What is the essence of the object of worship? Then, if I confess that I am ignorant of the essence, they turn on me again and say, So you worship you know not what. I answer that the word to know has many meanings. We say that we know the greatness of God, His power, His wisdom, His goodness, His providence over us, and the justness of His judgment; but not His very essence. The question is, therefore, only put for the sake of dispute. For he who denies that he knows the essence does not confess himself to be ignorant of God, because our idea of God is gathered from all the attributes which I have enumerated. But God, he says, is simple, and whatever attribute of Him you have reckoned as knowable is of His essence.

But the absurdities involved in this sophism are innumerable. When all these high attributes have been enumerated, are they all names of one essence? And is there the same mutual force in His awfulness and His loving-kindness, His justice and His creative power, His providence and His foreknowledge, and His bestowal of rewards and punishments, His majesty and His providence? In mentioning any one of these do we declare His essence? If they say, yes, let them not ask if we know the essence of God, but let them enquire of us whether we know God to be awful, or just, or merciful. These we confess that we know. If they say that essence is something distinct, let them not put us in the wrong on the score of simplicity. For they confess themselves that there is a distinction between the essence and each one of the attributes enumerated. The operations are various, and the essence simple, but we say that we know our God from His operations, but do not undertake to approach near to His essence. His operations come down to us, but His essence remains beyond our reach.”

Indeed, how foolish is it to say Providence is literally identical to the creation of the world, which are literally identical to justice and love.  Remember – this is not taking the doctrines out of context – it’s the RC dogma:

“…as we conceive and define them express perfections that are formally distinct, yet as applied to God they are all ultimately identical in meaning and describe the same ultimate reality — the one infinitely perfect and simple being.

Indeed, Divine knowledge itself is really identical with Divine essence, as are all the attributes and acts of God; but according to our finite modes of thought we feel the need of conceiving them distinctly…”

St. Basil literally says the isomorphic identification doctrine of all the attributes is foolish.  Beyond that, we need to consider the development of the terminological usage in the Fathers and councils after St. Athanasius relating Person and nature, which St. Basil explicates in Letter 38. As you can see, his examples are precisely the same explanations and examples you’ve seen me give for years – he makes the exact same argument St. John of Damascus does concerting the error of all heretics is the confusing of nature and Person:

“To his Brother Gregory, concerning the difference between οὐσία and ὑ πόστασις.

1. Many persons, in their study of the sacred dogmas, failing to distinguish between what is common in the essence or substance, and the meaning of the hypostases, arrive at the same notions, and think that it makes no difference whether οὐσία or hypostasis be spoken of. The result is that some of those who accept statements on these subjects without any enquiry, are pleased to speak of one hypostasis, just as they do of one essence or substance; while on the other hand those who accept three hypostases are under the idea that they are bound in accordance with this confession, to assert also, by numerical analogy, three essences or substances.”

St. Basil proceeds to note that the Father alone is the sole cause and Arche of the godhead and explains the relationship of the Holy Spirit to the Son – and we will see his explanation is fully in union with St. Athanasius.  I recommend reading the full letter here:

“4. Now the proper way to direct our investigation seems to me to be as follows. We say that every good thing, which by God’s providence befalls us, is an energy, of the Grace which works in us all things, as the apostle says, But all these works that one and the self same Spirit dividing to every man severally as he will. 1 Corinthians 12:11 If we ask, if the supply of good things which thus comes to the saints has its origin in the Holy Ghost alone, we are on the other hand guided by Scripture to the belief that of the supply of the good things which are wrought in us through the Holy Ghost, the Originator and Cause is the Only-begotten God; for we are taught by Holy Scripture that All things were made by Him, John 1:3 and by Him consist. Colossians 1:17 When we are exalted to this conception, again, led by God-inspired guidance, we are taught that by that power all things are brought from non-being into being, but yet not by that power to the exclusion of origination. On the other hand there is a certain power subsisting without generation and without origination, which is the cause of the cause of all things. For the Son, by whom are all things, and with whom the Holy Ghost is inseparably conceived of, is of the Father. For it is not possible for any one to conceive of the Son if he be not previously enlightened by the Spirit. Since, then, the Holy Ghost, from Whom all the supply of good things for creation has its source, is attached to the Son, and with Him is inseparably apprehended, and has Its being attached to the Father, as cause, from Whom also It proceeds  It has this note of Its peculiar hypostatic nature, that It is known after the Son and together with the Son, and that It has Its hypostasis of the Father. The Son, Who declares the Spirit proceeding from the Father through Himself and with Himself, shining forth alone and by only-begetting from the unbegotten light [This is the Orthodox doctrine of eternal manifestation that will later be explicated by St. John of Damascus, St. Gregory of Palamas and at Blachernae below.  Note that this is a clear refutation of the double-hypostatic origin heresy of the filioque] so far as the peculiar notes are concerned, has nothing in common either with the Father or with the Holy Ghost. He alone is known by the stated signs. But God, Who is over all, alone has, as one special mark of His own hypostasis, His being Father, and His deriving His hypostasis from no cause; and through this mark He is peculiarly known [There is only one cause in the Godhead, the Father and the Son does not participate in His peculiar mark! Thus, no filioque] Wherefore in the communion of the substance we maintain that there is no mutual approach or intercommunion of those notes of indication perceived in the Trinity, whereby is set forth the proper peculiarity of the Persons delivered in the faith, each of these being distinctively apprehended by His own notes. Hence, in accordance with the stated signs of indication, discovery is made of the separation of the hypostases; while so far as relates to the infinite, the incomprehensible, the uncreate, the uncircumscribed, and similar attributes, there is no variableness in the life-giving nature; in that, I mean, of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, but in Them is seen a certain communion indissoluble and continuous [divine simplicity]. And by the same considerations, whereby a reflective student could perceive the greatness of any one of the (Persons) believed in in the Holy Trinity, he will proceed without variation. Beholding the glory in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, his mind all the while recognises no void interval wherein it may travel between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, for there is nothing inserted between Them; nor beyond the divine nature is there anything so subsisting as to be able to divide that nature from itself by the interposition of any foreign matter. Neither is there any vacuum of interval, void of subsistence, which can make a break in the mutual harmony of the divine essence, and solve the continuity by the interjection of emptiness. He who perceives the Father, and perceives Him by Himself, has at the same time mental perception of the Son; and he who receives the Son does not divide Him from the Spirit, but, in consecution so far as order is concerned, in conjunction so far as nature is concerned, expresses the faith commingled in himself in the three together.”

In fact, when St. John of Damascus explains these issues at the close of book 1 of Defense of the Orthodox Faith, he notes the economic appropriations of the Son as the “will” of the Father, as well as the eternal manifestation of the Sn exemplifying some Names and attributes, and not in any strict ontological sense of identification, as no Divine Person is a single attribute (the Spirit is not identical to the love of God, since all the Persons share the common natural attribute/operation of Divine Love. St. Athanasius had used the same terminology of calling the Son the wisdom, will and power of God).  An exposition of this section also shows the close connection between correct Triadology and understanding the doctrine of eternal manifestation is impossible without the essence-energy distinction:

“God then is called Mind and Reason and Spirit and Wisdom and Power, as the cause of these, and as immaterial, and maker of all, and omnipotent. And these names are common to the whole Godhead, whether affirmative or negative. And they are also used of each of the subsistences of the Holy Trinity in the very same and identical way and with their full significance [This refutes Ybarra and other misusing the St Athanasius quotes!] For when I think of one of the subsistences, I recognise it to be perfect God and perfect essence: [exactly the same argument as St Athanasius and coming from one of the greatest defenders of the essence-energy distinction, St. John] but when I combine and reckon the three together, I know one perfect God. For the Godhead is not compound but in three perfect subsistences, one perfect indivisible and uncompound God. And when I think of the relation of the three subsistences to each other, I perceive that the Father is super-essential Sun, source of goodness, fathomless sea of essence, reason, wisdom, power, light, divinity: the generating and productive source of good hidden in it. He Himself then is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer of the revealing Spirit. And to put it shortly, the Father has no reason , wisdom, power, will , save the Son Who is the only power of the Father, the immediate cause of the creation of the universe: as perfect subsistence begotten of perfect subsistence in a manner known to Himself, Who is and is named the Son. And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation. [As Blachernae will say. the Son manifests the Spirit and as St John makes clear at the bottom, the Father alone is the cause as St Basil had said – thus no Filioque]. Wherefore the Holy Spirit is the perfecter of the creation of the universe. All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone: while those that are appropriate to the caused, begotten Son, Word, immediate power, will, wisdom, are to be ascribed to the Son: and those that are appropriate to the caused, processional, manifesting, perfecting power, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.”

And the dogmatic medieval eastern council at Blachernae correctly expounds this section and refutes the Roman Catholic misuse as follows:

“To the same, who say that the Father is, through the Son, the cause of the Spirit, and who cannot conceive the Father as the cause of the hypostasis of the Spirit — giving it existence and being — except through the Son; thus according to them the Son is united to the Father as joint-cause and contributor to the Spirit’s existence. [The dogmatic Roman definition] This, they say, is supported by the phrase of Saint John of Damascus, “the Father is the projector through the Son of the manifesting Spirit.” John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, in Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II, 36 (= PG 94.849B): “He Himself [the Father], then, is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and, through the Word, projector of the manifesting Spirit.” This, however, can never mean what they say, inasmuch as it clearly denotes the manifestation — through the intermediary of the Son — of the Spirit, whose existence is from the Father. For the same John of Damascus would not have said — in the exact same chapter — that the only cause in the Trinity is God the Father, thus denying, by the use of the word “only,” the causative principle to the remaining two hypostases. John of Damascus, De fide orthodoxa, in Kotter, Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos II, 36 (= PG 94.849B) Nor would he have, again, said elsewhere, “and we speak, likewise, of the Holy Spirit as the ‘Spirit of the Son,’ yet we do not speak of the Spirit as from the Son.” Ibid., 30 (= PG 94-832B). For both of these views to be true is impossible. To those who have not accepted the interpretation given to these testimonia by the Fathers, but, on the contrary, perceive them in a manner altogether forbidden by them, we pronounce the above recorded resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.”

“To the same, who affirm that the Paraclete, which is from the Frather, has its existence through the Son and from the Son, and who again propose as proof the phrase “the Spirit exists through the Son and from the Son.” In certain texts [of the Fathers], the phrase denotes the Spirit’s shining forth and manifestation. Indeed, the very Paraclete shines form and is manifest eternally through the Son, in the same way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays; it further denotes the bestowing, giving, and sending of the Spirit to us. It does not, however, mean that it subsists through the Son and from the Son, and that it receives its being through Him and from Him. For this would mean that the Spirit has the Son as cause and source (exactly as it has the Father), not to say that it has its cause and source more so from the Son than from the Father; for it is said that that from which existence is derived likewise is believed to enrich the source and to be the cause of being. To those who believe and say such things, we pronounce the above resolution and judgment, we cut them off from the membership of the Orthodox, and we banish them from the flock of the Church of God.”

Given this crucial distinction is completely absent in Roman Catholic dogmatic definitions (until the recent Vatican Clarification on the Filioque), what does that say for Roman Dogma?   How have such clear and necessary distinctions that date back to St. Athanasius, St. Basil and St John of Damascus been completely lost and obscured by ridiculous notions like created theophanies, created light, created grace, and countless other stupid heresies, all the way up to the present day perennialism of Vatican 2 where all religions are in a common process of participation in Christ?  Are Satanism and Luciferianism also one of the many paths to “god’?   Rather, these are all manifestations of departure from Christ and to add fuel to the fire many modern so-called Orthodox act as if there were no medieval Orthodox synods and councils mandating the views of St. Gregory Palamas and rejecting the errors of Barlaam and the Frankish-Italian West.  The doctrine of eternal manifestation is necessary because some of the divine attributes relate to creation (like being a creator and providence), while others would have manifested from all eternity, even if God had not created, such as Love or Glory.  This also show how ex nihilo creation is dogma and is one of many reasons why Origenism is condemned.  The doctrine of eternal manifestation also shows the relationship of the Son to the Spirit, which is inseparable from all eternity.

These three “levels” (for instruction’s sake) cannot and must not be confused and Orthodox theology has made this clear, even through all three contain the same Trinitarian mode St. Basil made famous: From the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit. The hypostatic origin of the Persons is from the Father alone as the Fathers make clear, is eternally manifested through the Son, and shines forth in the Spirit.   The energies of God all have their procession from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit.  The creation of the world was done originating in the Father, occurred through the Son and is in the Spirit.  The movement of providence, as well.  Likewise, the sending of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost according to the economia is from the Father, through the Son and in the Spirit, as well.

Failure to distinguish these three levels made clear in the Orthodox fathers and in the Triads of St Gregory leads to a confusion of Persons with nature, operations with persons, will with persons, creation with creator, and on and on.  Absolute divine simplicity itself is the root of the error and until the confusion is given up, fanatical Thomists and apologists are chasing their tales in a system that has already admitted all. my arguments.  Consider the Vatican Clarification and what is admitted – not only do they recognize the Eastern Fathers (who dominate the early ecumenical councils and their theology) say what I am saying, they admit the medieval west has a different view – what irony, given this ecumenical document admits the tension precisely where I have been saying the tension remains:

“Greek theologians, too, have often struggled to find ways of expressing a sense that the Son, who sends forth the Spirit in time, also plays a mediating role of some kind in the Spirit’s eternal being and activity. Gregory of Nyssa, for instance, explains that we can only distinguish the hypostases within the Mystery of God by “believing that one is the cause, the other is from the cause; and in that which is from the cause, we recognize yet another distinction: one is immediately from the first one, the other is through him who is immediately from the first one.” It is characteristic of the “mediation” (mesiteia) of the Son in the origin of the Spirit, he adds, that it both pre­serves his own unique role as Son and allows the Spirit to have a “natural relationship” to the Father. (To Ablabius: GNO III/1, 56.3-10) In the thirteenth century, the Council of Blachernae (1285), under the leadership of Constantinopolitan Patriarch Gregory II, took further steps to interpret Patristic texts that speak of the Spirit’s being “through” the Son in a sense con­sis­tent with the Orthodox tradition. The Council proposed in its Tomos that although Chris­tian faith must maintain that the Holy Spirit receives his existence and hypostatic identity solely from the Father, who is the single cause of the divine Being, he “shines from and is manifested eternally through the Son, in the way that light shines forth and is manifest through the intermediary of the sun’s rays.” (trans. A. Papadakis, Crisis in Byzantium [St. Vladimir’s, 1996] 219) In the following century, Gregory Palamas proposed a similar interpretation of this relationship in a number of his works; in his Con­fession of 1351, for instance, he asserts that the Holy Spirit “has the Father as foundation, source, and cause,” but “reposes in the Son” and “is sent – that is, manifested – through the Son.” (ibid. 194) In terms of the transcendent divine energy, although not in terms of substance or hypostatic being, “the Spirit pours itself out from the Father through the Son, and, if you like, from the Son over all those worthy of it,” a communi­ca­tion which may even be broadly called “procession” (ekporeusis) (Apodeictic Treatise 1: trans. J. Meyendorff, A Study of Gregory Palamas [St. Vladimir’s, 1974] 231-232).

The Greek and Latin theological traditions clearly remain in some tension with each other on the fundamental issue of the Spirit’s eternal origin as a distinct divine person. By the Middle Ages, as a result of the influence of Anselm and Thomas Aquinas, Western theology almost universally conceives of the identity of each divine person as defined by its “relations of opposition” – in other words, its mutually defining relations of origin – to the other two, and concludes that the Holy Spirit would not be hypostatically distinguishable from the Son if the Spirit “proceeded” from the Father alone.”

Indeed – note as well the admission my interpretation of the medieval Latins is also accurate. And to round this off, lets consider what Palamas scholar John Meyendorff explains concerning the mystery and lack of dialectal tension in St Gregory concerning the fact that God is wholly present in His energies due to His simplicity, and yet at the same time also distinct in His energies (because distinction does not imply composition or division – but for dialectical heretics, it does). St. Gregory writes in the Triads:

“F. Essence and energies in God

I should like to ask this man why he claims that only the divine essence is without beginning, whereas everything apart from it is of a created nature, and whether or not he thinks this essence is all-powerful. That is to say, does it possess the faculties of knowing, of prescience, of creating, of embracing all things in itself; does it possess providence, the power of deification and, in a word, all such faculties, or not? For if it does not have them, this essence is not God, even though it alone is unoriginate. If it does possess these powers, but acquired them subsequently, then there was a time when it was imperfect, in other words, was not God. However, if it possessed these faculties from eternity, it. follows that not only is the divine essence unoriginate, but that each of its powers is also.

Nonetheless, there is only one unoriginate essence, the essence of God; none of the powers that inhere in it is an essence, so that all necessarily and always are in the divine essence. To use an obscure image, they exist in the divine essence as do the powers of the senses in what is called the common spiritual sense of the soul. 2 Here is the manifest, sure and recognised teaching of the Church! For just as there is only one single essence without beginning, the essence of God, and the essences other than it are seen to be of a created nature, and come to be through this sole unoriginate essence, the unique maker of essences—in the same way, there is only one single providential power without beginning, namely that of God whereas all other powers apart from it are of a created nature; 3 and it is the same with all the other natural powers of God. It is thus nottrue that the essence of God is the only unoriginate reality, and that all realities other than it are of a created nature.

My discourse (guided by the absolute and eternally preexisting nature) now leads me briefly to show the unbelieving that not only the divine powers (which the Fathers often call “natural energies”), but also some works of God are without beginning, as the Fathers also rightly affirm. For was it not needful for the work of providence to exist before Creation, so as to cause each of the created things to come to be in time, out of nonbeing? Was it not necessary for a divine knowledge to know before choosing, even outside time? But how does it follow that the divine prescience had a beginning? How could one conceive of a beginning of God’s self-contemplation, and was there ever a moment when God began to be moved toward contemplation of Himself? Never!

There is, therefore, a single unoriginate providence, that of God, and it is a work of God. Providences other than it are of a created nature. Nonetheless, providence is not the divine essence, and thus the essence of God is not alone unoriginate. There is in the same way only one unoriginate and uncreated prescience, that of God, whereas presciences different from it—those which we possess by nature—all have a beginning and are created. There is also only one will without beginning, that of God, whereas all wills other than it have a beginning. However, no one would dare to say that the essence of God is a will, not even those who claimed the Word of God was a son of God’s will. 6 As for predeterminations, their very name shows that they existed before creation; and should anyone wish to deny their existence before the ages, he would be refuted by Paul’s words, that “God has foreordained before the ages”.

These works of God, then, are manifestly unoriginate and pretemporal : His foreknowledge, will, providence, contemplation of Himself, and whatever powers are akin to these. But if this contemplation, providence, prescience, predetermination and will are works of God that are without beginning, then virtue is also unoriginate, for each of His works is a virtue; 8 existence is also unoriginate, since it precedes not only essence 9 but all beings, for it is the first existence. And are not will and predetermination virtues?

… The wise Maximus thus rightly says that “existence, life, holiness and virtue are works of God that do not have a beginning in time”; and he adds (so that no one should think these things relate to this age, albeit in a nontemporal sense), “There was never a time when virtue, goodness, holiness and immortality did not exist.” 11 He then makes this further observation, lest anyone should think the virtues in us are unoriginate: “Things that have a beginning exist, and are said to exist by participation in things unoriginate. For God is the creator of all life, all immortality, all sanctity and all virtue”, 12 that is, of that which subsists in us by nature. 13… Elsewhere, he states, “These virtues are contemplated as qualities appertaining essentially to God”, and are participable. 14 Created beings participate in them, as do works of God that have an origin in time, but they themselves are works without beginning. 15 “For nonbeing is not anterior to virtue,” he says, “nor to any other of the realities mentioned before, since they have God as the eternal and absolutely unique originator of their being.” 16 And so that no one should believe he is speaking of the su􏰀 peressentiality to which our intellect attains after having stripped itself of all created things, 17 he continues, “God infinitely transcends these participable virtues an infinite number of times.” 18 In other words, He infinitely transcends that goodness, holiness and virtue which are unoriginate, that is, uncreated.

Thus, neither the uncreated goodness, nor the eternal glory, nor the divine life nor things akin to these are simply the superessential essence of God, for God transcends them all as Cause. But we say He is life, goodness and so forth, and give Him these names, because of the revelatory energies and powers of the Superessential. As Basil the Great says, “The guarantee of the existence of every essence is its natural energy which leads the mind to the nature.” 19 And according to St. Gregory of Nyssa and all the other Fathers, the natural energy is the power which manifests every essence, and only nonbeing is deprived of this power; for the being which participates in an essence will also surely participate in the power which naturally manifests that essence.

But since God is entirely present in each of the divine energies,we name Him from each of them, although it is clear that He transcends all of them. For, given the multitude of divine energies, how could God subsist entirely in each without any division at all; and how could each provide Him with a name and manifest Him entirely, thanks to indivisible and supernatural simplicity, if He did not transcend all these energies? There are, however, energies of God which have a beginning and an end, as all the saints will confirm. 21 Our opponent … thinks that everything which has a beginning is created; this is why he has stated that only one reality is unoriginate, the essence of God, adding that “what is not this essence, derives from a created nature.” 22 But even if this man considers that everything that has a beginning is created, we for our part know that while all the energies of God are uncreated, not all are without beginning. Indeed, beginning and end must be ascribed, if not to the creative power itself, then at least to its activity, that is to say, to its energy as directed towards created things. Moses showed this, when he said, “God rested from all the works which He had begun to do.”

How then would the Superessential One not be different from its proper energy? But, he asks, are the unoriginate energies identical with the Superessential One? There are among them some which have an end but not a beginning, as Basil the Great has said concerning the prescience of God. 24 The superessential essence of God is thus not to be identified with the energies, even with those without beginning ; from which it follows that it is not only transcendent to any energy whatsoever, but that it transcends them “to an infinite degree and an infinite number of times”, as the divine Maximus says.

The blessed Cyril, for his part, says that the divine energy and power consist in the fact that God is everywhere and contains all, without being contained by anything. 26 But it does not follow that the Divine Nature consists in the fact of being everywhere, any more than our own nature uniquely consists in being somewhere. For how could our essence consist in a fact which is in no way an essence? Essence and energy are thus not totally identical in God, even though He is entirely manifest in every energy, His essence being indivisible.

John Chrysostom, on the other hand, says that the essential energy of God consists in being nowhere; not in the sense that it does not exist, but in the sense that it transcends place, time and nature. 27… As Basil the Great asks, “Is it not ridiculous to say that the creative power is an essence, and similarly, that providence is an essence, and foreknowledge, simply taking every energy as essence?” 28 And the divine Maximus says, “Goodness and all that the word implies, all life absolutely, all immortality, and all the attributes that appertain essentially to God are works of God, and do not have a temporal beginning. Nonbeing, that is to say, is not anterior to virtue, nor to any of the realities mentioned above, even though the beings which participate in them began to exist in time.” 29 None of these things is the essence of God—neither the uncreated goodness, nor the unoriginate eternal life; all these exist not in Him, but around Him.

Moreover, the Holy Fathers affirm unanimously that it is impossible to find a name to manifest the nature of the uncreated Trinity, but that the names belong to the energies.”The divinity” also designates an energy, that of moving or contemplating or burning, 31 or else it indicates the “deification-in-itself.” 32 But He Who is beyond every name is not identical with what He is named; for the essence and energy of God are not identical. But if the divinity of God designates the divine energy par excellence, and if the energies are, as you say, created, the divinity of God must also be created!

However, it is not only uncreated, but unoriginate; for He Who knows all things before their creation did not begin to contemplate created beings in time. But the divine essence that transcends all names, also surpasses energy, to the extent that the subject of an action surpasses its object; and He Who is beyond every name transcends what is named according to the same measure. But this is in no way opposed to the veneration of a unique God and a unique divinity, since the fact of calling the ray “sun” in no way prevents us from thinking of a unique sun and a unique light. Do you not see how strictly our views accord with those of the saints?

But as for you, you allege all that is participable is created, that not only the works, but also the powers and energies of God have a beginning and a temporal end! … You accuse of impiety and threaten with excommunication and anathema those saints who glorify God according to His essence, which exceeds even His uncreated energies, since this essence transcends all affirmation and all negation. Since you hold and teach these opinions, have you any way of proving that you are not to be classed with the heretics of past times, since you declare that not only are all the energies and all the works of God created, but even the very powers of this superessential nature?

Indeed, even this name “essence” designates one of the powers in God. Denys the Areopagite says, “If we call the superessential Mystery ‘God’ or ‘Life’ or ‘Essence’ or ‘Light’ or ‘Word’, we are referring to nothing other than the deifying powers which proceed from God and come down to us, creating substance, giving life, and granting wisdom.” 34 So, when you say that only the essence of God is an unoriginate reality, you give us to understand that only one power of God is without beginning, that which creates substance, whereas all the others apart from this one are temporal. Yet why should the substance-creating power be unoriginate, when (according to you) the vivifying power has a temporal beginning, as also the life-giving and wisdom- bestowing powers? Either all the divine powers are unoriginate, or none! If you say that only one of them is uncreated, you expel the others from the realm of the uncreated ; and if you declare all are created, you must also reject this single uncreated one. For such a falsehood is self-contradictory and inconsistent with itself! …

Perhaps he will say that it is “through the essence” that God is said to possess all these powers in Himself in a unique and unifying manner. But, in the first place, it would be necessary to call this reality “God”, for such is the term for it which we have received from the Church. When God was conversing with Moses, He did not say, “I am the essence”, but “I am the One Who is.” 36 Thus it is not the One Who is who derives from the essence, but essence which derives from Him, for it is He who contains all being in Himself.

So if, instead of speaking of “essence”, he had employed the word “God”, he would also have had to say “by nature”—and this by reason of grace and the “gods by grace”, 38 whom the saints say are “unoriginate and uncreated by grace”, when speaking on this subject. 39 Thus he should have said, “There is one God, unoriginate by nature.” But he has replaced the word “God” by another, and omitted “by nature”, so as to mislead his hearers as far as possible, and has not said that the only reality without beginning is He Who holds all things together and unifies all, yet preexists all. If this had been his meaning, why would he have made so much effort to show that the natural powers in God are created?

To convince you that this man believes the divine powers to be created, listen to his own words, which are perfectly clear. He brings forward the words of the great Denys: “The providential powers produced by the imparticipable God are Being-in-itself, Life-in-itself and Divinity-in-itself; to the extent to which created beings participate in them according to their proper mode, we can say that they are living and divine beings, and thus it can be said that the Good One has established them.”

This is what Barlaam concludes from this: “The Divinity-in-itself and the other realities which the great Denys has here clearly called powers, are not eternal, but the Good One has also granted existence to them.” And again: “A certain Father 41 has said that there is a thearchy and a divinity transcended by the Principle of the universe, but he did not say that they were eternal, since the universal Cause gave them also existence.” And also: “There is a glory of God beyond participation, an eternal reality, and thus identical to the divine essence; and there is a participable glory, different from this essence and not eternal, for the universal Cause has given it existence.”

As I said above, he who said that the angels contemplate the eternal glory—I mean St. Gregory Nazianzen 43 —has shown that it is an error to identify the eternal glory of God with the imparticipable essence of God. We have here a proof that the eternal glory of God is participable, for that which in God is visible in some way, is also participable. 44 But the great Denys has also said: “The divine intelligences move in a circular movement, united to the unoriginate and endless rays of the Beautiful and Good.” It is clear, therefore, that these unoriginate and endless rays are other than the imparticipable essence of God, and different (albeit inseparable) from the essence.

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. 46 This is what Paul means when he speaks of “the parts of the Holy Spirit”. 47 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.”

“To the philosophical objection that he was introducing a “second and lower God” beside the unique godhead, Palamas replied over and over again that no multiplicity of divine manifestations could effect the unity of God, for God is beyond the categories of whole and parts and, while in His essence always remaining unknowable, reveals Himself wholly in each energy as the living God.” (St. Gregory Palamas and Orthodox Spirituality, John Meyendorff, pg. 121).

Subscribe to JaysAnalysis in the Purchase Membership section to access the archives of videos and interviews and lectures or purchase my books in the Shop!