Do God's Energies Change?

[Papist]

God cannot be restricted. There can be no change in the Godhead. If God were to restrict His power, He would no longer be omnipotent, and thus He could not regain His omnipotence, and thus all existence, including Himself, would be annihilated because of lack of support from an omnipotent being.

Not true, God creating is a function of His Energy, not His Essence.  There is no change in God when God creates a rock of any kind.  So your argument against the creation of a rock He cannot lift by trying to apply a change in God's nature does not hold water. 

Does this mean that God's energies change?

[Father H]

God cannot be restricted. There can be no change in the Godhead. If God were to restrict His power, He would no longer be omnipotent, and thus He could not regain His omnipotence, and thus all existence, including Himself, would be annihilated because of lack of support from an omnipotent being.

Not true, God creating is a function of His Energy, not His Essence.  There is no change in God when God creates a rock of any kind.  So your argument against the creation of a rock He cannot lift by trying to apply a change in God's nature does not hold water. 

Does this mean that God's energies change?

A good starting place for the answer to your question is St. John of Damascus:

"The true doctrine teaches that the Deity is simple and has one simple Energy, which is good and energizes all things, just as the sun's ray, which warms all things and energizes in each in conjunction with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having acquired this form of energy from God, its Maker.  But actions (Gk. praxis) are also called energies...and yet again, the result of the force is also called energy."  (St. John of Damascus, 8th c.:  Orth. Faith 1.10)

"All the faculties we have already discussed...both those of knowledge and those of life, both the natural and artificial, are...called energies.  For energy is the natural force and activity of each essence: or again, natural energy is the activity innate in every essence: and so, clearly things that have the same essence also have the same energy... no essence can be devoid of a natural energy."  (St. John of Damascus, 8th c.:  Orth. Faith 2.23)

[Papist]

God cannot be restricted. There can be no change in the Godhead. If God were to restrict His power, He would no longer be omnipotent, and thus He could not regain His omnipotence, and thus all existence, including Himself, would be annihilated because of lack of support from an omnipotent being.

Not true, God creating is a function of His Energy, not His Essence.  There is no change in God when God creates a rock of any kind.  So your argument against the creation of a rock He cannot lift by trying to apply a change in God's nature does not hold water. 

Does this mean that God's energies change?

A good starting place for the answer to your question is St. John of Damascus:

"The true doctrine teaches that the Deity is simple and has one simple Energy, which is good and energizes all things, just as the sun's ray, which warms all things and energizes in each in conjunction with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having acquired this form of energy from God, its Maker.  But actions (Gk. praxis) are also called energies...and yet again, the result of the force is also called energy."  (St. John of Damascus, 8th c.:  Orth. Faith 1.10)

"All the faculties we have already discussed...both those of knowledge and those of life, both the natural and artificial, are...called energies.  For energy is the natural force and activity of each essence: or again, natural energy is the activity innate in every essence: and so, clearly things that have the same essence also have the same energy... no essence can be devoid of a natural energy."  (St. John of Damascus, 8th c.:  Orth. Faith 2.23)

Thanks for those quotes, but do the energies change? It seems that they don't because according to St. John's arguement, the natural energy is is innate in the essence, so they can't change. Is this correct?

[Jetavan]

God cannot be restricted. There can be no change in the Godhead. If God were to restrict His power, He would no longer be omnipotent, and thus He could not regain His omnipotence, and thus all existence, including Himself, would be annihilated because of lack of support from an omnipotent being.

Not true, God creating is a function of His Energy, not His Essence.  There is no change in God when God creates a rock of any kind.  So your argument against the creation of a rock He cannot lift by trying to apply a change in God's nature does not hold water. 

Does this mean that God's energies change?

A good starting place for the answer to your question is St. John of Damascus:

"The true doctrine teaches that the Deity is simple and has one simple Energy, which is good and energizes all things, just as the sun's ray, which warms all things and energizes in each in conjunction with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having acquired this form of energy from God, its Maker.  But actions (Gk. praxis) are also called energies...and yet again, the result of the force is also called energy."  (St. John of Damascus, 8th c.:  Orth. Faith 1.10)

"All the faculties we have already discussed...both those of knowledge and those of life, both the natural and artificial, are...called energies.  For energy is the natural force and activity of each essence: or again, natural energy is the activity innate in every essence: and so, clearly things that have the same essence also have the same energy... no essence can be devoid of a natural energy."  (St. John of Damascus, 8th c.:  Orth. Faith 2.23)

Thanks for those quotes, but do the energies change? It seems that they don't because according to St. John's arguement, the natural energy is is innate in the essence, so they can't change. Is this correct?

Answer in bold.

[Asteriktos]

So they do change. Interesting. 

[Jetavan]

So they do change. Interesting.  

He's not called "ehyeh asher ehyeh" ("I will be who I will be") for nuttin'.

[Papist]

So they do change. Interesting.  

Well, that seems problematic. If God's energies are God, God is unchanging, and the energies change, then we have a contradiction. Am I following the EOs correctly on this?

[orthonorm]

So they do change. Interesting.  

Well, that seems problematic. If God's energies are God, God is unchanging, and the energies change, then we have a contradiction. Am I following the EOs correctly on this?

Jesus is conceived. Jesus learns to walk. He learns to talk. He learns about himself. He gets angry. He weeps. He grows. He dies. He resurrects.

God of the OT gets angry. Forgives. Creates. Destroys what He creates.

Methinks Platonism gets too much show at the expense of the Scriptures.

I think we humans try too hard to pin God down.

[Papist]

So they do change. Interesting.  

Well, that seems problematic. If God's energies are God, God is unchanging, and the energies change, then we have a contradiction. Am I following the EOs correctly on this?

Jesus is conceived. Jesus learns to walk. He learns to talk. He learns about himself. He gets angry. He weeps. He grows. He dies. He resurrects.

God of the OT gets angry. Forgives. Creates. Destroys what He creates.

Methinks Platonism gets too much show at the expense of the Scriptures.

I think we humans try too hard to pin God down.

With regard to your references to Christ in his human nature, I think we are talking about his divine nature. Also, in the Old Testament, aren't those refrences to God's anger and such, anthropomorphisms used to help us understand God? I am debating, only asking.

[Jetavan]

So they do change. Interesting.  

Well, that seems problematic. If God's energies are God, God is unchanging, and the energies change, then we have a contradiction. Am I following the EOs correctly on this?

We can speak about "change" in many different ways. God's Energies may be "active", but they may also be "unchanging" in the sense of always being consonant with God's Essence.

[orthonorm]

So they do change. Interesting.  

Well, that seems problematic. If God's energies are God, God is unchanging, and the energies change, then we have a contradiction. Am I following the EOs correctly on this?

Jesus is conceived. Jesus learns to walk. He learns to talk. He learns about himself. He gets angry. He weeps. He grows. He dies. He resurrects.

God of the OT gets angry. Forgives. Creates. Destroys what He creates.

Methinks Platonism gets too much show at the expense of the Scriptures.

I think we humans try too hard to pin God down.

With regard to your references to Christ in his human nature, I think we are talking about his divine nature. Also, in the Old Testament, aren't those refrences to God's anger and such, anthropomorphisms used to help us understand God? I am debating, only asking.

I take your point well. I wish I could remember the thinker who said, God is not anthropomorphic but rather we are theomorphic. In virtue of the Person of God and to the degree we are in His Image are we capable of such things albeit in our fallen state.

As Paul mentions, it is in virtue that God is THE Father that the relation we have to be fathers as persons lie.

I wonder on this. I know this line of thinking tends to go against the more Platonic view of God, if I can be less than nuanced, but I think it is worth considering.

That is not to say what is held by the Fathers, Liturgy, Tradition, etc. is wrong, but it seems to me that the apparent contradiction in God's unchangeability and the Scriptural Testament to God's "changeable" actions and temperament, if you will, the latter kinda gets lost or not taken very seriously.

Again, I am just suggesting perhaps, Platonism has a strong hold in the mind of many Christians and I wonder if it is always entirely accurate.

If you figure it out, let me know.

[Jetavan]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

[Papist]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

[orthonorm]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

And that He changes as well.

[Papist]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

And that He changes as well.

I have never seen a passage in scripture that explicitly states, "Lo, I am a changing God". Rather, I have seen scriptures that emphatically state that he does not change. Is there anything in the Cappedocean fathers, or St. John of Damscus' works that suggest that God changes? Again, I am not trying to debate here. I am trying to determine what exactly is the Eastern Orthodox position.

[Asteriktos]

Everything I've read in St. John of Damascus seemed to indicate that God is unchanging (search for "change" here, for example). However, it's not like I was reading his works specifically investigating this idea...

EDIT--I am also not saying that a simple search for a word can necessarily give you a full and proper understanding of what someone believes...

[Asteriktos]

So they do change. Interesting.  

Well, that seems problematic. If God's energies are God, God is unchanging, and the energies change, then we have a contradiction. Am I following the EOs correctly on this?

We can speak about "change" in many different ways. God's Energies may be "active", but they may also be "unchanging" in the sense of always being consonant with God's Essence.

I was thinking action necessarily requires change, but that's a good point...

[Papist]

So they do change. Interesting.  

Well, that seems problematic. If God's energies are God, God is unchanging, and the energies change, then we have a contradiction. Am I following the EOs correctly on this?

We can speak about "change" in many different ways. God's Energies may be "active", but they may also be "unchanging" in the sense of always being consonant with God's Essence.

Actually, that's pretty good.

[Papist]

Everything I've read in St. John of Damascus seemed to indicate that God is unchanging (search for "change" here, for example). However, it's not like I was reading his works specifically investigating this idea...

EDIT--I am also not saying that a simple search for a word can necessarily give you a full and proper understanding of what someone believes...

But there is something to this. It seems that every instance of the word "change" in reference to God, is used in order to describe the fact that He does not change.

[orthonorm]

Everything I've read in St. John of Damascus seemed to indicate that God is unchanging (search for "change" here, for example). However, it's not like I was reading his works specifically investigating this idea...

EDIT--I am also not saying that a simple search for a word can necessarily give you a full and proper understanding of what someone believes...

But there is something to this. It seems that every instance of the word "change" in reference to God, is used in order to describe the fact that He does not change.

I think that was the point being made.

[orthonorm]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

And that He changes as well.

I have never seen a passage in scripture that explicitly states, "Lo, I am a changing God". Rather, I have seen scriptures that emphatically state that he does not change. Is there anything in the Cappedocean fathers, or St. John of Damscus' works that suggest that God changes? Again, I am not trying to debate here. I am trying to determine what exactly is the Eastern Orthodox position.

I believe that aspect of the apparent contradiction must be pointed explicitly for the very fact the God typically is depicted as a living and a  "changing" God.

Well just write it up to anthropomorphism. Then why not toss it out? Why make any petitionary prayers? Why do anything? God has already decided everything. Where does free will stand? And if we are given "free will" to the degree we are made in the Image of God, then how is this Divine Will to be understood, unless it involves "choice" of some sort? The god of the philosophers leads nowhere.

[Papist]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

And that He changes as well.

I have never seen a passage in scripture that explicitly states, "Lo, I am a changing God". Rather, I have seen scriptures that emphatically state that he does not change. Is there anything in the Cappedocean fathers, or St. John of Damscus' works that suggest that God changes? Again, I am not trying to debate here. I am trying to determine what exactly is the Eastern Orthodox position.

I believe that aspect of the apparent contradiction must be pointed explicitly for the very fact the God typically is depicted as a living and a  "changing" God.

Well just write it up to anthropomorphism. Then why not toss it out? Why make any petitionary prayers? Why do anything? God has already decided everything. Where does free will stand? And if we are given "free will" to the degree we are made in the Image of God, then how is this Divine Will to be understood, unless it involves "choice" of some sort? The god of the philosophers leads nowhere.

Then is God infininte in perfection? If he changes from one state to another, then he is lacking something in one state, that he has in another. Am I wrong about this?

[orthonorm]

Papist,

I will take this outta the realm of arguably pointless debate tonight or tomorrow and put some blood into this discussion.

And you and everyone can let me know, if my post is non-Orthodox / non-Catholic.

An honest appeal to criticism.

[orthonorm]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

And that He changes as well.

I have never seen a passage in scripture that explicitly states, "Lo, I am a changing God". Rather, I have seen scriptures that emphatically state that he does not change. Is there anything in the Cappedocean fathers, or St. John of Damscus' works that suggest that God changes? Again, I am not trying to debate here. I am trying to determine what exactly is the Eastern Orthodox position.

I believe that aspect of the apparent contradiction must be pointed explicitly for the very fact the God typically is depicted as a living and a  "changing" God.

Well just write it up to anthropomorphism. Then why not toss it out? Why make any petitionary prayers? Why do anything? God has already decided everything. Where does free will stand? And if we are given "free will" to the degree we are made in the Image of God, then how is this Divine Will to be understood, unless it involves "choice" of some sort? The god of the philosophers leads nowhere.

Then is God infininte in perfection? If he changes from one state to another, then he is lacking something in one state, that he has in another. Am I wrong about this?

Since we are posting simultaneously, I'll just point out this is Platonic line of thinking, that "perfection" is "unchanging".

Does God work with us or not? Is God a Person in a relationship or a Monad (not of the Leibnitz variety)?

Till more blood is offered for your judgement.

Of course, all this speculation on my part is not meant to be espousing any Orthodox position, just some of my difficult questions I wonder about.

[Papist]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

And that He changes as well.

I have never seen a passage in scripture that explicitly states, "Lo, I am a changing God". Rather, I have seen scriptures that emphatically state that he does not change. Is there anything in the Cappedocean fathers, or St. John of Damscus' works that suggest that God changes? Again, I am not trying to debate here. I am trying to determine what exactly is the Eastern Orthodox position.

I believe that aspect of the apparent contradiction must be pointed explicitly for the very fact the God typically is depicted as a living and a  "changing" God.

Well just write it up to anthropomorphism. Then why not toss it out? Why make any petitionary prayers? Why do anything? God has already decided everything. Where does free will stand? And if we are given "free will" to the degree we are made in the Image of God, then how is this Divine Will to be understood, unless it involves "choice" of some sort? The god of the philosophers leads nowhere.

Then is God infininte in perfection? If he changes from one state to another, then he is lacking something in one state, that he has in another. Am I wrong about this?

Since we are posting simultaneously, I'll just point out this is Platonic line of thinking, that "perfection" is "unchanging".

Does God work with us or not? Is God a Person in a relationship or a Monad (not of the Leibnitz variety)?

Till more blood is offered for your judgement.

Of course, all this speculation on my part is not meant to be espousing any Orthodox position, just some of my difficult questions I wonder about.

Although I know what I believe, I am simply wondering aloud as well, concerning the Eastern Orthodox position.

[deusveritasest]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

And that He changes as well.

That sounds possibly blasphemous. Also, I've never seen anything that indicated a change in God save for certain things in the OT which were interpreted non-literally by a number of the Fathers.

[Papist]

So God cannot do everything? He is not omnipotent?

No, God can't do anything nonsensical. He can do anything real that actually respects His nature.

I would add that nonsensical things are not "things" at all. God can do everything, but contradictions are not things.

[deusveritasest]

I would add that nonsensical things are not "things" at all. God can do everything, but contradictions are not things.

If you want to get really technical, acts in general aren't really things either. 

But I'll acknowledge that nonsense has less of a claim on existence than sensical action.

[orthonorm]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

And that He changes as well.

That sounds possibly blasphemous. Also, I've never seen anything that indicated a change in God save for certain things in the OT which were interpreted non-literally by a number of the Fathers.

Did the Incarnation become non-literal all the sudden?

[deusveritasest]

Plato was obsessed with God's unchanging Essence.

The Scriptures say that he is unchanging and is the same, yesterday, today, and forever.

And that He changes as well.

That sounds possibly blasphemous. Also, I've never seen anything that indicated a change in God save for certain things in the OT which were interpreted non-literally by a number of the Fathers.

Did the Incarnation become non-literal all the sudden?

No. When did the Incarnation become a matter of God changing?

[Father H]

There is no change in God.   However, as one person already remarked, here "change" has a very specific appliction.   We think of the term 'change' as applying to activity (i.e., I changed my clothes, or I changed direction in the car, first going south, then going east, etc.).  This is not the kind of change we are talking about, for otherwise, that would mean that God could not do anything at all.   Rather, the following:

A person sees that a fisherman has slipped from the bridge and is hanging from the bridge by his ankle, and otherwise, will fall to rocks below headfirst.   He acts immediately.   He first runs in to get his rope, gauze, and peroxide, he then changed direction to go up to the bridge.  He ceases running straight because he has to run vertically up the stairs (another change?).  He then walks straight again.  He then kneels down (another change in posture), ties a lasso in the rope as a harnass, and lowers it down around the head and up the midsection (more change), pulls the guy up, washes out the wound in the ankle, and bandages it (change change change).   Again, in one sense we would think of this diversity of motion as "change."   Yet in another sense, it was one singular unchanged action:  saving the person.   It was without change in the following manner, however, that this energy proceeded from a single will which did not change--the man neither changed his mind at any time about saving the fisherman nor did he change his action in such a way that the fisherman might not be saved.   In fact, if his will would have changed, then his actions would not have changed (i.e. he would maybe have just run straight past the stairs up to the bridge, without a change of motion, but with a change of will, the latter being the more crucial in defining energy).   An unchanging will necessitates variety in energetic application in order that the single will is carried out, and in this sense, is also a single energy or operation (i.e. the single energy/operation of saving the fisherman).   

God cannot be restricted. There can be no change in the Godhead. If God were to restrict His power, He would no longer be omnipotent, and thus He could not regain His omnipotence, and thus all existence, including Himself, would be annihilated because of lack of support from an omnipotent being.

Not true, God creating is a function of His Energy, not His Essence.  There is no change in God when God creates a rock of any kind.  So your argument against the creation of a rock He cannot lift by trying to apply a change in God's nature does not hold water. 

Does this mean that God's energies change?

A good starting place for the answer to your question is St. John of Damascus:"The true doctrine teaches that the Deity is simple and has one simple Energy, which is good and energizes all things, just as the sun's ray, which warms all things and energizes in each in conjunction with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having acquired this form of energy from God, its Maker.  But actions (Gk. praxis) are also called energies...and yet again, the result of the force is also called energy."  (St. John of Damascus, 8th c.:  Orth. Faith 1.10)  "All the faculties we have already discussed...both those of knowledge and those of life, both the natural and artificial, are...called energies.  For energy is the natural force and activity of each essence: or again, natural energy is the activity innate in every essence: and so, clearly things that have the same essence also have the same energy... no essence can be devoid of a natural energy."  (St. John of Damascus, 8th c.:  Orth. Faith 2.23) 

  Thanks for those quotes, but do the energies change? It seems that they don't because according to St. John's arguement, the natural energy is is innate in the essence, so they can't change. Is this correct?

[Achronos]

God is the unchangeable changer. He did change when He put the universe into being, but He remained unchanged. I tried to rationally explain this philosophically, but gave up and decided it was just a mystery.

[Jetavan]

God is the unchangeable changer. He did change when He put the universe into being, but He remained unchanged. I tried to rationally explain this philosophically, but gave up and decided it was just a mystery.

People often (incorrectly) use the ice-water-steam imagery to explain the Trinity, but it might be better used to describe how God's Essence (symbolized by the H20 molecule) is unchanging, but God's Energies (solid ice, liquid water, gaseous steam) do change.

[Ortho_cat]

How did God not change after he incorporated humanity into the Godhead?

[ialmisry]

So God cannot do everything? He is not omnipotent?

No, God can't do anything nonsensical. He can do anything real that actually respects His nature.

I would add that nonsensical things are not "things" at all. God can do everything, but contradictions are not things.

OOoo! I like that.

[ialmisry]

God cannot be restricted. There can be no change in the Godhead. If God were to restrict His power, He would no longer be omnipotent, and thus He could not regain His omnipotence, and thus all existence, including Himself, would be annihilated because of lack of support from an omnipotent being.

Not true, God creating is a function of His Energy, not His Essence.  There is no change in God when God creates a rock of any kind.  So your argument against the creation of a rock He cannot lift by trying to apply a change in God's nature does not hold water. 

Does this mean that God's energies change?

If in the Incarnation, which involved God's essence in the Person of the Son, did not change God's Essence, no involvement of His Energies in the world would change them.

[akimel]

Papist, you may find David Bradshaw's essay "The Christian Approach to the Philosophy of Time" of interest. 

[Apotheoun]

How did God not change after he incorporated humanity into the Godhead?

The hypostasis of the Logos became composite in the incarnation, so in that sense one can say that God (i.e., the divine Logos) changed, but this does not involve a change in the divine essence, which is utterly transcendent and beyond being (hyperousios).

[ozgeorge]

Could the people arguing that the Uncreated Energies "change" please give me an example of how they change?

[Jetavan]

Could the people arguing that the Uncreated Energies "change" please give me an example of how they change?

I would say that the Energies are "active" (in relationship with creation), not that they "change" (from their unity with Essence).

[Apotheoun]

Could the people arguing that the Uncreated Energies "change" please give me an example of how they change?

It is not so much that the divine energies change, but that they are not always energized.  God possesses the real power to create, but He does not eternally create, or the world itself would be eternal and not subsequent to Him (see Capita Physica, no. 102).

[Papist]

I would add that nonsensical things are not "things" at all. God can do everything, but contradictions are not things.

If you want to get really technical, acts in general aren't really things either. 

But I'll acknowledge that nonsense has less of a claim on existence than sensical action.

Acts are a kind of "thing" in the sense of an act being a noun.

[Papist]

Could the people arguing that the Uncreated Energies "change" please give me an example of how they change?

It is not so much that the divine energies change, but that they are not always energized.  God possesses the real power to create, but He does not eternally create, or the world itself would be eternal and not subsequent to Him (see Capita Physica, no. 102).

So what is an non-energized energy? Is that His essence?

[Apotheoun]

Could the people arguing that the Uncreated Energies "change" please give me an example of how they change?

It is not so much that the divine energies change, but that they are not always energized.  God possesses the real power to create, but He does not eternally create, or the world itself would be eternal and not subsequent to Him (see Capita Physica, no. 102).

So what is an non-energized energy? Is that His essence?

It is a power that manifests nature, but without revealing what the nature is in itself.

[Papist]

Papist, you may find David Bradshaw's essay "The Christian Approach to the Philosophy of Time" of interest. 

Thank you Father Kimel.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Do God's Energies Change?