I also disagree with (1). Something with a Beginning cannot be Eternal. Both Genesis and the Gospel of John open with the words "In the Beginning...", but in Genesis, God brings into being something being that wasn't, whereas John says the Logos already "was" in the Beginning. God's Creative act is therefore Eternal, whereas Creation is Temporal.
As to (1) I do not agree. We say that God began to create, and yet time is a part of creation. We may be using language with temporal connections, but when we use it in theology we separate it from those temporal connotations, as when we say that the Father is the cause of the Son and Spirit.
But we don't mean anything Temporal by the Eternal Begetting and Eternal Procession precisely because they are Eternal. However, if, as you say, the Uncreated Energies are either "energized" or "not energized" (I'm not sure what you mean by "energised", but I'm presuming you mean something like "operating"), this leaves us with the the options that either:
I suppose we can use that terminology in the same way that we can say that God the Father is the cause of the Son and the Spirit without meaning anything temporal by it.
If the Unreated Energies are sometimes "energised" and sometimes "not energised", doesn't that mean that they change? And how can there be "some-times" with something which is Eternal?
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).
1) The Uncreated Energies oscillate between being "energised" and being "not energised", which means this oscillation must be temporal;
2) The Uncreated Energies are at once both Eternally "energised" and Eternally "not energised", in which case, there is no change.
As far as (2) is concerned, I think the solution is to remember the nature of the divine causal chain used by the Cappadocians in their dispute with Eunomius . . . (a) nature -> (b) power -> (c) hypostaseis -> (d) energies.I'm not sure how the "causal chain" you mention actually helps. it seems to me, the Eternal Power is the Uncreated Energy, since the Apostle says that we can understand the Eternal Power through Creation (Romans 1:20). And again we are running into the problem that you are saying that the the Uncreated Energies are oscillating between being "actualized" and "not actualized". This is no different to the "oscillation" between "energised" and "not energised" I describe above.
The divine energies are the powers of the divine nature actualized by the three divine hypostaseis. Even when the divine energies are not actualized the divine powers remain as properties of the divine nature.
Now perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but are you saying that God began to create the world in time? Because I do not believe that to be the case. God began to create and that is when time itself received being, and not before God's act of creation.
Now in saying this there is no danger of turning creation into something co-eternal with God, because - unlike the Son - the created world is a product of the divine energy, as St. Gregory Palamas says in the Capita Physica
, while generation pertains to the divine essence.
To be blunt, I think that the word change can be applied to God in a certain sense, and to support this notion I would refer you to what St. Gregory said in the Triads
"There are, however, energies of God which have a beginning and an end, as all the saints will confirm. 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.' 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. 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."