Topic: uncreated energies?

[walter1234]

What is uncreated energies?

(This term is very new to me .I did not hear it in
 Protestant before )

[FormerReformer]

Uncreated energies are those operations and attributes of God that existed before creation. These operations are from God, but not God, if that makes sense. Things like Wisdom, Grace, and Love could be considered uncreated energies.

[NicholasMyra]

What is uncreated energies?

(This term is very new to me .I did not hear it in
 Protestant before )

These operations are from God, but not God

I don't know if it would be right to say they aren't God, although I know what you are trying to get at.

The Divine Energies are how God chooses to be, relate, and act. Love, wrath, creating, sanctifying, things like that.

These things aren't an illusion of change that God puts on, nor are they created shadows of how God "really is". Our teaching is that how God acts toward us is really God, really God's presence.

In St. Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians chapter 3, we read: "...according to the gift of God's grace which was given to me according to the working of His power." The word "working" is actually, in the Greek, "energeion". It is the exercised acting potential of a thing.

[minasoliman]

Uncreated energies are those operations and attributes of God that existed before creation. These operations are from God, but not God, if that makes sense. Things like Wisdom, Grace, and Love could be considered uncreated energies.

Actually, the "from God, but not God" is a weak definition.  Uncreated Energies are God, but in a limited sense in which we as humans can partake.  Life, Love, Wisdom, Grace is all God, that we can partake of.  But God known in His essence, we cannot know or partake of at all, but only the three persons of the Trinity.

Consider also that any energy can be understood in a Trinitarian sense.  Love as energy is revealed to us in Lover, Beloved, and Loving or Life of Love, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit respectively.

[NicholasMyra]

You can't partake of another human's particular essence "directly" either. Everything we encounter we encounter through energies; through the ecstatic "shining forth" of a thing.

This is why I can encounter Mina and not become Mina, who retains his otherness.

[minasoliman]

You can't partake of another human's particular essence "directly" either. Everything we encounter we encounter through energies; through the ecstatic "shining forth" of a thing.

This is why I can encounter Mina and not become Mina, who retains his otherness.

The essence is certainly individualized in both you and I as different hypostases, but nevertheless, we are of the same essence, at least that is how it is understood in Greek understanding.  An essence is an abstract, and so we do "partake" of that abstraction.

Nevertheless, if we use "essence" in a literal way, we are uncreated, and we partake of and understand uncreated things.

[NicholasMyra]

The essence is certainly individualized in both you and I as different hypostases, but nevertheless, we are of the same essence, at least that is how it is understood in Greek understanding.

Greek use of essence varies.

In any case, I encounter someone not through their particular essence/individuated essence; that is, not by experiencing their unique otherness and "essence" directly, but rather through their energies: Their physical presence, speech, touch, etc. Energies are *how* a Hypostasis exists. The Hypostasis as Person, in the EO understanding, takes the role of general essence as the foundation of being, general essence/properties being contingent to the Hypostasis instead of preceding it.

This is why to encounter someone personally is to really encounter them, because a person exists ecstatically through energies. To "know" the essence of God "directly" would equal becoming God by nature. To know the essence of mina in that same way would mean con-fusing myself with you.

[Gamliel]

I once heard something like, "They are the ways God reveals Himself to us," although the priest who said it, said it better than words I am typing it out.

[Cyrillic]

Don't all humans have the same ousia. therefore you already participate in Mina's essence by the virtue of being human. The Trinity is homoousios, and doesn't have three essences.

[minasoliman]

In any case, I encounter someone not through their particular essence/individuated essence; that is, not by experiencing their unique otherness and "essence" directly, but rather through their energies: Their physical presence, speech, touch, etc. Energies are *how* a Hypostasis exists. The Hypostasis as Person, in the EO understanding, takes the role of general essence as the foundation of being, general essence/properties being contingent to the Hypostasis instead of preceding it.

A hypostasis is, in my understanding, an actualization or individuation of something abstract, i.e. essence.  In the essence of Godhead, there are three hypostases.  In the essence of humanity, there is you and I and many others.

Not all hypostases are persons.  But the hypostases of the Godhead are persons, in that they are relational.  So are humans.  Therefore, in partaking of the energies of the Godhead, we are essentially having a dynamic personal relationship.  So yes, energies are how a Person exists.  But a hypostasis exists in that it just exists, because that's what a hypostasis is, an existence or being, not an essence.

This is why to encounter someone personally is to really encounter them, because a person exists ecstatically through energies. To "know" the essence of God "directly" would equal becoming God by nature. To know the essence of mina in that same way would mean con-fusing myself with you.

I know the essence of anyone's humanity because I am human, not because I am anyone else.  I cannot know the essence of God because I am not God.  It's not a matter of confusion.  Is the Father confused with the Son?

[OrthoNoob]

Wait a minute...

We say that there are three Divine Persons (hypostases), but because there is One Divine Essence, these are not three gods, but One God. Right?

If that's the case, how can men be of the same essence as each other without the logical implication being that there are not ~3,000,000,000 men, but one man in ~3,000,000,000 persons (hypostases)?

[FormerReformer]

Uncreated energies are those operations and attributes of God that existed before creation. These operations are from God, but not God, if that makes sense. Things like Wisdom, Grace, and Love could be considered uncreated energies.

Actually, the "from God, but not God" is a weak definition.  Uncreated Energies are God, but in a limited sense in which we as humans can partake.  Life, Love, Wisdom, Grace is all God, that we can partake of.  But God known in His essence, we cannot know or partake of at all, but only the three persons of the Trinity.

Consider also that any energy can be understood in a Trinitarian sense.  Love as energy is revealed to us in Lover, Beloved, and Loving or Life of Love, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit respectively.

Yes, definitions can get tricky when one is trying to word things so as to avoid heresy. I worded that the way I did to avoid sophianism and inventing new heresies like agapianism and charisianism.

[minasoliman]

Wait a minute...

We say that there are three Divine Persons (hypostases), but because there is One Divine Essence, these are not three gods, but One God. Right?

If that's the case, how can men be of the same essence as each other without the logical implication being that there are not ~3,000,000,000 men, but one man in ~3,000,000,000 persons (hypostases)?

Mankind...a man is not an essence.

[minasoliman]

Uncreated energies are those operations and attributes of God that existed before creation. These operations are from God, but not God, if that makes sense. Things like Wisdom, Grace, and Love could be considered uncreated energies.

Actually, the "from God, but not God" is a weak definition.  Uncreated Energies are God, but in a limited sense in which we as humans can partake.  Life, Love, Wisdom, Grace is all God, that we can partake of.  But God known in His essence, we cannot know or partake of at all, but only the three persons of the Trinity.

Consider also that any energy can be understood in a Trinitarian sense.  Love as energy is revealed to us in Lover, Beloved, and Loving or Life of Love, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit respectively.

Yes, definitions can get tricky when one is trying to word things so as to avoid heresy. I worded that the way I did to avoid sophianism and inventing new heresies like agapianism and charisianism.

I hope you're not thinking I'm espousing "agapianism".

The problem with the known sophianism is that rather than understanding that the essence being single and the energies diverse, it takes one energy and makes that an essence, on top of the fact that its Old Testament usage was for the Logos.

[NicholasMyra]

In any case, I encounter someone not through their particular essence/individuated essence; that is, not by experiencing their unique otherness and "essence" directly, but rather through their energies: Their physical presence, speech, touch, etc. Energies are *how* a Hypostasis exists. The Hypostasis as Person, in the EO understanding, takes the role of general essence as the foundation of being, general essence/properties being contingent to the Hypostasis instead of preceding it.

A hypostasis is, in my understanding, an actualization or individuation of something abstract, i.e. essence.  In the essence of Godhead, there are three hypostases.  In the essence of humanity, there is you and I and many others.

Not all hypostases are persons.  But the hypostases of the Godhead are persons, in that they are relational.  So are humans.  Therefore, in partaking of the energies of the Godhead, we are essentially having a dynamic personal relationship.  So yes, energies are how a Person exists.  But a hypostasis exists in that it just exists, because that's what a hypostasis is, an existence or being, not an essence.

This is why to encounter someone personally is to really encounter them, because a person exists ecstatically through energies. To "know" the essence of God "directly" would equal becoming God by nature. To know the essence of mina in that same way would mean con-fusing myself with you.

I know the essence of anyone's humanity because I am human, not because I am anyone else.  I cannot know the essence of God because I am not God.  It's not a matter of confusion.  Is the Father confused with the Son?

Mina,

The definition of hypostasis evolved over the centuries of Christian use. The 'finalized' EO understanding, extrapolated in large part from the Cappadocian Fathers, is that hypostasis as person is the foundation of being. The general essence belonging to a hypostasis exists in virtue of the person, not the other way around.

I think you would acknowledge that there is a distinct otherness in other humans, versus yourself. No matter how closely you experience the other, they remain the other in virtue of something. If you encountered that otherness directly, then you would collapse the otherness and be confused with that person. It is similar, I would say, with the inner being of God.

[OrthoNoob]

Wait a minute...

We say that there are three Divine Persons (hypostases), but because there is One Divine Essence, these are not three gods, but One God. Right?

If that's the case, how can men be of the same essence as each other without the logical implication being that there are not ~3,000,000,000 men, but one man in ~3,000,000,000 persons (hypostases)?

Mankind...a man is not an essence.

So...when we say there is one God..."God" is actually a type of being and not a particular being? "God" actually means "Divine-ness," if you will?

[akimori makoto]

Forgive my ignorance, but is not something which is uncreated, ipso facto, God?

[FormerReformer]

Forgive my ignorance, but is not something which is uncreated, ipso facto, God?

Yes- in my haste to avoid one error, I made another.

[NicholasMyra]

Wait a minute...

We say that there are three Divine Persons (hypostases), but because there is One Divine Essence, these are not three gods, but One God. Right?

If that's the case, how can men be of the same essence as each other without the logical implication being that there are not ~3,000,000,000 men, but one man in ~3,000,000,000 persons (hypostases)?

Mankind...a man is not an essence.

So...when we say there is one God..."God" is actually a type of being and not a particular being? "God" actually means "Divine-ness," if you will?

No, because both divine essence and the divine hypostases are always coming forth from, and sourced in, the person of the Father.

[minasoliman]

In any case, I encounter someone not through their particular essence/individuated essence; that is, not by experiencing their unique otherness and "essence" directly, but rather through their energies: Their physical presence, speech, touch, etc. Energies are *how* a Hypostasis exists. The Hypostasis as Person, in the EO understanding, takes the role of general essence as the foundation of being, general essence/properties being contingent to the Hypostasis instead of preceding it.

A hypostasis is, in my understanding, an actualization or individuation of something abstract, i.e. essence.  In the essence of Godhead, there are three hypostases.  In the essence of humanity, there is you and I and many others.

Not all hypostases are persons.  But the hypostases of the Godhead are persons, in that they are relational.  So are humans.  Therefore, in partaking of the energies of the Godhead, we are essentially having a dynamic personal relationship.  So yes, energies are how a Person exists.  But a hypostasis exists in that it just exists, because that's what a hypostasis is, an existence or being, not an essence.

This is why to encounter someone personally is to really encounter them, because a person exists ecstatically through energies. To "know" the essence of God "directly" would equal becoming God by nature. To know the essence of mina in that same way would mean con-fusing myself with you.

I know the essence of anyone's humanity because I am human, not because I am anyone else.  I cannot know the essence of God because I am not God.  It's not a matter of confusion.  Is the Father confused with the Son?

Mina,

The definition of hypostasis evolved over the centuries of Christian use. The 'finalized' EO understanding, extrapolated in large part from the Cappadocian Fathers, is that hypostasis as person is the foundation of being. The general essence belonging to a hypostasis exists in virtue of the person, not the other way around.

I think you would acknowledge that there is a distinct otherness in other humans, versus yourself. No matter how closely you experience the other, they remain the other in virtue of something. If you encountered that otherness directly, then you would collapse the otherness and be confused with that person. It is similar, I would say, with the inner being of God.

Then what terminology do you have for an existence?  If essence, then this is where we differ in definition.

[minasoliman]

Wait a minute...

We say that there are three Divine Persons (hypostases), but because there is One Divine Essence, these are not three gods, but One God. Right?

If that's the case, how can men be of the same essence as each other without the logical implication being that there are not ~3,000,000,000 men, but one man in ~3,000,000,000 persons (hypostases)?

Mankind...a man is not an essence.

So...when we say there is one God..."God" is actually a type of being and not a particular being? "God" actually means "Divine-ness," if you will?

Look, an analogy with mankind is going to fail somewhere, simply because God is a mystery.  At this point, this is a mystery.  Yes, there is one God, and yes, God is also Divine-ness.  How?  Mystery.

But yes, that's what I'm insinuating.  God is not one person.  God is three persons in one essence.  If you confess this, then you confess that the "oneness" is in the essence.  "Man" is person or hypostasis, not essence.  Mankind is essence.

[NicholasMyra]

Then what terminology do you have for an existence?

You mean like a subsistent being?

Hypostasis/Person.

[minasoliman]

Then what terminology do you have for an existence?

You mean like a subsistent being?

Hypostasis/Person.

That's the problem with late EO terminology.  You're not able to differentiate between hypostasis and person.  As far as OO terminology is concerned, a rock is a hypostasis, but not a "being".  It subsists, but it doesn't engage in a personal relationship.

[NicholasMyra]

You're not able to differentiate between hypostasis and person.  

That's the whole point.

[akimel]

I read through through the comments and my first thought was:  "And some Orthodox think that scholasticism began in the Latin Church."  

I find it is a lot easier to "explain" the essence/energies distinction by explaining why the Church was forced to make the distinction to begin with, namely, to explain how it is possible for creatures made in the image of God to participate, in the most intimate and maximal way imaginable, in the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without ceasing to be creatures.  There are three kinds of union:  (1) the union of the three Persons of the Godhead, (2) the hypostatic union divine nature and human nature in Jesus Christ, and (3) the union by grace of created human beings with and in the Holy Trinity.  The essence/energies distinction is invoked to speak of this third union.  We really don't know what "essence" and "energies" mean here:  we are just trying to say that God truly and really communicates himself to humanity and incorporates us into the eternal love shared with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.      

I also need to dispute the suggestion that there is a finalized Orthodox understanding of hypostasis.  It seems to me that contemporary Orthodox reflection and debate on personhood demonstrates just the contrary.    

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



As you can see walter, you asked a ridiculously complicated question


Simple answer?  Engery= Greek word for action or verb.  The Energy of God is simply another way of saying the actions of God in the verb sense.  If you as a person see a ball on the ground and kick it, that would be an action, a human energy.  When God interacts with us or anything in Creation, this is His Energies, so that energies are just another way of describing how we interact with God.  Another term we use is synergy, or syncronized energy, or in the Latinized English cooperate with God, which is to say, act together. 
 
stay blessed,
habte selassie

[minasoliman]

You're not able to differentiate between hypostasis and person. 

That's the whole point.

This is why at Christological debates, we sometimes talk past one another...lol...
...but then other times you also wonder...if that's what they're really thinking.

Mind-boggling!

[minasoliman]

I read through through the comments and my first thought was:  "And some Orthodox think that scholasticism began in the Latin Church." 

I find it is a lot easier to "explain" the essence/energies distinction by explaining why the Church was forced to make the distinction to begin with, namely, to explain how it is possible for creatures made in the image of God to participate, in the most intimate and maximal way imaginable, in the divine life of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit without ceasing to be creatures.  There are three kinds of union:  (1) the union of the three Persons of the Godhead, (2) the hypostatic union divine nature and human nature in Jesus Christ, and (3) the union by grace of created human beings with and in the Holy Trinity.  The essence/energies distinction is invoked to speak of this third union.  We really don't know what "essence" and "energies" mean here:  we are just trying to say that God truly and really communicates himself to humanity and incorporates us into the eternal love shared with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.       

I also need to dispute the suggestion that there is a finalized Orthodox understanding of hypostasis.  It seems to me that contemporary Orthodox reflection and debate on personhood demonstrates just the contrary.   

That's a great explanation Father!  I agree.  I think the problem is terminology, as it became more complex, we seem to forget to ask for a definition of the terms rather than jump to make terms in defining a specific dogma, like how we have a unifying relationship with God.

And if we learned anything in history, some terms needed flexibility in order for there to still remain a mystery in explaining a dogma.  Sometimes this term was physis.  Other times, hypostasis.  Other times, even ousia.  It just amazes me how these definitions change, and faster they change, the more problems they might cause.

[walter1234]

God's Energies means attributes , characters, operations of God.

Is God's essence refer to God Himself?

[Justin Kissel]

God's Energies means His attributes , characters, operations of God. Is God's essence refer to God Himself?

Not exactly.  You seem to be thinking/implying that the energies are not God, but they are wholly God. They are also not simply a part of God, as though God had various elements or parts. His energies are how we know something of God, though much remains a mystery.

[walter1234]

God's Energies means His attributes , characters, operations of God. Is God's essence refer to God Himself?

Not exactly.  You seem to be thinking/implying that the energies are not God, but they are wholly God. They are also not simply a part of God, as though God had various elements or parts. His energies are how we know something of God, though much remains a mystery.

What is GOd's essence?
Then, what is difference between God's essence and God's energies?

[Justin Kissel]

I'm afraid I don't know how to answer either of your questions. Perhaps if I knew more about the subject I could give more information, but this isn't a particular area that I've explored deeply (yet). 

[Jetavan]

What is GOd's essence?

God-Unknowable

Then, what is...God's energies?

God-Knowable.