Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
Uncreated Energies. Part Seven: Conclusion

Uncreated Energies. Part Seven: Conclusion

Last updated on: May 24, 2021 at 2:58 am by Henry Karlson

Uncreated Energies. Part Seven: Conclusion 2021-05-24T02:58:11-05:00 Henry Karlson

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Steven Zucker: The Dome of Hagia Sophia /flickr

The distinction between God’s nature and energy (or energies), between God’s essence and God’s activity, has caused some confusion concerning the way that distinction is to be understood. Is it a real distinction? Is it a substantial distinction? Do the energies somehow exist separate from God’s essence, becoming an independent reality of their own? Because the distinction is called real, some critics believe this is meant to indicate a substantial division making God composite instead of simple. Others critics believe that such a distinction means that the energies are separate from God, forming independent entities in their own right, leading to the establishment of a polytheistic pantheon. While these issues have been dealt with, sometimes indirectly, in the preceding sections, it is good to deal with them here, for in doing so, it will help elucidate the basic principles presented throughout this work.

We begin with the basic notion that the uncreated energy is the eternal activity of God. It is one, although we often express it in plural, as energies, based upon the way that one activity is apprehended by us. Since God is eternal and unchanging, God’s action is eternal and unchanging. But that energy is encountered and experienced by us in our temporality. This means that God appears to act in a variety of ways, with a diversity of energies, and in that diversity, it seems that God changes. Scripture, written from a temporal perspective, gives us many examples this, such as when we see Moses apparently changed God’s plans by asking God to do so.[1]

The eternal energies of God are the means by which we predicate many names to God, names which signify God by alluding to qualities, such as love, which see coming from God. Each of these names represent something in and of themselves which we understand from our own experiences and yet when used to represent God, they point to and signify something beyond themselves as they point to the one simple essence of God which lies beyond all the names which we attribute to God. That is, these energies are distinct from God’s essence because God’s essence transcends what we understand by them when we use them to signify God. They represent the relations God has with creation. But yet, though we must distinguish them from God’s essence, it is important to realize they are not independent from God, from the divine nature, as St. Thomas Aquinas understood: “It cannot be said, however, that these relations exist as realities outside of God.”[2]

As the divine energies are not independent from God, from the divine nature, the teaching of the uncreated energies of God cannot be said to promote the notion of a pantheon of independent, separate gods. The uncreated energies all come from and point to one God, they are one with God, and they are in themselves, one, even if our apprehension of them is in and through a plurality. “From these considerations it is clear, also, that it is not prejudicial to God’s simplicity if many relations are predicated of Him, although they do not signify His essence; because these relations are consequent upon our way of understanding.”[3] Thus, St. Gregory Palamas affirmed: “Nonetheless, there is only one unoriginated 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. “[4] There is only one God, undivided and simple: “This alone is God and alone is true God, the one Lord in a Trinity of hypostases, undivided in nature, will, glory, power, energy, and all the characteristics of divinity.” [5]

Divine simplicity, the realization that God is one and without parts, is not undermined by the teaching of the Trinity, because the Trinitarian persons do not divide the substance of God into parts; likewise, the divine energies do not divide the substance of God into parts. They only show us how the transcendent glory can be apprehended by us. And so, in both instances, these distinctions do not go against the oneness of God: “For the distinction in divinity is not contrary to its unity.” [6] The fact that they can be apprehended and even comprehended by us, but the divine nature cannot, establishes the fact that the distinction is real, as the names and attributes we equate through them are true; if not, we would find ourselves unable to come to know anything about God, even that God exists, for existence itself is another predicate and name which we give to God.[7] “For we know that God is only from His proper activities. Hence, for him who destroys God’s activities and does not admit that they differ from His essence, the necessary consequence is that he does not know that God is. “[8] The divine energies do not divide up the divine essence, that is, they are not substantial in nature, but they must be seen as real, meaning the distinction is real, or else, the divine nature would be broken up and overcome by our apprehensions of God. The distinction is real, but not divisive, just as the Trinitarian persons do not divide God into parts but the persons are real. It is a paradox of divine simplicity, that in its transcendence, it is only apprehensible in and through the divine energies. The relative nature of the energies does not make them unreal, and so they are real, and what is established by them is true, even if they are relative, conventional truths which point to and signify the greater, absolute truth found in the divine essence itself.

In this fashion, therefore, the two main objections against the teaching of the divine energies are shown to be faulty. The divine energies do not divide up God, undermining divine simplicity. Likewise, though the uncreated energies are distinct from the essence, they are not separate from the essence, meaning, they are not essences in and of themselves separate from God, existing eternally in and of themselves, so as to establish a polytheistic pantheon. The divine energies are not substantially separate from the essence but flow from it, and so are one with it.

In his writings, St. Gregory Palamas dealt with the way his critics accused him of promoting polytheism by saying their arguments were based upon a faulty understanding of what he wrote. For, as stated many times, he did not reject divine simplicity. He knew and believed that God could not be split up into parts; rather, he understood that the one simple essence, indivisible in itself, is apprehended in a divided manner by us, and so it is an “indivisible distinction” due to the fact we relate to God and understand God through distinctions:

The followers of Akindynos, however, cannot accept nor can they understand the indivisible distinction that exists in God, even when they hear us speaking – in harmony with the saints – of a divided union. For to God pertains both incomprehensibility and comprehensibility, though He Himself is one. The same God is incomprehensible in His essence, but comprehensible from what He creates according to His divine energies: according, that is, to His pre-etemal will for us. His pre-etemal providence concerning us. His pre-etemal wisdom with regard to us, and – to use the words of St Maximos – His infinite power, wisdom and goodness. But when Barlaam and Akindynos and those who follow in their footsteps hear us saying these things which we are obliged to say, they accuse us of speaking of many gods and many uncreated realities, and of making God composite. For they are ignorant of the fact that God is indivisibly divided and is united dividedly, and yet in spite of this suffers neither multiplicity nor compositeness. [9]

This understanding is also found in the Western tradition, following Augustine, which is why, despite being simple, we can apply a plurality of names to God:

Here it is to be diligently noted why, although Augustine says that God alone is truly simple, yet he says that God is called in many ways. – But he does not say this because of a diversity of accidents or parts, but due to the diversity and multitude of names which are used about God. Although the names are manifold, yet they signify one thing, namely the divine nature. [10]

Only by denying the applicability of the divine names, and their plurality, can we deny the plurality of the energies from which those names flow. The arguments against the divine energies ultimately are arguments which must be used against any and all naming for God. But that would go against revelation, for we find revelation giving us many names for God, confirming that we can and should signify the unnamable essence of God through various names. How do we get those names? Through God’s actions. Thus the divine energies are our means to apprehend God, providing us the way we can talk about God; what we say is true, in a conventional sense, because the energies of God are not substantially divided from the essence itself. “Now, since power is proper to God in relation to His effects, and since power, as was said, has the character of a principle, and since principle expresses relationship to that which proceeds from it, it is evident that something can be said of God relatively, with regard to His effects.” [11] It is God’s activity, God’s grace, which makes this so. That is, then, God, by grace, shows us the divine transcendence transcend silence, for by grace, we are told something true about God. “Beneficially, therefore, did the divine Mercy provide that it should instruct us to hold by faith even those truths that the human reason is able to investigate. In this way, all men would easily be able to have a share in this knowledge of God, and this without uncertainty and error.” [12] Thus, the teaching of the divine energies, far from overturning divine simplicity, far from being a form of polytheism, is the only way which we have to affirm the truths of what we say about God while recognizing the transcendence of the divine nature itself.

[1] An example of this can be seen in Ex. 32:7-14, where Moses convinced God not to destroy the people of Israel.

[2] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles. Books Two: Creation. Trans. James F. Anderson (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), 44 [c13].

[3] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles. Books Two: Creation, 45-6 [c14].

[4] St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads. Trans. Nicholas Gendle (New York: Paulist Press, 1983), 93.

[5] St. Gregory Palamas, “A New Testament Decalogue,” in The Philokalia: Volume IV. Trans. and ed. G.E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, et. al. (London: Faber and Faber, 1995), 323 [#1].

[6] Saint Gregory Palamas, Dialogue Between and Orthodox and a Barlaamite. Trans. Rein Ferwerda (Binghamton, NY: CEMERS, 1999), 58.

[7] Indeed, the divine nature transcends existence as it is the source and foundation for existence in its creative activity.

[8] Saint Gregory Palamas, Dialogue Between and Orthodox and a Barlaamite, 70-71

[9] St. Gregory Palamas, “Topics of Natural and Theological Science and on the Moral and Ascetic Life: One Hundred and Fifty Texts,” in The Philokalia: Volume IV. Trans. and ed. G.E. H. Palmer, Philip Sherrard, Kallistos Ware, et. al. (London: Faber and Faber, 1995), 384 [#81].

[10] Peter Lombard, The Sentences. Book 1: The Mystery of the Trinity. Trans. Giulio Silano (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 2007), 48 [VIII-5].

[11] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles. Books Two: Creation, 42 [c11].

[12] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles. Books One: God. Trans. Anton C Pegis (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), 68 [c4].

Stay in touch! Like A Little Bit of Nothing on Facebook.
If you liked what you read, please consider sharing it with your friends and family!

Previous Post

May 23, 2021

Pentecost And the Prophetic Spirit

Next Post

May 26, 2021 Actions Are More Important Than Words

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Abortion Abraham abuse Aesthetics AI Aliens Ambrose Ancestors and Everything Andrew Angels Animals Anne Anthony Antisemitism apologetics Apophatic Apostle John Aquinas Artificial Intelligence Asanga Ascension Asceticism Assumption Atheism Attachment Augustine Authority Avarice Balthasar Baptism Beauty Biden birthright citizenship Bishops Black History Books Buddhism Bulgakov Byzantine Calendar C.S. Lewis Calcidius Catholic Catholicism Catholicism Celibacy Charity Chastity children Chrismation Christ Christmas Christology Church Climate Change Common Good Communion Confession Confirmation Conscience Constantine conventions conversion councils Covid Creation Cross Dead Death Death Penalty Debate Deception Demagogues Demons Desert Monks Desert Mothers Desire destruction development Dialogue Dignity Dionsyius Dionysius Discipline Diversity Division Doctor Who doctrine dogma Dormition Dualism Easter Easter Series Ecumenical Councils Ecumenism Education Election Empathy Environment Error Eschatology eschaton Eternity Ethics Eucharist Evangelism Eve Evil evolution Faeries Faith Fear femininity Ficino Florence Florensky Folktale Fools Forgiveness Freedom Future gender Gentile Gentiles Glory Gnostic God gods Good Samaritan Goodness Gospel Government Grace Great Fast Guns Hate healing Health Heaven Hell Hellenism Heresy Hierarchy Hildegard Hinduism History Holiness Holy Spirit Holy Week Hope Horror Human rights humanity Humility hypocrisy ICE icon icons Identification Identity Idol II Nicea Immigration incarnation Individualism Informal Reflections Inklings Intention Inter-Religious Interfaith Internet Interpretation Intrinsic evil Irenaeus Islam Israel Jacob Jerome Jesus Jews John Chrysostom John of Damascus John the Baptist Joseph Judaism justice Justification kenosis Kindnesss Kingdom of God Kingdom of Heaven Law Law of Moses Lazarus Leaf by Niggle Lent Lenten Reflection Liberation Theology Lies Life Listen Literature Liturgy locutions Logic Logos Love Marriage Martyrs Mary Mass Maximos The Confessor Meanness Meditation Mercy Middle Path Migrants Mind Miracles Miriam Morals Moses Movies Music Muslims Myths Names Nationalism Native Americans New Year Nicea Nicholas Nothing Novatian Obedience Occam's Razor Ordination Origen Original Sin Orthodox orthopraxis Pagans Palamas Palm Sunday Paradise Paschaltide Paul Peace Pentecost person Peter piety PKD Plato pluralism Plurality Poem Poetry Poiltics Politics Poor Pope Pope Francis Pope Leo XIV Post Office Prayer Pride Pro-life Prodigal Son propaganda Prophecy Prophets Providence Putin Racism Reading Reason Reflection Refugees Relationships Religion Religion Series Religious Liberty Repent Republicans Rest Resurrection Rich Rites Russia Sacraments Saints Salvation Salvian Santa Science Scripture Self-Giving Sexuality Sibyl Sick Silence Sin Singlehood Social Justice Society Sodom Solovyov Speculations Spiritual Reflection St. Cyril of Alexandria St. Justin Martyr Suffering Sunday of the Paralytic Man Sunday of the Samaritan Woman Superhero Supreme Court Teaching Technology Thanksgiving The Father the Universe Theological Reflection Theology Theosis Theotokos Thomas Timaeus Time Tolerenace Tolkien Tradition Transfiguration Trinity Trump Truth Uncategorized Unity Universities USCCB Value Vatican II Vegetarian Vices Violence Virtue Vocations War Water Welcome Wisdom Womanhood Women Work World View Worship Writing Zacchaeus

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 January 2026 December 2025 November 2025 October 2025 September 2025 August 2025 July 2025 June 2025 May 2025 April 2025 March 2025 February 2025 January 2025 December 2024 November 2024 October 2024 September 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 May 2024 April 2024 March 2024 February 2024 January 2024 December 2023 November 2023 October 2023 September 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz