Why can't I give this video two thumbs up? You do a great job at breaking down complex ideas, thank you

Excellent video! I am a Catholic High School theology teacher and I will be using this Protestant perspective video to help my Orthodox students understand the essence-energies distinction of their own tradition. God blesses us with his sense of humor.

Orthodoxy, for me, was very much like stepping into a different culture, language, and time. Even a different geography. I can relate to the feeling of like being in the most beautiful art museum. And Palamas' writings are sublime. His debates with Barlaam taught me a lot during my catechism. The heart of Orthodox thinking is paradox. That really kind of sums it up.

To: Professor Ortlund: This is a very fine presentation in a one hour video, very sensitively and reflectively put forward. I have studied this issue for years, and as a Roman Catholic, the chief issue I have with Palamas and his partisans is the fact that Palamas incessantly agitated for the Eastern Church to dogmatize his speculations, and having succeeded in his design, he placed all other theological approaches to the understanding or experience of God under anathema. Who would really care if Palamism was just one more system like that of Aquinas or of Scotus to be examined, appreciated, criticized and learnt from by other Christians? Dr. Bradshaw's work Aristotle East and West frankly acknowledges the Neoplatonic metaphysical framework upon which the Pseudo Dionysius and Palamas plot the data of the gospel and build out their interpretive systems, without questioning how it can possibly be legitimate to assign to pagan influenced metaphysical speculation the imprimatur of dogmatic sanction, all other interpretations being judged as accursed on their part. This level of arrogance and a-historical aggrandizement of the patristic heritage on the part of Palamas and those who subscribe to his teachings, and more importantly, on the part of those who subscribe to the invective spirit of his teachings, towards other Christian communions, is worthy of rejoinder and rebuke, and I for my own part am ready to fight fire with fire, so that they might learn what the Lord had said about removing the beam from one's eye before pointing out the beam in thy brother's eye. Since Palamas arrogates the gospel and the patristic heritage to himself, and anathematizes everyone else who disagrees with him, his teachings must be held to the highest standard of criticism, inasmuch as he claims the highest standard of sanction for his doctrines. Therefore we may ask whether his teaching that God is entirely present in His energies, while His essence remains infinitely transcendent to His energies, really does represent profound mysticism or mere incoherent babbling on his part. Palamas generally teaches that God's attributes are properly His energies, not His nature, but in one of his works, as Dr. Bradshaw admits, he states that the energies are properly acts of God's power, so what then is it we may ask, is divine energy the principle of divine power, or the reverse? He wants to anathematize anyone who does not agree with himself, but alas, he himself does not always agree with himself! Palamas' teaching that "God is Light not according to Essence but according to His energy" (Against Akindynos, PG 150 823 A), contradicts the Nicene Council of 325 A.D.'s dogmatic definition that the Son of God is 'only begotten out of the essence of the Father Light out of Light'. This represents a profound theological blunder on his part. Indeed, one of his greatest theological blunders is witnessed in Ch 36 of his work "150 Chapters", wherein Palamas adopts as his own St. Augustine's teaching from On the Trinity Book XV that the principle of the procession of the Holy Spirit is the "divine love" (theia eros) of the Father for the Son. But his doctrine of energetic procession teaches that God's love is His energy, not His nature, and that His love therefore is infinitely transcended by His inaccessible essence. What do we observe here? Either the Holy Spirit proceeds out of the Father's energy, and is a work, since God's theia eros is His energy, or what is even more ludicrous, God's theia eros infinitely transcends His agape, the former being proper to His essence and the latter to His energy. So I say let this man's arrogance and theological incoherence be held up to the ridicule it so richly deserves. In the Medieval and Early Modern Latin Church, the writings of John Ruusbroec and St. John of the Cross surpassed the Eastern fathers in regard to the analytical complexity of the stages of theosis, referred to by St. John of the Cross as "the transforming union in love", and they were able to formulate their teachings without adopting the Palamite terminology (though there was a degree of 'Dionysian' influence), which proves that the EOC's contention that their discourse alone describes experiential union with God is utterly false. One other issue I have with what was said in the video is with the idea of certain Eastern fathers that the transfiguration had to do with the disciples rather than with Christ, which I do not believe is true, for the Jews could not bear to look upon the light that shone from Moses' face, and they certainly were not initiated into a higher level of spiritual vision on account of having seen that light. Nor were the 3 disciples reported in the gospels to have been ravished with a sense of holy awe and joyousness on the occasion in question, and to have experienced the sense of Christ living within them, as St. Paul wrote in his Letter to Galatians, when they saw Christ's glorified face, which would have been the case if they had truly been inspirited with the Spirit Himself, or so it seems to me at any rate. Moreover St. John states that the Holy Spirit had not been given to the disciples at that time (cf. Jn 7:39), which was before Christ had been glorified, so I have my doubts about Maximus' interpretation of that gospel event. Nevertheless, this was an excellent video.

This is great. I have found your channel just in this period if my life, where I, as a born in Greece, once orthodox, now since 30 years evangelical, rediscover the orthodox tradition and feel absolutely enriched by it. I will come back to this, after I have seen the whole video. For now, just feel lucky for having found this channel.

Protestant reflections on this doctrine seem to be few and far between. Thank you, from a Catholic

Thank you so much for this video! Your voice is needed greatly in American Christendom. Thank you for being calm, rational and treating the commandment to love our God with our Mind seriously. Those qualities are almost anathema to modern “apologetics”.

So glad you are making all of these fine distinctions! So few Christians outside of Catholicism or Orthodoxy are even remotely interested in these things. Thus, you, sir, are a treasure! PS..loved your "Gentle and Lowly" book!!

Fascinating stuff Gavin! Very happy to see some robust interaction with this tradition as it is often left either untreated or presented as a cure-all. Appreciate the work you put into this!

I am very much looking forward to this! The Essence vs. Energy distinction greatly fascinates me as well.

'Being as Communion' and 'The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit' are great books for understanding the Eastern view.

I absolutely love this. I share your fascination and appreciation for this subject and have also been blown away by reading the writings of eastern fathers. It is definitely a different paradigm and mindset but I can totally identify with that sense of having a mystical experience just reading some of these writings and some of it just goes right over my head. But I love it and continue to study it. Thanks for this video.

Interesting rendition. Thanks Garvin

Mentally not ready to watch yet but wow what a video brother, I’m excited

Que vídeo fascinante! Meu Deus, quanto aprendizado eu pude obter aqui. Penso que você finalizou o vídeo com chave de ouro, Gavin, e foi bastante respeitoso ao tratar o tema a partir de uma visão mais ecumênica, ou melhor, mais amorosa.

We have only words, and they often fail. But some people have an amazing gift for putting the unspeakable into words. Thanks for making it more accessible to the rest of us.

Started this video late last night and had to come back and finish it this morning! Very interesting and insightful discussion! Thanks for your work Gavin! Also, really enjoyed your book on Theological Triage! Finished it last week

Wow, so blessed to have discovered this channel!

This is the most fascinating debate amongst brethren, hands down.

i had to pause several times your video to read to better understand these concepts before coming back to you. beyond the intellectual "meditation", your session was spiritual. it was great. there is so much charity in your approach as much as desire to discover the other. truly wonderful. God bless!

Thank you for serving the Church with your videos. I hope we can hear your take on the Filioque controversy, too.

Love this video. It's always good to resist the temptation of triumphalism and I think that this video is a good presentation of your position.

this is a wonderful explanation. thank you

Thank you very much. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. After watching the William Lane Craig video on eastern orthodoxy, it's interesting how this experiencing God is very reminiscent of Pentecostalism and their experiences of the Holy Spirit. Thank you again for a great video!

Right on Gavin. Another aspect to consider in respect to the energies, is free will in the eschaton. How is free will played out through the energies vs the beatific vision

Great stuff!

this was a very good video. As someone who is fairly convinced of the essence and energies distinction I say you have done a good job. There is a great deal of diversity in each side as to how much this is an issue for division. What convinced me is reading the New Testament in Greek, many of the fathers and Gregory. The way the word energy is used is fairly clear. In Latin energy was related as operation and as work in English.

So very well done

Thank you! I have an EO friend who introduced me to Lossky, in approaching this discussion!

Btw. I just finished Hills to Die On. Thank you for writing that. The distinctions you gave were incredibly helpful.

Looking forward to this.

Well done! Thank you

One big issue I wish Dr Gavin would cover is the issue of created grace vs uncreated grace. For the East, uncreated grace is considered to be the partaking of the Divine Nature and grace is the working of God himself, not a created substance of any kind that can be treated like a commodity.

I’m very unfamiliar with this subject. Cant wait to learn more about it!

Beautiful summation, Gavin. I'm a Catholic convert & I THOROUGHLY enjoyed your analysis of the respected traditions. VERY well done. Truly, thank you dearly for all that you do on this channel. As usual, far more light than heat. Btw, just out of curiosity, have you done any videos on the doctrine of IMPASSABILITY? If so I'd love to check them out. Again, thank you, Gavin.

It’s good to know this because not only is it fascinating but more importantly the reason why I believe Grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone.

My thoughts while watching this. Gregory maintaining a tight correlation between participle Energy and the Essence is what removed the stigma for me that was surrounding this Saint. Like Dr. Gavin, I found when reading the text of Palamas that some in the West mischaracterized his position. His mystical theology is very profound and should not be dismissed so carelessly. Now, when it comes to “enhypostatized” I still see difficulties from this not in the realm of “existence” but in the realm of “Person.” For if this “energy” is “enhypostatic” then it is such that it cannot be divorced of the “Person” who is acting. But Gods “energy” flows from will which is single as Maximus the Confessor states. So if we have three Persons who have 1 energetic act terminating in the creature and yet is “enhypostatic” then the creature could never know the Father as distinct from the Son since the act is one. Willing to flesh this out more if someone is interested in discussing further. Push back is always welcome. The distinction between seeing the Essence and not comprehending it is what I actually find Maximus trying to communicate in his writings. And this can’t be rejected since Gregory the Great, Ambrose and Augustine all say the same. The Palamite has to be open to Thomism since it is a faithful formulation of the Western Fathers. I, like Dr Gavin, am not persuaded but appreciate what I have learned about the East Saints such as Gregory and Maximus. I appreciate the mosquito to Niagara Falls comparison. So true. I love the East perspective on the body. Though I think the West, because of the dogma of original sin, has a more nuanced view that the East should not entirely sweep away since it is founded in Scripture. The Taboric light is an interesting topic to think about. I have a video on my page that tries to pry into this if anyone wants some food for thought. The univocal vs analogical predication is for me the crux of the issue. Thomas Analogia entis is what safeguards us from anthropomorphizing God. This is why I not only lean towards Thomism over Palamism but even Thomism over Scotism. The West is not denying that God has “energy.” But God does not have energy as some “medium” between Him and creatures. Mankind does because we are composed of Act/Potency needing to move from inside to an outside term. But all terms are present to God and in fact exist through participation in Him. If someone wants to assert that the West intellectualizes God then they have not read how Aquinas says the intellect isn’t at rest until it stops intellectualizing. This happens in the beatific vision. Gavin, great video. I’m working on one as well and appreciate seeing commonality with your analysis. Thanks

Love these video essays your putting out. Do you think that you could do one on two of my favorite theologians Maximus the confessor and Ephrem the Syrian? Also if you want a lot of insight into those two thinkers I recommend having a conversation with Jonathan Pageau

Great video! Very helpful! This reminds me of the communicable and incommunicable attributes of God. Herman Bavinck, the Dutch Reformer, puts it this way, "[The communicable attributes] tell us that this God who is so infinitely exalted and sublime nevertheless also dwells in all His creatures, is related to all His creatures, and possesses all those virtues which in a derived and limited way are also proper to his creatures. He is not only a God afar off but is also a God nearby. He is not only independent and unchangeable, eternal and omnipresent, but also wise and mighty, just and holy, gracious and merciful. He is Elohim not only but Jehovah." Seems like communicable attributes are like the energies and incommunicable like the essence.

Great video, thanks for sharing your perspective! I'd be very interested to know your thoughts on Theosis :)

I'm glad for this summary, Dr. Ortlund, and I trust your exposition. This has been an interesting subject that I have poked my head in on from the margin, but it is above my head, in large part. For the Lutheran Confession, Divine Simplicity is affirmed, if not explicitly, at least implicitly. But, for Luther, God is known in the Incarnate Son. He doesn't really go beyond that. For example, in many of his Christmas Sermons he will say something like, "Would you know God? Look at the infant in the manger." In any event, I wonder why this has become such a divide. I have seen Eastern Christians who basically suggest that if you don't affirm the Palamite view, you don't actually know God. This seems an over assertion.

This was a very good reflection. I found the Triads to be the richest and most mysterious book on theology I've ever read. I think the reason Palamas is so difficult is because his theology is grounded in mystical experience, which he claims is the highest form of knowledge. He was then forced to provide rational arguments to support the mystical theology of hesychasm, but the argument he proposes is not the same thing as the reality he is referring to. This seems to be the paradox that mystics are always confronted with. He even feared his arguments were offered in vain because they are sort of like describing the sweet taste of honey to someone who has never tasted honey. Only direct mystical experience can truly teach what he was describing. And that leaves us in a difficult position when trying to evaluate hesychasm. The purity of heart that Gregory refers to, I think, does not just refer to moral purity, but a serious change in consciousness. In Gregory's view, God is not hiding from us, but rather we are hiding from God in all sorts of psychological ways without even knowing it. It's like our default state of consciousness. This raises so many questions, but I think the important point is that we have to be careful to not get caught up in the intellectual process of splitting hairs between Palamites and Thomists, but rather re-orient our lives so that God can truly cleanse the eye of our heart. I sometimes wonder if this is even possible outside of a monastic way of living.

Thanks so much Dr. Ortlund, this was very helpful! Any chance you might do a video some time on theosis/participation in God from a Protestant perspective? I know many early church fathers held to it, but some Protestants have had reservations about it, believing it blurs the Creator/creature distinction.

As a Catholic that's a really great video! Thank you, it helped me understand better this topic, even though I still didn't get everything 😅

I think your issue at 43:50 lies in your reformed view of soteriology. As a person sympathetic to Molinism I have no issues with your concern. But I really enjoy your teachings. Thank you for the effort that is put into these videos. It takes a lot of effort.

My schools a serious Catholic school but we have an orthodox and Protestant teachers who are serious about their faith and understand philosophy. It’s beautiful to have real diversity of thought. I will never forget the debate in the hallway between my philosophy teacher and the orthodox literature teacher about this very topic. I’m catholic the main stumbling points about essence energy for me are: if you can’t fully grasp the essence of God what purpose are the divine attributes if you aren’t knowing God himself through them. Second, can you love someone without fully knowing them, we only will experience Gods energies in heaven not himself, but can you fully love someone you don’t fully know? Third is just why can’t I worship goodness itself the orthodox God seems to fall victim to euthemphros delema

This discussion is so very thought provoking in so many ways. I’ll have to look at your treatment of Augustine’s view of deification. I think it’s interesting how some Evangelicals upon discovering this notion in the fathers sometimes fail to put it in relation to their strong creator/creature distinction. What do you think about the following observation: Immortality was central to the ancients view of divinity. So when Peter speaks of our being made partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4), he is not speaking of divine attributes generally, but specifically of our being given eternal life as well as moral rectitude (what we might call the communicable divine attributes). This seems to be confirmed in the context by Peter, when he goes on to say this partaking is at the root of escaping the corruption in the world because of sin, and that theosis results in participation in the eternal kingdom. I sometimes wonder if the ancient’s view of theosis fits Peter’s description or if they go beyond it? I also wonder if modern readers of this idea of theosis risk going beyond Peter’s teaching and misunderstanding it as a sort of quasi-pantheism? I tend to think the emphasis of theosis should be on a godly immortality and is a nice way of countering an overblown notion of deification. Do you think that contextualization helpful and robust enough?

Great video, as always! I suppose my sympathy towards the essence-energies distinction comes from something you briefly mentioned which is the problem of modal collapse. That is, if God is necessary in His essence (and His essence is simple), how is the world contingent if it emerges from His power (i.e. His necessary essence)? I suppose this has been my main hangup with the classical Western conception of God.

Understanding energeia as metaphysically irreducible activity, the act itself, clears a lot of this up. For the act is the act of the being with the power to act, and the power of act arises from the essence. And so the energies flow from, are grounded in, and thereby reflect the essence. Still, the energies are metaphysically distinct from the essence, just as our act of thinking is distinct from our mind. And on simplicity, the essence can be one, while the activities of that one can be genuinely many. Assuming a naive dualism: the mind can be a simple entity, an essence (ousia), and yet have multiple, truly distinct mental activities and processes. Thomas thinks the essence of God just is an activity--its the act of being itself, subsistence subsisting. So for Thomas all the divine acts (energies) are genuinely one--God acts once, for all time, and that act is the essence of God. (There's many problems with this, although I'm sure they could be dealt with.) One interesting thing here is that these are two different conceptual models, and we're picking which one is "best," not just by asking what is most probable or coherent, but by asking which is more beautiful or good, and thus which is more fitting of God. For me, the Thomist view has too many cracks in it--problems, conceptual difficulties, that, while able to be overcome, strains the conceptual model too much. But that's how we choose between models, not direct refutation, but by feeling that one is a bit too burdensome. Finally, all this has really interesting implications for philosophy of science and arguments for God from natural laws (ie Swinburne). I've written a bit on this. But in short, the idea that laws of nature are Gods continual activities (energies) holding the world together is mind blowing. It would mean that our being, the being of beings, is literally a continual act of God, the act of holding together. And so all beings are constituted by an activity of God, and thus all beings are divine, and all being is good insofar as it is being.

Good stuff

It would be amazing if you could either edit these into short form videos or make some short form videos on these topics to cover the broad understanding of these issues.

St Palamas was at the Great Lavra monastery in Athos. You have a picture the Simonas Petra monastery.

Excellent video! I would just like to comment that there are different schools of thought on how real the distinction is between essence and energies in modern Orthodox thought and this continues to be a point of discussion amongst theologians. The view of Dimitri Stanoloe would be the closest to the Thomist view and from my reading appears to be almost indistinguishable from Western doctrines of absolute divine simplicity. You might find his views quite refreshing

Have you considered a debate/discussion with Jay Dyer on the E/E distinction? It would be great to hear a cross examination from two people familiar with the primary sources.

Gavin, I think you may find St Isaac the Syrian's view on knowledge. I did my thesis on his 3 levels of knowledge, and I believe he answers your concerns about "there is no way going beyond intellectual concepts". His view is that natural knowledge only leads to fear, it has its purpose, but it leaves us in darkness. The 2nd level is that of the soul, that leads us to goodness, and finally the 3rd level, the spiritual level which leads us to the unspeakable holiness, where we can only but participate in it, and not "attain" it per se.

This reminds me of Kant’s Noumena/Phenomena distinction.

Hello Gavin, Great video. I don't think that you touched on what I take to be the most fundamental issue with Palamism. It seems that it reverts to a strict Neoplatonism, which collapses free will and possibly the incarnation. This seems to be why Eric Perl deconverted from Orthodoxy to become a Neoplatonist. He has an article on Palamas you should look at. In any case I could be totally wrong, but I'm just starting to look into this stuff.

Found your Chanel through your crossover with Capturing Christianity. Sine then I’ve been watching a lot of your stuff. I really appreciate you videos. Always thoughtful and willing to honestly grapple with big issues and ideas. Moreover, you calm and gracious tone has made me open to meditating on many ideas that I otherwise would not have considered. Thus I’m really curious to hear on your Calvinist perspective. That is a theological position I have always found untenable. I’d love for you to offer an in depth persuasive case for Calvinism.

Saint Gregory Palamas is also a Catholic Saint. He is venerated liturgically in the Byzantine Catholic Churches on the second Sunday of Lent. It’s known as Palamas Sunday.

How about doing a video on "Thomism vs Molinism"? William Lane Craig debated Prof. Paul Helm on "Molinism vs Calvinism" and Molinism won by a mile.

The distinction makes more sense when you look at transubstantiation regards the Eucharist.

Good discussion. Essence in practice for Orthodox Christians is our walk with Christ experientially in the practice of a more ascetic prayer life. To become ‘like Christ’ is the participation in His energies. (Theosis applies here) However, we can never become His ‘Essence ‘or a 4th member of the Trinity, (I hope this distinction is clear). Our view of creation and fellow man is informed by this view that everything is held together by Gods Energies. God is in Control, Lord of All, Creator.

As I slowly fly closer to the waterfall I cannot help but ask my self "what is the problem with rupturing Divine simplicity - if the distinction is otherwise true?"

This was very interesting if a little hard to understand. It would also be interesting to hear your perspective on some "classic" Catholic apologists. Hilaire Belloc has some truly misleading essays on Protestantism that are still being printed. He used to be quite famous (I even remember him referenced in a Monty Python sketch) but his books have not aged well.

My experience is that God our Father changes our energy of worldly willful self deception back into his pure essence energy. But to do this we have to submit it to him for renewal through constant prayer and humility obedience to his will. A "let your will be done" living mindset. If we seek God or to be like God through our will, then we remain spiritually dead to willful energy that is very pleasing to our fallen senses, and can appear to the deceived as christ like.

Dr. Ortlund can you please list some of the books you use for your research?

Brilliant Video! Glad your back. I think Palamism raises good questions, but still the Thomist position seems more plausible. But I may be missing something.

There is this interesting remark in C.S. Lewis's essay on Friendship: "I was once at some kind of conference where two clergymen, obviously close friends, began talking about 'uncreated energies' other than God. I asked how there could be any uncreated things except God if the Creed was right in calling Him the 'maker of all things visible and invisible.'" A valid question, I think. What are your thoughts on that question?

I too have been reading through the church fathers as I can find them on amazon, physical copies not audiobooks nor ebooks. I’m truly enjoying the eastern fathers. I’ve reached the Lateran Councils in my readings but I can’t find a physical copy of them anywhere. I know the later ecumenical councils necessarily part of your tradition on the Christian family tree. But do you know where I could find a physical collection of the Lateran Councils, not commentaries nor summaries but just straight up translations? The help would be much appreciated, thank you.

You should reach out to Dr Bradshaw and do an interview on this topic. Dr Bradshaw was instrumental in me becoming Orthodox.

Seems to me that possibly energies is the essence that we can possibly interact with? God only allowed Moses to see his back, and by doing so he was glowing. Is it possible that in our current condition we are not able to fully able to stand before God? I don't know honest but then I think about how the Holy Spirit now lives within us.

Concern of "applying creaturely categories to the divine essence" -48:15 (bookmarking for future reference)

Another issue that the East brings up, is that of the Logoi from Max the Confessor. Do you have any thoughts on that? Thanks.

1:04:00 I'm grateful you're addressing this... There is a lot of anti-West sentiment surfacing on the internet that is very one sided (and I would say, short sighted). I'm by no means naive about the evils of the West but it's absurd to put forth the idea that the East has had no significant hand in the state of the modern world today.

There was an ignorance in the west about saint Gregory Palamas says most if his works are not translated even triads that actually name is about the support of the sacred hesychasts was just a few years before

The Orthodox Church rejects the idea that there is a scholastic 'real distinction' between the essence and energy. The only individual to hold this position, as far as I'm aware, was Myenedorff (and Farrell, but he's not Orthodox). Even Bradshaw, in "Essence and Energies: What type of Distinction" says that's it's a formal-type of distinction. Here's what St. Gregory says about the *type* of distinction: "… but dividing the indivisible conceptually and recognizing their [essene-energy] different for us, but not distancing them and separating them from each other.” - Letter to Gabras Here's how the Council of Constantinople, 1351 defines the type of distinction: "But the fact that there is no interval, but we are obliged to separate them mentally, and that the difference between prior and posterior [essence-energy] is contemplated only in the mind, it appears beyond doubt that the need for union is very piously confirmed, and that no injury is inflicted on this union as a result of the distinction, but the union is asserted theologically to be unconfused and the difference is taught in every way to be indivisible." Here's St. Philotheus Kokkinos explains the distinction (Patriarch of Constantinople during the Hesychast controversy and St. Gregory's biographer): "To see that essence and energy are not in every aspect one and the same thing, but are united and inseparable and yet are distinguished only conceptually, pay attention to how the saints state that these things are two and testify both to their unity and distinctiveness… Hence we do not state that there are two deities or Gods, as they slander us; instead, what we state on the basis of what we have learnt from the saints is that this Deity, which is participated in by those who are deified, is not a proper essence or substance, but a natural power and energy present within God Himself, the Holy Trinity, absolutely inseparable and indivisible, the difference being only conceptual… The holy Fathers and Doctors, as we have already said, even if they say that God’s essence is one thing and His energy is another thing, conceive of the energy-and they write thus-as inseparable and indivisible from the essence, as proceeding from it and as having existence and being present only in this very essence, since the separation (or, better, the difference) is construed only conceptually. Thus, in the case of those things which have their existence in other things, but do not subsist or exist autonomously in themselves, one does not speak of composition, as we have said.” You also don't seem to have a great grasp of the notion of enhypostaton. Enhypostaton is the *mode* by which essence subsists. Essence only exists in the mode of hypostasis (enhypostaton). When an essence is hypostatized, so too is the energy. For comprehensive treatment, I would recommend a paper titled, "A World of Hypostases, John of Damascus' Rethinking of Aristotle's Categorical Ontology," by Christophe Erismann. Further, it's clear from the primary material, that God's energy is ontologically one and is not something other than the divine essence, but rather is the mode of the divine essence towards us. The 'energies' are predetermined, eternally foreknown unions that God forms with His creatures. It is through/by these unions that God's activity/energy is diversified into the divine names (goodness, love, life, wisdom, etc.). "Therefore, any particular good that one might conceive of is found in it, or rather, the supreme mind is both that good and beyond it. And anything in the supreme mind that one might conceive of is a good, or rather, goodness and a goodness which transcends itself. Life too is found in it; or rather, the supreme mind is itself life, for life is a good and life in it is goodness. Wisdom too is found in it; or rather, it is itself wisdom, for wisdom is a good and wisdom in it is goodness; and similarly, with eternity and blessedness in general any good that one might conceive of. And there is no distinction there between life and wisdom and goodness and the like, for that goodness embraces all things collectively, unitively and in utter simplicity… But that goodness is not only identical with that which is truly conceived by those who think with a mind endowed with divine wisdom and speak of God with a tongue moved by the Spirit; as ineffable and inconceivable, it is also beyond these things, and is not inferior to the unitive and supernatural simplicity.” - Capita, C. 34 "The divine transcendent being is never named in the plural. But the divine and uncreated grace and energy of God is divided indivisibly according to the image of the sun’s ray which gives warmth, light, life and increase, and sends its own radiance to those who are illumined and manifests itself to the eyes of those who see. In this way, in the manner of an obscure image, the divine energy of God is called not only one but also many by the theologians. For example, Basil the Great says….” -ibid, C. 68 “As it has been made clear above by Basil the Great, the theologians treat the uncreated energy of God as multiple in that it is indivisibly divided… since it is not the substance but the energy of God, for this reason it is treated not only in the singular but also in the plural. It is bestowed proportionately upon those who participate and, according to the capacity of those who receive it, it instills the divinizing radiance to a greater or lesser degree.” - ibid, C. 69 "He admits that we believe that there is only one reality that transcends all, and this bears testimony that we call this super-essential reality that one God. The divine light is not essence but an activity, an energy of the essence which, as we said, is one and transcends all and is always active. But even if we called this energy inseparable from that one essence, still that super-essentiality would not be composite. For truly no essence would ever be simple if this were the case. It is impossible to find any essence whatsoever without a natural energy.” - Triads, 3.1.24 "(KEY) Moreover, when we say that someone acquires wisdom through effort and study, we do not call wisdom the effort and the study itself, but the result of it. After all, the Lord comes and dwells in men in different ways according to the worthiness and the way of life of those who seek him. Christ comes in one way to the active man and in another way to the contemplative man…” - ibid, 3.1.28 Finally, there's absolutely nothing novel in St. Gregory Palamas. A read through the Philokalia shows that he was merely drawing on the patristic framework of mystical theology, already in place. Read St. Andrew of Crete and St. John of Damascus on the light of Tabor; St. Maximus on uncreated grace and 'energies with a beginning;' St. Dionysius on the transcendence of the essence and the processions of Goodness, etc.

Will you debate any Eastern Orthodox on these issues

Would you say that most Eastern doctrines flow from their essence energies understanding?

Hey Gavin, I grew up with a pastor who was pretty versed in new-age/occultic apologetics and often talked about pantheism and panentheism as false. As you were quoting both Aquinas and Gregory a lot of those alarm bells went off in me. Obviously you are interacting with historic Christianity, but the idea that God is in everything would definitely run afoul of the teaching I grew up with. How would you differentiate between both the Thomist and Palamist views and a pantheistic or panentheistic view that is outside the bounds of orthodoxy?

So Gavin, would you say these disagreements shows how philosophically different these traditions are coming from? Thomas Aquinas was more Aristotelian, whereas Gregory Palamas was more Platonist? Would not Thomas Aquinas see the Energies as accidents and since God has no accidents then Energies is like saying God is di-theism?

Question: Having listened to this and from other resources, my understanding is that the Thomist tradition would understand the Trinitarian Persons/hypostasis as processio ad intra (necessary to preserve simplicity), and then our creaturely experience of God is His revelation/manifestation of His attributes ad extra - would it be fair to say that the Eastern understanding of energies might be described as an essential (necessary or fundamental) processio ad extra? It seems like it could not be ad intra or else the energies would be a "part" of the Godhead, but it seems that an essential processio ad extra does break simplicity. Or is this trying to put a square (eastern) peg in a round (western) hole? Thank you for the video, and thank you extra if you get to the question.

Thank you for this. I have never been particularly attracted to Thomism (or any -ism). I never can understand what ‘Absolute Divine Simplicity’ means. It sounds meaningful, but is God as a creator “outside” the creation simple? Can the expression ‘simple’ or ‘complex’ be applied to the uncreated God who creates? And would I call Jesus simple? We have the Trinity being prior to creation. Is the Trinity simple or complex? And God does not (and cannot) exist since existence itself was created by God and for God to exist would mean that God created himself. Surely the deifying energy of God is the normal means of salvation for every Christian? Christification and Theosis are the normal Christian experience, and not simply for a monk on Mount Athos. I get concerned when Gregory then says that I need works to attain it. What works are these? The only work needed is the daily membership of the Kingdom of God and following Jesus at the foot of the cross. And really it’s all found in the words of Jesus. We have John 17: 20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; 21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. 24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world. And surely Palamism is simply Christianity? We don’t live but Christ lives in us. We know God now and do not need to wait for a “beatific vision” in the next life. And yet we see now imperfectly. Here is Paul (1 Corinthians 13:12): 12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known. We are grafted onto the true vine that is Christ. What is the essential difference between Hesychasm and the words of Paul (1 Thessalonians 5:16-18): 16 Rejoice evermore. 17 Pray without ceasing. 18 In every thing give thanks: for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you. And we have the words of the poet George Herbert: Teach me, my God and King, In all things Thee to see, And what I do in anything To do it as for Thee. All may of Thee partake; Nothing can be so mean, Which with this tincture-“for Thy sake”- Will not grow bright and clean. A servant with this clause Makes drudgery divine; Who sweeps a room as for Thy laws, Makes that and th’ action fine. This is the famous stone That turneth all to gold; For that which God doth touch and own Cannot for less be told. So we have God as he is in himself (essence) and God for us (energy). As Job was asked (Job 38:4-30): 4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. We have no understanding as Job was told by God. Does Gregory Palamas or Thomas Aquinas take us further than Jesus or Paul (or the book of Job)? We can end with the god of the philosophers, and Pascal clearly saw the difference with experiencing God and the god of the philosophers. Ignorant knowledge is described by Nicholas of Cusa (Cusanus). Can we know the essence of God? Can we even know the essence of another human - or even a pet? And yet we know the Inward Light of Jesus in our heart. He lives (He lives), He lives (He lives), Christ Jesus lives today He walks with me and talks with me Along life's narrow way He lives (He lives), He lives (He lives), Salvation to impart You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart I liked the talk - thank you. I must read your book.

My question is how much of this discussion can boil down to an epistemological assumptions.. Plato versus Aristotle to be short. I am being a bit reductionist but that seems to be what is the divergent point.

Dr. Ortland, do you have a bibliography for the research you did for this video?

Thank you for the video Dr. Ortlund. Very informative as always. I do have a question for you if you would be inclined to respond please. Dr. Ortlund, are you a pacifist or non resistance?

Can you do a video on how palamism can be compatible with weak panentheism

Luther critiques Aristotle for not being aware of God’s potential in the Heidelberg disputation. This is not to say that Luther agrees with Palamas, but it is interesting. Likewise, in chapter 23 of the Two Natures of Christ, Chemnitz goes over the arguments from the Reformed on why Christ in the Reformed view, cannot be in the Supper. Chemnitz acknowledges that the scholastics say that God’s essence and energies/attributes are identical. He does not disagree directly but goes on to use the exact arguments and quotes from Irenaeus, the Capadoccians, and Damascus, that Maximus and later Palamas used to prove the essence energy distinction. And throughout the rest of that work, and also in Article 8 of the Solid Declaration of the Formula of Concord, Chemnitz uses the explanations of the East as to how Christ can be in the Supper. He even distinguishes between God’s essence and His activities, and puts “ενεργια” next to the work activities. So … I would say it is safe to say the Lutherans tend to hold to a little of both, but it seems in my research they lean towards the East. For anyone interested

@TruthUnites , Gavin, you say around 51:33 there is a problem with caricature and overly-simple contrasts and give Roy Clouser's comments as an example. Wouldn't you say that the sort of criticism that Clouser offers (even if one disagrees with that criticism) is a *fair* means of criticism? What I mean is that drawing out what an opponent's view entails, and that entailment is something the opponent rejects, seems legitimate to me. To do this is not the same as saying an opponent explicitly or consciously affirms the entailment, but rather the opposite, namely, that there is something wrong with a given view that entails something an advocate of that view denies.

How would you respond to the criticism that Aquinas’ absolute divine simplicity commitment leads him to conclude that all of God’s workings in creation are created effects and not actually God himself? And that if all we experience from God are created effects, then we are not really knowing God himself but merely effects that God created?

Great video! My question is that considering that at the heart of Palamas’ theology is the hesychastic life, namely the practice of “the prayer of the heart” (Jesus Prayer) is the practice of the Jesus Prayer something that you would implement into your own spiritual life and pastorally, is the Jesus Prayer a practice that you would advice your congregation to implement? I would love to hear how you discern the Jesus Prayer and more broadly the hesychastic life of the Athonite monks.

I appreciate this a lot, since this is an extremely important point in my concerns about the East and West divide (more specifically Catholic and Orthodox), and I've found a lot of the content on KZfaq too conclusive and too final in the analysis. Mathoma has a great series where he reads Peter Totleben's analysis of Palamism, which taught me to REALLY appreciate Thomism in the context of this conversation, but I don't think many Orthodox scholars have caught wind of it, so there is no satisfying extension of that discussion that I can find. But again, that analysis seems too final, and the laity that tend to engage in this with a high frequency aren't really that appealing to me as a continued source. You should really consider going forward in this controversy (hopefully "controversy"). Btw, I find that aroma you speak of is true of a lot of Eastern writings... and sermons... and it's probably because I associate the type of communication with the smell of incense, which I think beautifully ties in the point of our bodily participation in God.

The deference between orthodox church theology and western Theology is at first not on the conclusions but on the methodology both use to have knowledge.If you don't understand the difference methodologies between orthodox Theology and western you cant actually understand anything. There is a small article that the post but comes of. Read it Faith and science in orthodox gnosiology and methodology by father G Metallinos .it would help you to understand where the difference is based

I'm trying to follow this, but gosh it's confusing... Can I just say we participate in God's divine redemption and become the body of Christ and Christ reveals through the incarnation of the church? Or have I committed a heresy?

I think the most frustrating part of learning about divine simplicity and energies is that you sit here and wonder why no one speaks of the personhood? Does not Gods essence become known through the Personhood? God is known through special and general revelation, isnt he? If someone could please give me some material on Personhood and Divine simplicity, that would be much appreciated👍

The Eucharist gives a reality to what the Israelites experienced daily, fed not only in mind but physically also. The representation that the Protestants understanding e corporates actually is OT understanding of the sacrifice, a representation however Hebrews illustrates the order of Melchizedek is the new reality.

50:41 bookmark

Gregory has another serious problem you can only access the Father via the Son but his hetchyasm claims to access him without going through the Son in his body and blood. His mysticism opens him to the demonic, like claiming Filioque is false, despite Leo III saying the great mystery of the Filioque should never be disbelieved.

The problem in the west start with the translations of the New Testament the word Paul uses ενέργεια ενεργηματα etc are not translated as energies so confusing starts in the west

Eed is a formal distinction

Being a protestant myself I am just as concerned with the doctrines of total depravity + original sin in the west and energies in terms of compartmentalism or even semi-agnosticism in the east. The truth is generally found in the middle for anyone that's willing to dive deep enough to find the gate.