I am not your paid subscriber, but I listen attentively to your podcast and read some Theological letters. Using this opportunity to post a comment, I would suggest you to consider narrating not only your letters, which you post sometimes on your podcast, but also the chapters from your Leibniz book, cause it seems very interesting. Anyway I appreciate your work greatly!
I have a quastion on your primarily podcast topic, which is Realism, if you allow to ask it here. From several episodes it bacame clear to me that you don’t think there is a substantial difference between pagan and Christian conceptions of realism. Correct me, if I’m wrong, but no other conclusion I could derive from your repeated explanations on podcast and even in the interviews (like “Embrace the realism, it’s all mystical” to Jonathan Pageau).
You make a clear difference between the Realism and Nominalism, explaining that the commonalities we observe in the world are not mere game of imagination or mere names (as Nominalism presumes), but the real ideas which are being embodied in the matter and also perceived by our mind, taking residence in it and forming it. There is no doubt that it is true in regard to pagan Realism. However, you continue by transfering this conception onto Orthodox Christian theology and metaphisics in such a way that the pagan “realm of ideas” simply becomes the divine energies - ideas or thoughts of the Christian God - and therefore an idea of sphericality, as you make an example, is an uncreated idea/energy of God, which we are able to observe and which takes residence in our mind. So realism becomes mystical in the most direct sense. (Correct me, please, if I misunderstood you in some way.)
It doesn’t seem wright to me. When you read st. Gregory Palamas, he makes the principal destinction between the earthly philosophy and science and the knowledge of God: the former is available to learning for everyone, while the latter is given supernaturally by the Grace of God to those who have purified their mind from passions. Even our true Christian faith is not some naturally obtained knoledge, but it is already a supernatural partaking in God, though it is being given to every bealiver. This is the case especially with percieving the ideas/energies of God in “theoria”, when the purified mind of the ascet starts observing the creative, providential and judgemental ideas of God in the creaturly world.
Clearly, the divine ideas cannot be the same as the philisophical and scientific ideas, which can be learned by anyone without any purufication and even without bealiving in God. What the diffrence then between the ideas of God and the ideas of philisophy and science in regard to realism and how its conception being changed in Christianity?
I have my understanding in this regard and I’m interested, what you think about it.
In my veiw the conception of realism changes in Christianity acoording to the general change in understanding of the structure of the creaturely world and its relation to its Creator. In the dispute with Eunomius we can see how the Holy Fathers diffirentiate between our names and words and God’s allmighty word, by which He names nonexistant as existant. In contrary to Eunomius who thought that the creative words of God, which are being expressed by the Prophet in our speech as “Let it be light” etc., were actually pronounced in human language, the Holy Fathers explained that there were even no humans whom such words could be adressed to and, of course, such words of the Scripture are an anthropomorphic image of the God’s willing creatures into existance. Such willings of God are being called words or thoughts and ideas, and these uncreated ideas of God are principially different from our created humanly words and conceptions of mind. As God has His uncreated energies of His uncreated essence, so do we have our creaturely energies of our created nature. And this understanding is being placed in the basis of how st. Gregory of Nissa explains the nature of the Holy Scripture: underneath the humanly words lays the word of God, which is being expressed by the human speech. St. Maximus the Confessor teaches that the Word of God is being incarnated not only by taking human nature in His hypostasis, but also in the Scripture by clothing Himself in the earthly images and parables and in the world, which is an embodiment of His logoi.
The commonalities of the world are real because the world is an embodiement of the God’s creative energies/ideas, which intertwine in different combinations, creating different creatures as a result. But we - humans - in our fallen state aren’t able to observe the energies of God directly. We have lost the gift of Grace - a spiritual eye, - with which we could see God, according to the words of the Prophet: "In Thy light shall we see light" (Psalm 36:9). St. Gregory Palamas explicidly says that this light is the Holy Spirit which becomes for us a spiritual eye, with which we are able to see God’s energies - His uncreated light.
Therefore, the philosophical and scientific ideas we draw from the observation of the world are our created ideas, which may be more or less correct image of the God’s creative and providential ideas, but not God’s ideas themselves. In our fallen state we are able only to observe the world by its creaturely side and not even by nature, but by its energies. Observing the similarities we are coming to a conclusion of the existance of commonalities. We might say we are guessing what they are by forming an image in our mind, for example, of the common nature of the dogs, but only through Revalation we are able to learn if our guesses are true or not, if they are correct images of the God’s ideas, which are embodied in the creaturely world, or not so much, but mere names and a game of imagination.
We are created into the image of God, therefore the very structure of our perception was founded upon a sense of commonalities and structural hierarchy in the world. We were made to percieve the world correctly as the transmitter and receiver are made to complement each other. But falling from Grace we lost the ability to use our mind properly as it was meant to be used for the intelligent creatures, who are able with the assistance of the Grace to see God’s light, God’s ideas, God’s energies and how they are being embodied in the created world. Instead, we see only the creaturely side of the world and our mind draw conlusions from it acording to its own operational structure without being able to see directly the mystical side of the world. God’s ideas (logoi) are being expressed in many different ways (tropoi) and we are able to observe not the former directly, but only the latter.
So, to return to sphericality: it is not an uncreated idea of God, which we participate in by observing it, but our own creaturely idea, which we form in our mind by guessing that beneath the similarities which we see in creatures there must be an idea of what is being embodied in their tangible existance.
Truly, if st. Gregory Palamas was teaching that sphericality or such other scientifical and philisophical ideas were the energies of God, Barlaam would gladly agree with it. I
I would appreciate a lot your thoughts on this matter.
So perhaps I missed it. Which incomplete series of letters are you most interested in me finishing? (I kid.)
Hats off to you for hacking the system, as it were, and finding a way to post a comment while being a free subscriber. Very clever. And thank you for your kind remarks about my work and for supporting my podcast and for the occasional visits to Theological Letters. I greatly appreciate it.
Your question is a good one and worthy of a podcast. Several folks have been wondering about my stance on these sorts of nuances as well as my thoughts on related topics, such as conceptualism. So I will be sure to put an episode on such topics into the queue. Be watching for that in due course.
For now, let me say a few things by way of teaser. First, I do not think realism is monolithic. I think of it as a genus of metaphysics in which there are many species. Platonic realism differs from Aristotelian realism, which differs from Stoic realism, which differs from NeoPlatonic realism, and I would further differentiate the realism of the Alexandrian Jews, like Philo, from both the realisms of the Eastern Church fathers and the various realisms of the Latin West.
So if your impression is that I do not differentiate pagan realism from Christian realism, that is a misreading of me. However, I can understand why you might come to that given that I so often speak about the divide between realism and nominalism, placing all realists on one side of this divide. I do. But I see this as a divide in genus, and on the realism side, there are many species -- analogous to drawing a divide between living beings and non-living beings, which is a suitable divide, but there are many types of living beings.
As for the relationship between God's ideas, the forms of things, and our ideas about both God's ideas and the forms of things, this certainly complicates things further. Here I must promise not to go into details about my views, partially due to a lack of time and partially to entice you to listen to the podcast! But suffice it to say that if God's ideas were also the forms of things and also our own ideas about those forms, then we would be quickly moving toward a form of pantheism -- or at least panentheism. I do not believe the Eastern fathers were either pantheists or panentheists, so I would not interpret their thought in this way.
My letter on God-world relations is incomplete, unfortunately, or I could point you to that on the question of the Eastern fathers and pantheism and panentheism. What I can point you toward, however, is my essay, "The Metaphysical Idealism of the Eastern Church Fathers." That piece moves through my reading of the Eastern fathers on idealism. You can find the piece here:
Given your questions, it's definitely worth a read. It does not address all of your questions, but it should clear up several.
What I do not address in that article are the ontological side of the epistemological issues you raise (no doubt due to my podcast and appearance on Jonathan's). Again, time does not permit me to address the matter here, but here's what I will say.
Not every divine energy is the same. Basil of Caesarea is very clear on the point in his dealings with the Eunomians. But I think many contemporary Orthodox tend to collapse the energies, speaking of them as if they were one thing, which is a mistake. The energies are innumerable and each one is different.
At least part of the relevance to your question is this. Yes, Saints sometimes see the uncreated light, and seeing this is a seeing of divine energies. Palamas (et al.) read the Transfiguration as the Apostles beholding the divine energies, or uncreated light. And David Bradshaw makes a strong case that the glory of the Lord seen in the OT is also the divine energies. All of this true. And because of this, many tend to think of uncreated light when thinking about the divine energies. But here, I believe, emerges an error. Yes, all uncreated light is divine energy. But not all of the divine energies are uncreated light.
The Life promised in the gospel is God's own and is thus a communicable divine energy. But arguably, eternal life, immortality, incorruption, and unturnability are all distinct divine energies; yet, all promised through partaking of the divine nature. Justice, mercy, holiness, and other such attributes are divine energies that we are to partake through deification. I am unconvinced, however, that all of these are to manifest as light.
The divine voice from Heaven at Theophany was, too, a divine energy. But it did not manifest as light. And this is my point. While the uncreated light is a divine energy, I am not convinced that all divine energies are uncreated light. They are all uncreated, yes. But do all manifest as light? I do not think they do -- the booming voice being one such example. And many of the attributes named, such as justice or mercy, seem to be manifestations in action, not light -- such is the nature of their unique presence.
If correct, then there are many divine energies that we witness without accompanying light. For example, by the divine energies, God created the world and upholds it moment to moment. A glance around witnesses this very real divine energy via its effect. Were we to have been witness to the creation of the cosmos, I am unsure that to witness these energies would be to witness light as much as to witness the effect of producing creatures.
Now, I realize that the eye of the soul is made to behold the uncreated light (divine energies), and the Fall has blinded the eye of the soul such that we do not presently see it. I speak about this at length in my series on divine hiddenness. But I am unconvinced that this means we are incapable of witnessing the divine energies full stop.
Yes, Palamas (et al.) speak about the change in the Apostles to witness the Transfiguration, them being transfigured (the eye of the soul opening) to witness his Transfiguration. But surely those who heard the booming voice were not Transfigured; yet, they heard it. Surely, the rebellious Israelites who wandered in the wilderness, seeing the glory of God, witnessing his descent onto the mountain, were not Transfigured or deified to behold such things. And yet, such things were the divine energies.
So, for my part, while I have no objection to the claim that the Eastern fathers and Palamas later teach that the eye of the soul is made to behold the uncreated light, or that the Fall has blinded it so God seems hidden, or that our healing involves opening the eye of the soul. I am reluctant to move from this (true) claim to the conclusion that all of the energies of God sit on the other side of an epistemic veil, wholly inaccessible to us. To move from the former to the latter is, in my assessment, a mistake.
Yet, I think this type of inference is the very thing that some folks conclude. Recognizing that the divine glory is the manifestation of the divine energies, and recognizing that Saints partake of this glory in their deification and thereby become glorious themselves, there is a tendency to reduce all divine energies to that glory, as if unless one is beholding uncreated light, one is not beholding a divine energy.
I think it's fine to differentiate those saving energies of holiness, incorruption, eternal life, and so on, and even the opening of the eye of the soul to behold the uncreated light, from the more general operations of the divine energies around us, such as sustaining the world. And I think this is the sort of thing that some have tried to capture by differentiating the outer working of energies from the inner, though I don't much care for this way of describing it. But I do not think we should reduce all of the energies to either those deifying energies or to uncreated light.
As for the relationship to the forms of things, I do not think the divine energies are the forms of things or that our perception of those formal structures that derive from the divine mind constitutes a partaking of the divine energies in the theosis sense. (I suspect that this may be the key point of confusion about some things I've said about realism. For example, I do think perception is isomorphic in the fathers, the form in the thing taking up residence in the mind in the act of perception. But I do not think the form is the divine Idea per se, and yet, I do believe it is an image of the divine idea, which means there is a thether between the two. These particular nuances I do not think I've fleshed out in print or in a podcast, but some of this comes through in the above mentioned essay on the idealism of the Eastern fathers. Perhaps my podcast on the misunderstanding mystery might help also here, where I distinguish natural philosophy and rightly discerning the formal structures of reality and knowledge about God from deification.) But I would not advocate a complete isolating of human perception and knowledge and formal structures from God, as if all things salvific are divine and all things natural are not.
With that, I think it best that I end, since I am dangerously close to breaking my promise to to not discuss my views on such matters here! I'll discuss such things at length when I devote an episode to this. Thanks for listening and for your thoughtful question.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jacobs
___
* My original reply was written in haste between services on Good Friday. So I've done a quick cleanup -- hence the comment's edited status.
Excuse me for abusing this possibility of hacking the system, I wanted to attract your attention to the latest conversation between Jonathan Pageau and John Vervake. Correct me, please, if I understood wrong, but I don't see any other way how to interpret his words besides that Jonathan doesn't believe in spirits as personal beings. He considers Angels (and therefore disembodied human souls) to be something like common human passions, though it would be much better explained through energies: the common passions of the humans are their synergetic participation in a common aspirations, which can be also energised from the outside of the human nature – by demons for example, if we are speaking about sinful activities.
I was wondering how does Jonathan find common ground with Jordan Peterson so easily, I thought at first that he is just trying not to bother people like Jordan with more hard food, speaking with them on their level of understanding, but now it seems to me that it's more complicated and he at least in some ways shares their reductionist views. I watched lately a conversation between Jordan and 20 atheists, where he stressed his understanding of God as just a highest principle of existence, while atheists continuously pointed to him, that God must be a personal Being, that's why they don't believe in Him. For Jordan's understanding God is being reduced to His energies, becoming an abstract principle which is “god of philosophers”. It seems that Jonathan shares his beliefs at least in regard to the spirits.
I think in such explanations of symbolism a very important part is being missed: the symbolism is ontological, it exists because there are different levels of reality. The flashly world is created in the image of the spiritual one – they are both real, moreover the history of the Old Testament is also written by God's Providence on the canvas of the human history as metaphors to the spiritual reality. And we have saints who interpret the Scripture and explains to us, when one saying should be understood just metaphorically and when – both literally and metaphorically, and they understand the history of the Old Testament as real events, including the creation of the first humans. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel are not only abstract patterns, but the real persons who embodied in themselves those patterns. We can say that the Word Himself in His incarnation embodies all the patterns of creation, providence and deification, and this is the ultimate conformation of the reality of all of this patterns themselves.
I would be obliged to you if you comment on that conversation and what do you think, were my impressions were correct?
And the promised exerpt from prof. Epifanovich (in autotranslation):
“The idea of Logos as the active principle of the Deity, manifesting Himself in created being, makes Him an object of contemplation from another side – from the side of His activity or His eternal properties, manifested in the world. The three main features diffused throughout the world – being, movement, diversity – mark the three main types of energies of Logos – His creative, providential and judging power263. The manifestations of creative power are especially evident in the physical world, the manifestations of providence and judgment – in the moral world264. Cataphatic theology bases its assertions on these manifestations of the powers of Logos in the realm of nature and virtue265, transferring to God, or rather to His energies (eternal properties), that which is contemplated in the being that has come from Him. Thus, in cataphatics what was previously denied in apophatics is affirmed about God.
For the physical world, God is the source of being and movement. Hence, He Himself is characterized as Being in the proper sense of the word (κυρίως ειναι266), as self-existent essence (αυτοουσία 267, ουσιοποιος οντότης 268), as the moving Beginning and Goal of everything269. For rational being, God is the source of goodness and wisdom270. From here He Himself appears as good271 and wise272, as self-existent love (αυτοαγαθότης273) and knowledge (αυτογνωσις274, αυτοσοφία275), as Good and Truth276.
… Everything that has been said so far about the properties of the Deity and their manifestation in the world, as well as about the mode of this manifestation, has a direct relation, strictly speaking, only to the Divine Logos as the creative principle. It is the Logos that manifested itself in the world, and in the Logos all being participates in God. 304 These close relations of the Logos to the world are expressed through and in the form of His energies, or little logoi (λόγοι) 305, ideas into which the One Divine Logos is creatively divided, as it were, and which are again united in Him, like radii in the center of a circle. 306 In accordance with the threefold activity of the Logos – creative, providential and judging, His λόγοι, or ideas, are manifested in three ways: as the fundamental principles or laws of nature (λόγοι φύσεως)307 and as the goals or paths of providence and judgment (λόγοι προνοίας και κρίσεως)308. These λόγοι embrace all being throughout the entire duration of its existence. In the λόγοι of nature, as it were, the entire sensory and mental (spiritual) world is contained; in the λόγοι of providence and judgment – its entire life, all the goals of its movements, reducible to one supreme one – deification. In particular, in the λόγοι of providence and judgment, both the incarnation and the redemption, this center of providence and the highest realization of the idea of deification, are predetermined;309 they also entirely determine the repetition and ascetic assimilation by each person of the mystery of redemption and salvation, i.e., all forms of virtue and knowledge are embraced;310 in them, finally, the future destiny of the whole world is outlined.311 The whole world hangs, as it were, on these λόγοι, having in them its true essence. By them, as by His desires or predeterminations, the Logos Himself knows the world.312 Through them He expresses His relations to the world and brings about its unification with Himself. The Logos eternally contains in Himself all the λόγοι.313 From Him they proceed to form the world and in Him they are again united as their Source. This unification is accomplished through generalization. Forming more and more general groups according to species and genera, the λόγοι finally ascend to the Wisdom and Prudence (φρόνησις) of God, which contains all the general and all the particular λόγοι 314.
Uniting in Himself all λόγοι, the Divine Logos is the center of all created being. At the same time, He not only creatively connects all being with Himself, but also providentially leads it to another, even more complete unification with Himself, to the return to Himself and the deification in Himself of all being that has emanated from Him. Such is the eternal “council” (βουλή) of God315, the final goal of providence.
This is how the Logos appears in its energies, or logoi.
These logoi can, however, be considered not only in relation to their Author and Bearer, but also in relation to the world they form, so to speak, in themselves. Such a consideration of them transfers us to the sphere of ontology, to the realm of “natural (so to speak, philosophical) contemplation” of created being316. All being is essentially ideal. It is nothing other than the totality of logoi that have come from the Logos and are intertwined with each other in various ways. All the qualitative differences of being depend on the different combinations of these logoi. Their densification forms a crude, sensually comprehensible creature317. The whole world, therefore, represents to a greater or lesser degree a “fattening” or embodiment of the Logos318, mysteriously hiding in λόγοι under the shell of created being319 and revealing His λόγοι of providence and judgment in all His actions320. The task of ontology is to contemplate these λόγοι321, their mutual interweaving and gradual fattening322 and, through their generalization323, to ascend to the all-guilty Logos324.
thank you very much for your answer! You have raised much more questions, worthy to think about. Clearly, if a true philosopher starts considering something, you must prepare yourself for not getting easy answers…
And rightly so! Though, sometimes when I myself delve deep into such questions, I come to such considerations, that it becomes clear to me, I’m out of my depth and it is either I miss some knoledge of the Holy Fathers, or they haven’t explained such questions because it is not helpfull in salvation and there was no such specific topic raised during their polemics with the heretics. That’s where I understand I need help from those with better understanding of orthodox theology and worldview.
I’d like to meantion a couple of things here.
1) You have already partially answered my question, mostly resting my concerns in peace by saying: “I do not think the form is the divine Idea per se, and yet, I do believe it is an image of the divine idea, which means there is a thether between the two”.
At first consideration I cannot but agree that “the form” is an image of the divine idea, and it seems to me, that we are forming in our mind an image of that form. But there arises another question: what is this form? if we speak about the creatures, meaning their common nature, then what is this common nature, which actually exists in the creaturely world only in hypostaseis and may be percieved only in its energies?
There is a question if we actually percieve some creaturely forms, or if there is no such thing and by observing energies of the creatures we percieve just the expressions of something - namely, of a divine idea - and form an image of it by guessing, what should be forming a genera of creatures, for example.
Here I will offer you a translation of a chapter from a work of a bright and renowned russian theologian professor Sergei Leontyevich Epifanovic from his book St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine Theology. It is actually a breaf scetch of a doctoral dissertation, which was not published because of the communist revolution. The author had managed to publish at his own expense only this scetch. I’ll put it in the end of the commentary.
From this exerpt it becomes more clear how hard to formally divide the creatures from the energies of its Creator. The creation has two sides and may be observed from both perspectives: creaturely and of the creative energies. And here it seems very hard to see if there is actually a created “form” or if the divine energies are this uncreated form, which we are able to percieve only after purification and through the spiritual eye as a divine gift of Grace to our mind, while the energies of the creatures is available for our scientific and philosophical study and we are able to form an image of the supposed idea, which is being expressed by the similarities in creatures.
2) About the different energies of God.
Certainly, threre are different energies and they can be classified differently, but the main difference in my oppinion emphasizes st. Gragory Palamas, explaining that before any closer communion with God those who enter into communion must firstly come into existance. So there are the energies which we participate in as creatures per se and there are energies which can be called perfective - not only bringing the full or partial divination, but also calling everyone into communion with God in everyday life by stearing consciousness or opening one’s mind to understanding a particular passage from the Scripture and so forth.
But even in regard to this difference I think a general principle may be applied that the Grace is one, and only the ways or modes of participation are different.
There is a characteristical passage from the word which is attributed by the Church to st. John Chrisostom (it may be not his, but the Church deams it worthy of his quill anyway):
“The source of light is the word of God; being full of light and shedding light, it enlightens and illuminates the souls of the faithful. Of itself and by itself it shines and enlightens those who use it; and it does not simply enlighten the souls of the faithful, but also communicates to them the name of light.
… Indeed, our God is light; and His word, which He begot from Himself before the ages without passion, is called light; and the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Spirit is light. Light, and light, and light, but one light. And the soul that has received the word is called light. But the triune God is light by nature, and we are light by virtue of communion with Him.
… And here is what is amazing: the light that comes from God is simple, and its rays are varied – not by nature, of course, but by action. And the illuminating teaching of God is sent to every faithful soul, according to what is said: “And let the light of the Lord our God be upon us” (Ps. 90:17), so that our deeds may be corrected before Him. This light in itself is one, but when manifested in us it produces many lights: the light of almsgiving, the light of chastity, the light of hospitality, the light of love. In God there is one light, but in us it seems to sparkle and shimmer with various shades, illuminating one with the gift of prophecy, igniting the fire of apostleship in another, bestowing the brilliance of martyrdom on another. There is one light, but in us there are many… In fact, what else did the Apostle Paul want to express in this series of questions: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?” (1 Cor. 12:29)? Of course, it is not without reason that he allows such a division, but in accordance with the spiritual mood of people, not according to his own will, but according to the strength of the confession of faith by each of them.
… The sun's rays, sliding over the luxurious decorations of the magnificent royal purple and reflecting in them, are scattered in an innumerable multitude of sparkles of all possible colors; and the richer and better the decorations, the more varied and beautifully the rays are reflected by them - the very air seems to shimmer with gold, then purple, then green, then some other color. And all this is not, of course, because the rays themselves are different in their nature, but solely because they are refracted in the decorations of the clothes and, reflected in them, become varied. In the same way, the variety of rays with which the church always shines and which constitutes its beauty is explained.”
(St. John Chrysostom (Spuria). On zeal and piety, and on the man born blind)
I haven’t found it in English, so it is an automatic translation from Russian (https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Zlatoust/o_revnosti/). In Chrome browser, for example, you can open the page and turn on translation if you want to read the full text.
And we find similar notion in the Eastern Fathers that every creature partake in God according to its nature (or we may say - to the intentional design or idea of God): some gets only existance, some - also life, some - even intelligence. I get from it an impression, that the Grace of God is one and it is a divine light (in some sence of word, which is appropriate to God) even when we speak of a primarily participation which is needed to come into existance as creatures.
If it is so, then we could say that the creative logoi are the divine light and to see this light we need a spiritual eye, which is also a divine light, so that in His light we were able to see the light. God is passionless and He suffers no influence or impact from creatures even if it is an act of perception, therefore our mind is not able to percieve God by His energies on its own, but it needs a God’s energy to become its spiritual eye. Our mind on his own has only an ability to suffer God’s actions/energies, but not to actively percieve them (st. Maximus was differentiating these types of actions, as I remember: passively suffering or actively doing something).
It leaves the question about the booming voice from the Heaven, for example, unanswered. What was this voice - a uncreated energy or its created result, I don’t remember if the Fathers explained it (st. Gregory of Nyssa meantions it in his Against Eunomius as an example, that in contrary to creation only in such instances God adressed humans with the human words). So, your questions and doubts I cannot answer fully and will consider it myself further, but maybe I have given to your consideration something in regard to the possibility of all the energies of God being the divine light, no matter how differently the creatures may participate in it.
Thank you for your time and attention to my questions,
Thanks Dr Jacobs. A podcast on Mary Mother of God would be my preferred priority. I wonder if you might take the opportunity to cover how issues of corruptibility and free will would, in the mind of the Eastern Church Fathers, apply to Mary. Is Mary’s deification a sheer gift from God, and if so, why couldn’t that same gift have been given to all? Or perhaps is it in the mind of the Eastern Church Fathers the result of a perfect synergy or cooperation between herself and God? Is the effect of the Fall so serious that a person cannot help but sin (unless the person is immaculately conceived), or is the Fall perhaps not so grave, such that someone like Mary or Enoch could through synergy always choose the good over sin?
What a wonderful series of questions! I'd be delighted to do something on this, either as a letter or as a podcast. I'll keep that in mind once the loose threads are tied. Unfortunately, it would not be part of the existing Mary letter. (My theological letters are truly letters written to people in response to various questions, so the content of that series is already set.) However, it's a worthy topic I'd be happy to dive into. Thanks for your thoughts!
Dr. Nathan Jacobs, hello!
I am not your paid subscriber, but I listen attentively to your podcast and read some Theological letters. Using this opportunity to post a comment, I would suggest you to consider narrating not only your letters, which you post sometimes on your podcast, but also the chapters from your Leibniz book, cause it seems very interesting. Anyway I appreciate your work greatly!
I have a quastion on your primarily podcast topic, which is Realism, if you allow to ask it here. From several episodes it bacame clear to me that you don’t think there is a substantial difference between pagan and Christian conceptions of realism. Correct me, if I’m wrong, but no other conclusion I could derive from your repeated explanations on podcast and even in the interviews (like “Embrace the realism, it’s all mystical” to Jonathan Pageau).
You make a clear difference between the Realism and Nominalism, explaining that the commonalities we observe in the world are not mere game of imagination or mere names (as Nominalism presumes), but the real ideas which are being embodied in the matter and also perceived by our mind, taking residence in it and forming it. There is no doubt that it is true in regard to pagan Realism. However, you continue by transfering this conception onto Orthodox Christian theology and metaphisics in such a way that the pagan “realm of ideas” simply becomes the divine energies - ideas or thoughts of the Christian God - and therefore an idea of sphericality, as you make an example, is an uncreated idea/energy of God, which we are able to observe and which takes residence in our mind. So realism becomes mystical in the most direct sense. (Correct me, please, if I misunderstood you in some way.)
It doesn’t seem wright to me. When you read st. Gregory Palamas, he makes the principal destinction between the earthly philosophy and science and the knowledge of God: the former is available to learning for everyone, while the latter is given supernaturally by the Grace of God to those who have purified their mind from passions. Even our true Christian faith is not some naturally obtained knoledge, but it is already a supernatural partaking in God, though it is being given to every bealiver. This is the case especially with percieving the ideas/energies of God in “theoria”, when the purified mind of the ascet starts observing the creative, providential and judgemental ideas of God in the creaturly world.
Clearly, the divine ideas cannot be the same as the philisophical and scientific ideas, which can be learned by anyone without any purufication and even without bealiving in God. What the diffrence then between the ideas of God and the ideas of philisophy and science in regard to realism and how its conception being changed in Christianity?
I have my understanding in this regard and I’m interested, what you think about it.
In my veiw the conception of realism changes in Christianity acoording to the general change in understanding of the structure of the creaturely world and its relation to its Creator. In the dispute with Eunomius we can see how the Holy Fathers diffirentiate between our names and words and God’s allmighty word, by which He names nonexistant as existant. In contrary to Eunomius who thought that the creative words of God, which are being expressed by the Prophet in our speech as “Let it be light” etc., were actually pronounced in human language, the Holy Fathers explained that there were even no humans whom such words could be adressed to and, of course, such words of the Scripture are an anthropomorphic image of the God’s willing creatures into existance. Such willings of God are being called words or thoughts and ideas, and these uncreated ideas of God are principially different from our created humanly words and conceptions of mind. As God has His uncreated energies of His uncreated essence, so do we have our creaturely energies of our created nature. And this understanding is being placed in the basis of how st. Gregory of Nissa explains the nature of the Holy Scripture: underneath the humanly words lays the word of God, which is being expressed by the human speech. St. Maximus the Confessor teaches that the Word of God is being incarnated not only by taking human nature in His hypostasis, but also in the Scripture by clothing Himself in the earthly images and parables and in the world, which is an embodiment of His logoi.
The commonalities of the world are real because the world is an embodiement of the God’s creative energies/ideas, which intertwine in different combinations, creating different creatures as a result. But we - humans - in our fallen state aren’t able to observe the energies of God directly. We have lost the gift of Grace - a spiritual eye, - with which we could see God, according to the words of the Prophet: "In Thy light shall we see light" (Psalm 36:9). St. Gregory Palamas explicidly says that this light is the Holy Spirit which becomes for us a spiritual eye, with which we are able to see God’s energies - His uncreated light.
Therefore, the philosophical and scientific ideas we draw from the observation of the world are our created ideas, which may be more or less correct image of the God’s creative and providential ideas, but not God’s ideas themselves. In our fallen state we are able only to observe the world by its creaturely side and not even by nature, but by its energies. Observing the similarities we are coming to a conclusion of the existance of commonalities. We might say we are guessing what they are by forming an image in our mind, for example, of the common nature of the dogs, but only through Revalation we are able to learn if our guesses are true or not, if they are correct images of the God’s ideas, which are embodied in the creaturely world, or not so much, but mere names and a game of imagination.
We are created into the image of God, therefore the very structure of our perception was founded upon a sense of commonalities and structural hierarchy in the world. We were made to percieve the world correctly as the transmitter and receiver are made to complement each other. But falling from Grace we lost the ability to use our mind properly as it was meant to be used for the intelligent creatures, who are able with the assistance of the Grace to see God’s light, God’s ideas, God’s energies and how they are being embodied in the created world. Instead, we see only the creaturely side of the world and our mind draw conlusions from it acording to its own operational structure without being able to see directly the mystical side of the world. God’s ideas (logoi) are being expressed in many different ways (tropoi) and we are able to observe not the former directly, but only the latter.
So, to return to sphericality: it is not an uncreated idea of God, which we participate in by observing it, but our own creaturely idea, which we form in our mind by guessing that beneath the similarities which we see in creatures there must be an idea of what is being embodied in their tangible existance.
Truly, if st. Gregory Palamas was teaching that sphericality or such other scientifical and philisophical ideas were the energies of God, Barlaam would gladly agree with it. I
I would appreciate a lot your thoughts on this matter.
Hi Alex,*
So perhaps I missed it. Which incomplete series of letters are you most interested in me finishing? (I kid.)
Hats off to you for hacking the system, as it were, and finding a way to post a comment while being a free subscriber. Very clever. And thank you for your kind remarks about my work and for supporting my podcast and for the occasional visits to Theological Letters. I greatly appreciate it.
Your question is a good one and worthy of a podcast. Several folks have been wondering about my stance on these sorts of nuances as well as my thoughts on related topics, such as conceptualism. So I will be sure to put an episode on such topics into the queue. Be watching for that in due course.
For now, let me say a few things by way of teaser. First, I do not think realism is monolithic. I think of it as a genus of metaphysics in which there are many species. Platonic realism differs from Aristotelian realism, which differs from Stoic realism, which differs from NeoPlatonic realism, and I would further differentiate the realism of the Alexandrian Jews, like Philo, from both the realisms of the Eastern Church fathers and the various realisms of the Latin West.
So if your impression is that I do not differentiate pagan realism from Christian realism, that is a misreading of me. However, I can understand why you might come to that given that I so often speak about the divide between realism and nominalism, placing all realists on one side of this divide. I do. But I see this as a divide in genus, and on the realism side, there are many species -- analogous to drawing a divide between living beings and non-living beings, which is a suitable divide, but there are many types of living beings.
As for the relationship between God's ideas, the forms of things, and our ideas about both God's ideas and the forms of things, this certainly complicates things further. Here I must promise not to go into details about my views, partially due to a lack of time and partially to entice you to listen to the podcast! But suffice it to say that if God's ideas were also the forms of things and also our own ideas about those forms, then we would be quickly moving toward a form of pantheism -- or at least panentheism. I do not believe the Eastern fathers were either pantheists or panentheists, so I would not interpret their thought in this way.
My letter on God-world relations is incomplete, unfortunately, or I could point you to that on the question of the Eastern fathers and pantheism and panentheism. What I can point you toward, however, is my essay, "The Metaphysical Idealism of the Eastern Church Fathers." That piece moves through my reading of the Eastern fathers on idealism. You can find the piece here:
https://www.academia.edu/41586437/The_Metaphysical_Idealism_of_the_Eastern_Church_Fathers
Given your questions, it's definitely worth a read. It does not address all of your questions, but it should clear up several.
What I do not address in that article are the ontological side of the epistemological issues you raise (no doubt due to my podcast and appearance on Jonathan's). Again, time does not permit me to address the matter here, but here's what I will say.
Not every divine energy is the same. Basil of Caesarea is very clear on the point in his dealings with the Eunomians. But I think many contemporary Orthodox tend to collapse the energies, speaking of them as if they were one thing, which is a mistake. The energies are innumerable and each one is different.
At least part of the relevance to your question is this. Yes, Saints sometimes see the uncreated light, and seeing this is a seeing of divine energies. Palamas (et al.) read the Transfiguration as the Apostles beholding the divine energies, or uncreated light. And David Bradshaw makes a strong case that the glory of the Lord seen in the OT is also the divine energies. All of this true. And because of this, many tend to think of uncreated light when thinking about the divine energies. But here, I believe, emerges an error. Yes, all uncreated light is divine energy. But not all of the divine energies are uncreated light.
The Life promised in the gospel is God's own and is thus a communicable divine energy. But arguably, eternal life, immortality, incorruption, and unturnability are all distinct divine energies; yet, all promised through partaking of the divine nature. Justice, mercy, holiness, and other such attributes are divine energies that we are to partake through deification. I am unconvinced, however, that all of these are to manifest as light.
The divine voice from Heaven at Theophany was, too, a divine energy. But it did not manifest as light. And this is my point. While the uncreated light is a divine energy, I am not convinced that all divine energies are uncreated light. They are all uncreated, yes. But do all manifest as light? I do not think they do -- the booming voice being one such example. And many of the attributes named, such as justice or mercy, seem to be manifestations in action, not light -- such is the nature of their unique presence.
If correct, then there are many divine energies that we witness without accompanying light. For example, by the divine energies, God created the world and upholds it moment to moment. A glance around witnesses this very real divine energy via its effect. Were we to have been witness to the creation of the cosmos, I am unsure that to witness these energies would be to witness light as much as to witness the effect of producing creatures.
Now, I realize that the eye of the soul is made to behold the uncreated light (divine energies), and the Fall has blinded the eye of the soul such that we do not presently see it. I speak about this at length in my series on divine hiddenness. But I am unconvinced that this means we are incapable of witnessing the divine energies full stop.
Yes, Palamas (et al.) speak about the change in the Apostles to witness the Transfiguration, them being transfigured (the eye of the soul opening) to witness his Transfiguration. But surely those who heard the booming voice were not Transfigured; yet, they heard it. Surely, the rebellious Israelites who wandered in the wilderness, seeing the glory of God, witnessing his descent onto the mountain, were not Transfigured or deified to behold such things. And yet, such things were the divine energies.
So, for my part, while I have no objection to the claim that the Eastern fathers and Palamas later teach that the eye of the soul is made to behold the uncreated light, or that the Fall has blinded it so God seems hidden, or that our healing involves opening the eye of the soul. I am reluctant to move from this (true) claim to the conclusion that all of the energies of God sit on the other side of an epistemic veil, wholly inaccessible to us. To move from the former to the latter is, in my assessment, a mistake.
Yet, I think this type of inference is the very thing that some folks conclude. Recognizing that the divine glory is the manifestation of the divine energies, and recognizing that Saints partake of this glory in their deification and thereby become glorious themselves, there is a tendency to reduce all divine energies to that glory, as if unless one is beholding uncreated light, one is not beholding a divine energy.
I think it's fine to differentiate those saving energies of holiness, incorruption, eternal life, and so on, and even the opening of the eye of the soul to behold the uncreated light, from the more general operations of the divine energies around us, such as sustaining the world. And I think this is the sort of thing that some have tried to capture by differentiating the outer working of energies from the inner, though I don't much care for this way of describing it. But I do not think we should reduce all of the energies to either those deifying energies or to uncreated light.
As for the relationship to the forms of things, I do not think the divine energies are the forms of things or that our perception of those formal structures that derive from the divine mind constitutes a partaking of the divine energies in the theosis sense. (I suspect that this may be the key point of confusion about some things I've said about realism. For example, I do think perception is isomorphic in the fathers, the form in the thing taking up residence in the mind in the act of perception. But I do not think the form is the divine Idea per se, and yet, I do believe it is an image of the divine idea, which means there is a thether between the two. These particular nuances I do not think I've fleshed out in print or in a podcast, but some of this comes through in the above mentioned essay on the idealism of the Eastern fathers. Perhaps my podcast on the misunderstanding mystery might help also here, where I distinguish natural philosophy and rightly discerning the formal structures of reality and knowledge about God from deification.) But I would not advocate a complete isolating of human perception and knowledge and formal structures from God, as if all things salvific are divine and all things natural are not.
With that, I think it best that I end, since I am dangerously close to breaking my promise to to not discuss my views on such matters here! I'll discuss such things at length when I devote an episode to this. Thanks for listening and for your thoughtful question.
Sincerely,
Dr. Jacobs
___
* My original reply was written in haste between services on Good Friday. So I've done a quick cleanup -- hence the comment's edited status.
Hello, dr. Jacobs!
Excuse me for abusing this possibility of hacking the system, I wanted to attract your attention to the latest conversation between Jonathan Pageau and John Vervake. Correct me, please, if I understood wrong, but I don't see any other way how to interpret his words besides that Jonathan doesn't believe in spirits as personal beings. He considers Angels (and therefore disembodied human souls) to be something like common human passions, though it would be much better explained through energies: the common passions of the humans are their synergetic participation in a common aspirations, which can be also energised from the outside of the human nature – by demons for example, if we are speaking about sinful activities.
I was wondering how does Jonathan find common ground with Jordan Peterson so easily, I thought at first that he is just trying not to bother people like Jordan with more hard food, speaking with them on their level of understanding, but now it seems to me that it's more complicated and he at least in some ways shares their reductionist views. I watched lately a conversation between Jordan and 20 atheists, where he stressed his understanding of God as just a highest principle of existence, while atheists continuously pointed to him, that God must be a personal Being, that's why they don't believe in Him. For Jordan's understanding God is being reduced to His energies, becoming an abstract principle which is “god of philosophers”. It seems that Jonathan shares his beliefs at least in regard to the spirits.
I think in such explanations of symbolism a very important part is being missed: the symbolism is ontological, it exists because there are different levels of reality. The flashly world is created in the image of the spiritual one – they are both real, moreover the history of the Old Testament is also written by God's Providence on the canvas of the human history as metaphors to the spiritual reality. And we have saints who interpret the Scripture and explains to us, when one saying should be understood just metaphorically and when – both literally and metaphorically, and they understand the history of the Old Testament as real events, including the creation of the first humans. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel are not only abstract patterns, but the real persons who embodied in themselves those patterns. We can say that the Word Himself in His incarnation embodies all the patterns of creation, providence and deification, and this is the ultimate conformation of the reality of all of this patterns themselves.
I would be obliged to you if you comment on that conversation and what do you think, were my impressions were correct?
Alex.
And the promised exerpt from prof. Epifanovich (in autotranslation):
“The idea of Logos as the active principle of the Deity, manifesting Himself in created being, makes Him an object of contemplation from another side – from the side of His activity or His eternal properties, manifested in the world. The three main features diffused throughout the world – being, movement, diversity – mark the three main types of energies of Logos – His creative, providential and judging power263. The manifestations of creative power are especially evident in the physical world, the manifestations of providence and judgment – in the moral world264. Cataphatic theology bases its assertions on these manifestations of the powers of Logos in the realm of nature and virtue265, transferring to God, or rather to His energies (eternal properties), that which is contemplated in the being that has come from Him. Thus, in cataphatics what was previously denied in apophatics is affirmed about God.
For the physical world, God is the source of being and movement. Hence, He Himself is characterized as Being in the proper sense of the word (κυρίως ειναι266), as self-existent essence (αυτοουσία 267, ουσιοποιος οντότης 268), as the moving Beginning and Goal of everything269. For rational being, God is the source of goodness and wisdom270. From here He Himself appears as good271 and wise272, as self-existent love (αυτοαγαθότης273) and knowledge (αυτογνωσις274, αυτοσοφία275), as Good and Truth276.
… Everything that has been said so far about the properties of the Deity and their manifestation in the world, as well as about the mode of this manifestation, has a direct relation, strictly speaking, only to the Divine Logos as the creative principle. It is the Logos that manifested itself in the world, and in the Logos all being participates in God. 304 These close relations of the Logos to the world are expressed through and in the form of His energies, or little logoi (λόγοι) 305, ideas into which the One Divine Logos is creatively divided, as it were, and which are again united in Him, like radii in the center of a circle. 306 In accordance with the threefold activity of the Logos – creative, providential and judging, His λόγοι, or ideas, are manifested in three ways: as the fundamental principles or laws of nature (λόγοι φύσεως)307 and as the goals or paths of providence and judgment (λόγοι προνοίας και κρίσεως)308. These λόγοι embrace all being throughout the entire duration of its existence. In the λόγοι of nature, as it were, the entire sensory and mental (spiritual) world is contained; in the λόγοι of providence and judgment – its entire life, all the goals of its movements, reducible to one supreme one – deification. In particular, in the λόγοι of providence and judgment, both the incarnation and the redemption, this center of providence and the highest realization of the idea of deification, are predetermined;309 they also entirely determine the repetition and ascetic assimilation by each person of the mystery of redemption and salvation, i.e., all forms of virtue and knowledge are embraced;310 in them, finally, the future destiny of the whole world is outlined.311 The whole world hangs, as it were, on these λόγοι, having in them its true essence. By them, as by His desires or predeterminations, the Logos Himself knows the world.312 Through them He expresses His relations to the world and brings about its unification with Himself. The Logos eternally contains in Himself all the λόγοι.313 From Him they proceed to form the world and in Him they are again united as their Source. This unification is accomplished through generalization. Forming more and more general groups according to species and genera, the λόγοι finally ascend to the Wisdom and Prudence (φρόνησις) of God, which contains all the general and all the particular λόγοι 314.
Uniting in Himself all λόγοι, the Divine Logos is the center of all created being. At the same time, He not only creatively connects all being with Himself, but also providentially leads it to another, even more complete unification with Himself, to the return to Himself and the deification in Himself of all being that has emanated from Him. Such is the eternal “council” (βουλή) of God315, the final goal of providence.
This is how the Logos appears in its energies, or logoi.
These logoi can, however, be considered not only in relation to their Author and Bearer, but also in relation to the world they form, so to speak, in themselves. Such a consideration of them transfers us to the sphere of ontology, to the realm of “natural (so to speak, philosophical) contemplation” of created being316. All being is essentially ideal. It is nothing other than the totality of logoi that have come from the Logos and are intertwined with each other in various ways. All the qualitative differences of being depend on the different combinations of these logoi. Their densification forms a crude, sensually comprehensible creature317. The whole world, therefore, represents to a greater or lesser degree a “fattening” or embodiment of the Logos318, mysteriously hiding in λόγοι under the shell of created being319 and revealing His λόγοι of providence and judgment in all His actions320. The task of ontology is to contemplate these λόγοι321, their mutual interweaving and gradual fattening322 and, through their generalization323, to ascend to the all-guilty Logos324.
(Prof. S. L. Epifanovich. St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine Theology. Ch. 15-16) https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Sergej_Epifanovich/maksim-ispovednik-i-vizantijskoe-bogoslovie/16
Christ is risen!
Dr. Jacobs,
thank you very much for your answer! You have raised much more questions, worthy to think about. Clearly, if a true philosopher starts considering something, you must prepare yourself for not getting easy answers…
And rightly so! Though, sometimes when I myself delve deep into such questions, I come to such considerations, that it becomes clear to me, I’m out of my depth and it is either I miss some knoledge of the Holy Fathers, or they haven’t explained such questions because it is not helpfull in salvation and there was no such specific topic raised during their polemics with the heretics. That’s where I understand I need help from those with better understanding of orthodox theology and worldview.
I’d like to meantion a couple of things here.
1) You have already partially answered my question, mostly resting my concerns in peace by saying: “I do not think the form is the divine Idea per se, and yet, I do believe it is an image of the divine idea, which means there is a thether between the two”.
At first consideration I cannot but agree that “the form” is an image of the divine idea, and it seems to me, that we are forming in our mind an image of that form. But there arises another question: what is this form? if we speak about the creatures, meaning their common nature, then what is this common nature, which actually exists in the creaturely world only in hypostaseis and may be percieved only in its energies?
There is a question if we actually percieve some creaturely forms, or if there is no such thing and by observing energies of the creatures we percieve just the expressions of something - namely, of a divine idea - and form an image of it by guessing, what should be forming a genera of creatures, for example.
Here I will offer you a translation of a chapter from a work of a bright and renowned russian theologian professor Sergei Leontyevich Epifanovic from his book St. Maximus the Confessor and Byzantine Theology. It is actually a breaf scetch of a doctoral dissertation, which was not published because of the communist revolution. The author had managed to publish at his own expense only this scetch. I’ll put it in the end of the commentary.
From this exerpt it becomes more clear how hard to formally divide the creatures from the energies of its Creator. The creation has two sides and may be observed from both perspectives: creaturely and of the creative energies. And here it seems very hard to see if there is actually a created “form” or if the divine energies are this uncreated form, which we are able to percieve only after purification and through the spiritual eye as a divine gift of Grace to our mind, while the energies of the creatures is available for our scientific and philosophical study and we are able to form an image of the supposed idea, which is being expressed by the similarities in creatures.
2) About the different energies of God.
Certainly, threre are different energies and they can be classified differently, but the main difference in my oppinion emphasizes st. Gragory Palamas, explaining that before any closer communion with God those who enter into communion must firstly come into existance. So there are the energies which we participate in as creatures per se and there are energies which can be called perfective - not only bringing the full or partial divination, but also calling everyone into communion with God in everyday life by stearing consciousness or opening one’s mind to understanding a particular passage from the Scripture and so forth.
But even in regard to this difference I think a general principle may be applied that the Grace is one, and only the ways or modes of participation are different.
There is a characteristical passage from the word which is attributed by the Church to st. John Chrisostom (it may be not his, but the Church deams it worthy of his quill anyway):
“The source of light is the word of God; being full of light and shedding light, it enlightens and illuminates the souls of the faithful. Of itself and by itself it shines and enlightens those who use it; and it does not simply enlighten the souls of the faithful, but also communicates to them the name of light.
… Indeed, our God is light; and His word, which He begot from Himself before the ages without passion, is called light; and the holy and consubstantial and life-giving Spirit is light. Light, and light, and light, but one light. And the soul that has received the word is called light. But the triune God is light by nature, and we are light by virtue of communion with Him.
… And here is what is amazing: the light that comes from God is simple, and its rays are varied – not by nature, of course, but by action. And the illuminating teaching of God is sent to every faithful soul, according to what is said: “And let the light of the Lord our God be upon us” (Ps. 90:17), so that our deeds may be corrected before Him. This light in itself is one, but when manifested in us it produces many lights: the light of almsgiving, the light of chastity, the light of hospitality, the light of love. In God there is one light, but in us it seems to sparkle and shimmer with various shades, illuminating one with the gift of prophecy, igniting the fire of apostleship in another, bestowing the brilliance of martyrdom on another. There is one light, but in us there are many… In fact, what else did the Apostle Paul want to express in this series of questions: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?” (1 Cor. 12:29)? Of course, it is not without reason that he allows such a division, but in accordance with the spiritual mood of people, not according to his own will, but according to the strength of the confession of faith by each of them.
… The sun's rays, sliding over the luxurious decorations of the magnificent royal purple and reflecting in them, are scattered in an innumerable multitude of sparkles of all possible colors; and the richer and better the decorations, the more varied and beautifully the rays are reflected by them - the very air seems to shimmer with gold, then purple, then green, then some other color. And all this is not, of course, because the rays themselves are different in their nature, but solely because they are refracted in the decorations of the clothes and, reflected in them, become varied. In the same way, the variety of rays with which the church always shines and which constitutes its beauty is explained.”
(St. John Chrysostom (Spuria). On zeal and piety, and on the man born blind)
I haven’t found it in English, so it is an automatic translation from Russian (https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Ioann_Zlatoust/o_revnosti/). In Chrome browser, for example, you can open the page and turn on translation if you want to read the full text.
And we find similar notion in the Eastern Fathers that every creature partake in God according to its nature (or we may say - to the intentional design or idea of God): some gets only existance, some - also life, some - even intelligence. I get from it an impression, that the Grace of God is one and it is a divine light (in some sence of word, which is appropriate to God) even when we speak of a primarily participation which is needed to come into existance as creatures.
If it is so, then we could say that the creative logoi are the divine light and to see this light we need a spiritual eye, which is also a divine light, so that in His light we were able to see the light. God is passionless and He suffers no influence or impact from creatures even if it is an act of perception, therefore our mind is not able to percieve God by His energies on its own, but it needs a God’s energy to become its spiritual eye. Our mind on his own has only an ability to suffer God’s actions/energies, but not to actively percieve them (st. Maximus was differentiating these types of actions, as I remember: passively suffering or actively doing something).
It leaves the question about the booming voice from the Heaven, for example, unanswered. What was this voice - a uncreated energy or its created result, I don’t remember if the Fathers explained it (st. Gregory of Nyssa meantions it in his Against Eunomius as an example, that in contrary to creation only in such instances God adressed humans with the human words). So, your questions and doubts I cannot answer fully and will consider it myself further, but maybe I have given to your consideration something in regard to the possibility of all the energies of God being the divine light, no matter how differently the creatures may participate in it.
Thank you for your time and attention to my questions,
Yours truly, Alex.
Sorry, "principle" of existence - not "principal".
A Brief History of Predestination (missing part 4)
My Bible Study has been looking forward to it for a while after debating through first 3 parts
I'm delighted to hear a Bible study is working through that letter -- how fun! I hope it's been fruitful.
Agreed on A Brief History of Predestination (missing part 4)
My vote:
A Brief History of Predestination (missing part 4)
Thanks Dr Jacobs. A podcast on Mary Mother of God would be my preferred priority. I wonder if you might take the opportunity to cover how issues of corruptibility and free will would, in the mind of the Eastern Church Fathers, apply to Mary. Is Mary’s deification a sheer gift from God, and if so, why couldn’t that same gift have been given to all? Or perhaps is it in the mind of the Eastern Church Fathers the result of a perfect synergy or cooperation between herself and God? Is the effect of the Fall so serious that a person cannot help but sin (unless the person is immaculately conceived), or is the Fall perhaps not so grave, such that someone like Mary or Enoch could through synergy always choose the good over sin?
What a wonderful series of questions! I'd be delighted to do something on this, either as a letter or as a podcast. I'll keep that in mind once the loose threads are tied. Unfortunately, it would not be part of the existing Mary letter. (My theological letters are truly letters written to people in response to various questions, so the content of that series is already set.) However, it's a worthy topic I'd be happy to dive into. Thanks for your thoughts!