www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The doctrines of Providence and Uncreated Energies

Recently I was involved in a discussion regarding the filoque and uncreated energies. Well - the discussion did not go well - but - something started to crystallize - and here it is.

The doctrine of the East on uncreated energies - parallels or compares - to the doctrine in the West on Providence. And the comparable doctrine of the Jews is also Providence.

Wanting to remind myself of the doctrine, I went to Lossky (p 70-73) where the early form of the Eastern doctrine thought of - what would later be called the divine uncreated energies - as virtues.

In the Eastern doctrine the energies, in which God proceeds forth (into creation), are God himself but not his substance. These energies go forth and (into creation) and make God knowable to us. The energies are in the order of economy (right there - do you hear it?).

Athenagoras called them the �divine idea and energy� (using Plato�s concept of ideal - pattern - origin). This of course is St. John�s Logos (as I have written elsewhere). The Logos - the pattern of creation through which all things come to-be.

Lossky P. 71

[quote]
St Paul�s saying about the invisible things of God, His eternal power and His divinity - made visible since the creation of the world, is sometimes interpreted as meaning the Logos, �Power and Wisdom� who manifests the Father; sometimes in the more precise meaning of the �energies� �
[quote]

The East sez that the energies deify us (give us virtues). The West sez that the acts of Providence sanctify us. There of course are saying the same thing.

For the Jews - the doctrine beings in the name Elohim (He-the-gods) where it is Elohim who sez �let us form man into our own image�. One should know that the name Elohim is a summation of all the names (manifestations in history) of God recorded in the Jewish testament. El-Shaddi, Yahewh, etc.. etc� on to some 192 names) it is Elohim - who is the orgin and the essence of these epiphanies. A singular-zation of the plurals. He-the-gods. And it these manifestations of God within history (economy) which are the call to santification but it is the name of God Yahweh - which is the covenant God who performs the santification on God's people. Anyway - for those who lack the capability to read the Hebrew of the Old Testament - believe me... the comparison here is it is Elohim which is the origin of the command ("let us make man in our image") but it is Yahweh who goes out into creation (economy) and does it. It is Yahweh who speacks face to face with Moses and make that covenant - it is Yahweh who promises to come to his people (this is obsured by the mis-translation of the name I-AM which means in the Hebrew "I am coming" - tell them I AM COMING sent you.")and it is Christ who give this name in responce to the High Priest's demand "I adjure you - by the living God - are you the Son of God? - to which Jesus answers with his name "I-AM" - a multipurpose answer which - floors everyone there. The one who was coming - has arrived! Yahweh himself who spoke with Moses! Greater than Moses and certainly greater then the High Priest presiding over the trial!

To the Christian - these manifestations in history (translated in the english as simply God or LORD but preseved in the Hebrew as the many names of God) are known as the �plan of salvation� leading up to the appearance of Christ. In other words - Providence - acting within economy.

It is clear that, common to them all (the Eastern uncreated energies, the Latin doctrine of Providence, and the Jewish doctrine of the manifestations of God) is that they recognize that it is the - act - of God - which sanctifies (deifies in the Greek thought) - us.

Within Catholic theology - there is a difference between the actor (the essence) and the act itself. This is also clearly expressed in the Eastern form (uncreated energies) when it make the difference between the essence or substance of God (the actor) and his divine energies as they do their work on us in the theater of creation.

Eastern theology is old Greek based in terms. Using the form of Greek philosophy at the time. It makes use of physical images and experiences - to say its part - and often uses a negation of a physical thing or experience - to point to something which it is likened to (but should not be thought of a physical). This is much closer to cosmogony (the time surrounding Plato). It is a language of theology - a language based upon physical experiences.

Latin (Western theology) - using post-Plato and developed upon Aristotle and the Latin language and experience. IN the development of philosophy from cosmogony to the start of philosophy as it is known today - it is a language of theology - a language based upon mental experiences.
The term un-created energies - is drawn from the experience of the natural forces (wind, rain, storms, water currents, fire, etc�) those natural forces which shape the earth. Today we call the natural forces of nature he time when Eastern theology was being solidified (at the peak of the scholastic schools of the Byzantine Empire) there were called energies (we now say forces).

To modify the thought of these - created energies (wind, rain, storms etc�) the prefix of �Uncreated� is placed - which make the phrase apophatic - in other words - a negation of the idea of natural forces. This is clearly an apophatic case of �it is likened to - but is not the same as�. So these energies spoke of here (indicated by the doctrine) are not catophatic (posit) but apophatic (negated). An indicator - a pointer - to an empty space (meaning they are not really given any existence as substance or essence).

They remain (as they do in Catholic theology) and action of God within the economy of creation - which job they do is to sanctify us and make God known to us in some way (the way remains unspecified).

That which the un-created energies do - is form or give us - virtues. In the early form of the Eastern doctrine the energies and virtues - were synonymous (the same).

I had sometimes wondered - where is the doctrine of Providence - in Eastern theology? Some Eastern saints and fathers do sometimes use the term �Providence� but seldom. So it was clear to me the notion which compares to the Latin doctrine of the work of Providence upon us - existed within the Eastern frame work - in some way.

And now - it makes itself clear.

Eastern : the uncreated energies within creation (economy) which deify us with virtues.

Eastern: uncreated energies = Logos in action.

Latin: the actions of Providence within creation (economy) that sanctify us with virtues.

Latin: Providence = Logos in action.

Providence and uncreated energies - that which does the work on us - while we progress through the three stages of spiritual growth (purgation, enlightenment, union).

That which is called the doctrine of Providence in Latin theology - is called the doctrine of Uncreated Energies in Eastern theology. There is absolutely no doubt about it.

Because we have free will and God will not violate that - our daily cooperation is necessary. God does not sanctify us against our will and without our cooperation. Our cooperation with the divine energies and divine providence (one and the same) is cooperation with the actions of God as shapes us. Which is to say - as God forms us within the events and circumstance of daily life - which have the task of creating within us - all the virtues (patience, charity, firmness, courage, tolerance, temperance, etc�). It is by these virtue that we are formed (deified) into the likeness of God. It is by attention to conscience - through out the day - that we are prompted on how to act when we find ourselves in whatever situation and circumstance God has arranged for us that day and throughout the day.

- - - - - - - - -

I will not entertain any arguments on this subject. (and I am pretty sure there will be some). This post is for those who desire to breath with both lungs - and not for those who prefer one lung to the other. I will clarify what I can for anyone who sends me a private message.

Cheers.
-ray

Ray,

Are you saying this is a one-sided post or may it be discussed by others? If not, I don't think it would be fair to the members that want to discuss this. If it is a one-sided post then it should not have been posted.

In IX XC,
Father Anthony+
Moderator

Ray,

May I recommend a book called "Aristotle East and West: Metaphysics and the Division of Christendom" by Professor David Bradshaw (Professor of Philosophy, University of Kentucky)? It was just published in 2004 by Cambridge. In the book, Bradshaw traces the development of the idea of "energeia" (which is the Greek word that's been translated "energy") and shows how it works its way from Aristotle, through the Hellenistic philosophers, on through Plotinus and into the West and the East. Although you've said you'll not address arguments on this subject, you might want to look into the book, as the origin of the notion of divine "energy" that Bradshaw discovers is decidedly different from the one you present here. Perhaps most importantly, Aristotle coins the term "energeia" in reference to things quite unlike natural forces as you describe them, and the idea goes through quite interesting development unassociated with the forces of nature for a number of centuries. Also, the history of the notion of "energy" that he presents demonstrates rather forcefully that they were often held to be really existing things. I just thought you might be interested, since you seem concerned with many of the issues Bradshaw addresses.

Take care, and God bless,
Jason

No Father I am just saying that - I - will not argue with anyone on it.

No one need believe me, and I may not have stated it well. Anyone can think what they want. And I am not the moderator. We tale of lofty things in here but it remains just a discussion area on the internet. Any one (of course) can kick it around in any way they like. That is taken for granted.

In my own joy it did not dawn on me that some others already knew it. But I myself will not enter into any debates about it if that debate would harm unity between the churches. I do not want it (my joy at discovery) to be the cause for argument, separation, division, etc... between members of the churches� such a thing should not be a cause of division. Nor is there any chance that anyone can change my mind. Except for Alex

But - Who am I anyway? � no one.

It is unimportant to mostly anyone. My own joy - got me carried away and I thought that some who breath by two lungs might find it interesting.

I have no problem if you want to delete this thread.

-ray

Where do you get that Yahweh means "I am coming"? That doesn't fit any Hebrew explaination of it I've ever heard, from folks who read and teach Hebrew.

I'm just curious where you got that, and if you can cite it, as it's a much different meaning, and quite contrary to the Jewish and tradition Christian understanding of it.

God Bless!

Ray,

No, I just want to make sure that if others want to discuss it to let them. I understand your reluctance, but I am sure other will want to discuss it. Thanks.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+

I paraphrased a bit. If you have studied the subject you know there is no English translisteration (word for word subsitution) possible here.

I got mine from my own study of the Hebrew. But - I am aware that a priest (I do not know which church) wrote a whole book on it. I never read the book. I have no need to. But I did read a review on it years after I did my own study - and - from the review - we agreed.

The structure of Hebrew - is a two or three character root (consonants). From that root - we have the essential meaning of the word and it is a wide meaning. The word can be restricted in meaning by context or by spoken vowels (the Masorite text uses Chaldean marks to indicate vowel pronunciation). Or the word can be restricted by other factors. It is a very poetic language and there are three forms of Hebrew (biblical, poetic, and common).

Biblical Hebrew is the most inflective. There is a primary meaning of the word and there may be several secondary meanings. A poor way to say it is - that Biblical Hebrew is chuck full of double entandas. Exactly which meaning of the word should be primary - depends upon several factors (I am making this short here).

For example: Most of the Psalms use a simple poetic style which is called a quatrain (four related lines � line 1 is related to line 3 and line 2 is related to line 4) so one can check the meaning of a word by seeing how a subject or action is used in line one - and then how it is used in line 4.

The quatrains are grouped into three sections. And by knowing which section it is in � you have context to know if it is primarily a physical experience, a mental experience, or a spiritual experience being referred to. Also � since many of the Psalms contain oracles (the original name of the book of the psalms is �The Oracles of God�) by knowing how a dialog like this is structured in Hebrew literature � one now knows who the speaker is. There are only three choices of speaker.

1. Yahwah (either directly of through an intermediary (and that may shift on-the-fly).

2. The seer speaking to his readers

3. The seer speaking in response to the dialog.


There are three levels to many parts of scripture � especially to the prophetic books (Genesis, the prophets, Revelations, etc..) � the levels are a literal meaning, a moral meaning, a spiritual meaning. Of these � one level will be primary (and the other two secondary).

Blah blah blah�

Which was said only to demonstrate that � there are many ways to check the choice of what one should select as tranlation. And of course the translator is always aware that by choosing one way (the best to the overall narration) he must lose the width of the other inflections. He must sometimes select a secondary meaning (and ignore the primary) because it fits the literal (story) better. No tranlation from one languge to the other can cary all the tight inflections of the orginal language. It is just impossible. Period.

My own particular method is that when �all- the secondary inflections � also fit the surrounding context � you can pretty much bet you have nailed the intended meaning. A simple way to say this is that all the double entandras need to also fit. If one selects a primary meaning � and the secondary meaning are now off into left field � one may have saved the sense of the literal narration as a story � but at the expense of intended inflections. So the story will make good reading to the average Joe � but seriously lack for the person who wishes to do real study.

Back to �I AM�

Ehyeh asher Ehyeh

All the names of God in the Old Testament leading up to Sinai � are names according to a human experience - had. A theophany. Mant - theophanies.

They are verbs. An action, a human experience.

(we disregard here such titles as The Might One, King of Kings, etc� which are either royal titles or clearly attributes).

El-Shaddi, Elyon, Eloah, Elyon EL, etc.. etc�

Except two names � two names alone - Elohim and Yahweh � break this mold.

The name Elohim (He-the-gods) is a round up of all the theophanies. A singular-sation of the plurals. It is the origin of all other theophanies. So it is a summation of all the gods (teophanies) into one-ness. It is their origin or starting point.

When used in another context (the golden calf is also called �elohim�) it is the break up � the fragmentation � of the One-god into many gods. It can be used for (what we call) and angel � or a temple official � or government official (temple and government being the same) � local judges were called elohim� and this line�

�You are gods�� (Jesus in the gospels)

is properly �You are elohim� and in the proper context means (he was speaking to some Pharisees sent by the Temple) ... �You are appointed representatives of the government�� � and not the common notion we most often give it. Jesus was not calling them deities � he was saying that they are the appointed - representatives - of God. Their authority comes from God but they were misusing it.

So the name Elohim � rounds up all the experiences had � and places them into the un-knowable God-head - or � reflects that the one being indicated is an official representative of the King (God himself) in some way.

So you see the translators conundrum. Shall he transliterate � or paraphrase? In either way some of the original intention is lost.

All the names of God are taken from theophanies except Elohim (which sums up all theoaphanies into the One-ness of the unknowable Godhead. It is the grand � theolophany � which we can not experience directly � but in only in lesser fragments.

Get the picture?

Now that brings us to � the name Yahweh. And it is a name and not a title nor attribute.

Yahweh is the name form of the famous � �I AM�. The temple itself was the 'LBYT YHWH' the House of Yahweh� the god of the covenant. The King of Israel which sat (in mysterious and invisible presence) upon the seat of the Ark (which was a throne and not exclusive to just Israel). On all other thrones � sat a human king � but on the throne of Israel � sat the mysterious presence of Providence. Eventually Israel demanded of Samuel � a human king.

The name of Yahweh first appears into history, when Moses has his theophany on Sinai. Although the name does appear in the narrations of Genesis (Yahweh-elohim) it is to be remembered that Moses authored Genesis (don�t believe the poppy cock that it is a compilation of legends and not a work entirely written by Moses himself).

So � we are now on Sinia � standing with Moses and we can ease-drop.

(I now quote from one of my early studies)
As I said - all the secondary inflections must also fit.

So we must add to the thought of �I will prove to them my existence� the additional thought of �something that is not yet completed. Something � yet - to come.

Now that is interesting - because all other names of God are named for an expereince - already - had. But this name - is an expereince - yet to come!

This makes the entire meaning of the name Yawheh break down to a simple paraphrase of �Tell them � I am coming� or �Tell them - my theophany is coming�.

This need not be complicated - it was meant not to be myterious. No slave in Egypt would accept some mysterious utterance and risk thier lives in following Moses over it. So the name of Yahweh (as opposed to any other god who remained an object of worship from afar) spoke of a god who was going to come into the expereince of his people and live with them.

This is the way I see it.

If I can find the name of the book in which that priest comes to a similar conclusion - I will post it. But usually only the books that repeat the popular and accepted beliefs - sell. So it may be out of print.

-ray

I do not know how to express it well in short posting space, but believe me� the names of God are either attributes, titles, or a theophany. Yahweh is a theophany.

�What theophany shall I give them�

The theophany here � is not to Moses � it is to the people.

�Tell them � I will prove to them my existence�

in short � I am coming.

On the day that Jesus answer the question of Caiaphas (�I adjure you by the living God � are you the son of God?�) this was to say �Are you the one that was to come? Are you Yahweh?�

And Jesus answer �You bet your boots I am. I am Yahweh.�

This, of course, floored all who heard it. Stunned � is not the word.

Either Jesus was an insane fake � or he was Yahweh.

And that is why Caiaphas cut everything short with his flamboyant ripping of his robes. No way � was he going to let the Sanhedrin decided for itself � after THAT type of pronouncement. If the Sanhedrin had decided in Jesus favor � Caiaphas would have to immediately � step down � Jesus be enthroned � and the one who spoke face to face with Moses � recognized.

One must realize � the immensity of this shock.

If the theophany of Yahweh was fulfilled to his people (keep in mind the name was to be given to the people) with the miracles of Exodus � nothing more would have been expected. But Moses with his parting speech � reminds them of the one still yet to come � and the prophets after him do the same � the theophany expected � was not yet fulfilled. Christs answer to the High Priest said "This is it! I am the theophany Moses told you about."

-ray

Dear Ray,

I was trying to put together the concept of uncreated energies, etc. and relate it to what was being said, but found it quite difficult. Fortunately, Ecce Jason said that 'energies' comes from the Greek word 'energeia'. Well I know a little Greek and am able to 'think' within Greek.

Now every word in Greek is basically a verb, and energeia in Greek would relate more to 'one's workings' rather than the concept formed by the noun 'energy' that is used in English.

So....thinking in terms of the uncreated 'workings' of God makes it far easier to comprehend and relate.

Zenovia

Yes it does.

The Eastern angle of the view seems to be on the vitures (a result of the workings of God) while the angle of the view of the West is more on the events and situation that this 'working' comes by - but of course - the subject are the virtues and the 'working' as it works on us.

My previous take on uncreated energies was that it was more concerned with the 'after life' - but putting it in perspective alone side the Latin doctrine of Providence - it seems that the uncreated energies should be thought of as happening within our life down here. The path of mystical union and the mystical marriage.

In the Hebrew (always going back to the cosmogony of Moses) the four rivers that feed the garden of eden (all-Providence) are the four cardinal virtues. The names of these rivers are given in my study on Genesis and Philo and one of the early desert father I quote - agree - that the one river which separates into four rivers - represents - virtues.

This brings up and interesting idea that, while we say �practice the virtue� as if they can become human habit - it would indicate that this is not the case. They can not become human habit. Our habit can be to cooperate with virture - but it does not come from us nor can we produce them. We - cooperate with them. We �eventually come to know� that cooperation with virtures is good for us (as many times as we leave them).

This seems to remind me of the Greek myths - the opposite of the furries (which always seemed to me to be the agitations of vice). Now it seems to me that there were a group - the opposite of furries - which were virtues. I will have to look that up.

The funny thing is that while we recognize the parallels of the Greek gods - with our physiological in-scape - we do not recognize the contents of Moses� own cosmogony in that way. Adam = intellect and Eve = will. Some of our finest theologians and mystics have said this - but we tend to turn it all into an idol of literal meaning (we all subscribe to Creationalism in some way).

Which makes on think - no wonder it was so easy to translate Semetic-Catholic theology - through Greek! And while the �gods� of so many surrounding cosmogonies were condemned - it is curious that the early Greek fathers spent little to no time - blaming Greek myth for its �gods�.

Greek mythology developed into Greek philosophy - and Greek philosophy was �ready to go� to express catholic theology! With nary a look back (by the Greek fathers) to express any condemnation of early Greek myth (which was still available in pockets).

That - is quite interesting. Certainly (as I remember some of the documents of the early councils) the condemnation went out for many cosmological systems (Latin, Egyptian, etc�) but only selected Greeks (who would have been seems as wackos by the true line of Greek philosophers) were mentioned as wackos by councils.

Anyway - these are just random and unproven thoughts.

-ray

Dear Ray,

I regret that I am not as scholarly as you, but your thoughts make great sense to me. Also, I appreciate and understand your comments about not intending to argue these points. Would that we had more who were willing to delve into spiritual matters seeking unity and common understanding. For this, I am truly grateful, for I see the Holy Trinity at work.

O Lord, have mercy upon your servants and grant us to seek your face.

strugglin' through, Tammy

Dear Tammy,

Ray is a source of great wisdom, spiritual enlightenment and philosophy.

In Christ,
Alice

Most other times I am a great source of foolishness and buffoonery.

You are very kind Alice.

May heaven be populated with such sweet souls as yours (as I am sure ... it is!).

-ray

Dear Ray,

I can't imagine your buffoonery, but I have read your enlightened 'wisdom'. Although I can't follow your posts completely, (I have a concentration problem), they have given me plenty of food for thought. Thanks!

Zenovia