www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Joint Declaration - JPII and Bartholomew I about the Filioque?

Pseudo-Athanasius,

The first part of A. N. Williams' book (i.e., the part on Aquinas) is interesting, because she tries to reinterpret the Scholastic teaching on grace in order to make it less problematic in connection with the doctrine of theosis and the erroneous concept of "created" grace. But the second part of her book involves a gross misunderstanding of the nature of the distinction between essence and energy, since she tries to reduce this real distinction to an epistemic quality within man, rather than see it as an ontological quality inherent to the divine being itself.

Now, let me be clear about this, because as a Byzantine Christian I do not hold that the West has to use the exact same terminology as the East, but it does have to affirm the same theological content, and "created" grace is an oxymoron, because nothing created can deify a man. It should be noted that even A. N. Williams' attempt to reinterpret "created" grace as created only in the sense that it takes on the characteristics (i.e., the limitations) of its created recipient is problematic, because the Eastern doctrine affirms the exact opposite. In other words, the Byzantine tradition holds that by the power of grace (i.e., the divine energy) man takes on the characteristics of God.

Thus, the Eastern doctrine of theosis allows one to say that man, by participating in the uncreated divine energies, becomes unoriginate, uncreated, and without beginning and end, while the Western doctrine of "created" grace makes this reality impossible.

God bless,
Todd

Pseudo-Athanasius,

I understand what you want to do, but we cannot cover over all the differences between East and West as merely semantical in nature.

That said, I do not believe that the vision of God is, as you put it, "something created within us by the grace of God." The vision of God is an uncreated and enhypostatic encounter with God, it is eternal, and it makes us eternal, uncreated, and unoriginate. There is no such thing as "created" grace, nor a "created vision" of God. To see God one must become God, not in essence, but by participating in the uncreated Light and energy that flows out from the three divine persons to man as a gift, as a real participation in God's own uncreated life and glory.

God bless,
Todd

Dear Todd,

This, I find difficult to make sense of. Perhaps you can help me. I can see how the object of the vision can be uncreated, but I don't see how the subject of the vision, the one who sees, can be uncreated. My participation in God, as you say, is something that begins temporally, which is the mark of what it means to be created, isn't it?

I am created. My personal participation in divine grace is created. The divine grace isn't created. Does that make sense? Or are we talking past each other?

To see God a man must be given what St. Gregory Palamas calls the "eyes of the Spirit," that is, he must become God, because only God can see God, only the uncreated can see the uncreated. This is a principle that goes back to the Cappadocians, who insisted against the Pneumatomachian heretics that nothing created could divinize man.

No. In the Byzantine tradition your personal participation in divine grace is uncreated (cf. St. Gregory Palamas, The Triads, III, 1, 27-29). To be blunt, the Western teaching on "created" grace sounds Arian to an Eastern Christian.

No, I do not think that we are "talking past each other"; instead, I think that we (or better, that East and West) disagree with each other on this issue.

God bless,
Todd

Wait just a minute. Are you saying that Palamas is saying (my copy of the Triads is loaned out, so I can't check) that I participate in God from all eternity?

I, personally, I, Pseudo-Athanasius, created being that I am, participate in God eternally?

I'd like a quote, if you aren't too tired from typing.

Another book that talks about man becoming unoriginate by grace was published by SVS Press back in the 1980s:

Author: Georgios I. Mantzaridis
Title: The Deification of Man

He is saying that each man's gift of theosis is an unoriginate and eternal reality, because it is an uncreated and enhypostatic divine energy, and once a man participates in it, he becomes unoriginate and eternal. That is the whole point of theosis.

Do you believe that man becomes uncreated by grace?

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - Reread the text I posted from Palamas' writings where he speaks of St. Paul and Melchisedek becoming uncreated.

Again, I ask you: is my participation in God's grace eternal? Because that would mean that I am eternal.

It looks to me that there is a confusion here between the gift and the reception of the gift. The _gift_ is eternal, but my reception of it occurs at some point in time, certainly after my birth in 1971.

The phrase "to become uncreated" seems like nonsense to me, like square circle--to "become" means not to be uncreated. Thus, I must conclude either that "uncreated" is not applied properly to the person's participation, which certainly begins in time, or it refers in some way to participation in the uncreated. I become "uncreated" in the same way my sins are forgiven, through the action/energies/grace of God.

You must not, therefore, mean "unoriginate" literally--I still am a man with an origin in 1971, even after I participate in God's divine nature. Either you do not mean it literally, or I must conclude that you think that Christians not only live forever, but _have already lived forever_, since their gift of divine grace must be uncreated and therefore eternal.

Pre-existence of the soul?

By participation in the divine energies you have entered into eternity, you have become unoriginate (without begining and end) and uncreated.

As I said, East and West disagree on the nature of grace and theosis.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - As far as becoming "unoriginate" is concerned, I mean it literally, because the participation in the uncreated energies is real, and not merely volitional or nominal.

So, answer my question simply: have I always existed? You have not yet answered this question.

Did I pre-exist my birth?

Please give a yes or no answer.

By the way, I notice that the texts say "unoriginate by grace" which is not the same thing as "unoriginate absolutely."

Yes and no. Yes, in that you are participating in God's uncreated energies and have become timeless in the process; and, no, as far as your created nature is concerned, because in essence you remain a creature.

As I have said a number of times in this thread already, but which you apparently did not read; the deified man is both human and divine, created and uncreated, finite and infinite, and these paradoxical statements signify the mystery of what it is to participate in divinity through the uncreated divine energies.

Clearly, on this issue, East and West do not agree.

God bless,
Todd

P.S. - The change that occurs in man through the process of theosis is existential, and not essential.

Pseudo-Athanasius,

When you die and enter into the divine eternity, do you remain bound by time?

Well of course then we can just as well say that grace, which is God's participation in the life of a created soul, is created--because it exists in a a created being. And we can say that theosis is a participation in God's self knowledge, in which a creature cannot, by definition particpate fully, and therefore, cannot fully comprehend God. The beauty of this position of course is that it eliminates an unnecessary distinction between God and His Energies. What can be explained with more simplicity is more beautiful.

It is interesting to note that the Ukranian Catechism for children does not find it necessary teach of a distinction between God's essence and energies. With children one tends to limit one's teaching to what is necessary and absolutely known.

Finally, this comment from A.N. Williams is noteworthy:

.

I find Aquinas account of theosis far more in accord with the claim of what theosis is--becoming like unto God. For Aquinas, the vision is of God Himself, not his uncreated energies which are not Him. Aquinas of course, knowing that God cannot be comprehended by any creatures states:



Finally, Aquinas' view seems a little more consistent with Scripture:


1 John 3

In Aquinas' understanding we do actually become like Him, not like His Energies.

While I understand Palamas' views are consistent and logical, they seem to me to tend to take the notion of God's incomprehensibility too far--so far that he must posit, ucreated Energies which are not God. I don't find this distinction in Scripute explicity or implicitly

Psuedo-A:

Consider this possibility:


Part III Q 92 art 1.

Now that needs some unpacking, and i certainly don't intend to do that, but that sounds like theosis! And the subject of the vision becomes, well, in a sense, uncreated! God is the very form whereby he is known (though not comprehended)!