Eastern Orthodox Christians hold that there are three things that God is comprised of: the Essence, the Energies, and the Hypostasis. The Essence of God is entirely unknowable in Eastern Orthodoxy. The energies are the uncreated light or actions of God. The Hypostasis is the persons who are distinct but are related to the Divine essence. Now what is the problem with all this?
Well it seems to me that there is at least one thing they know about the Divine Essence, namely, that they cannot know anything about it. They would end up knowing something about a unknowable thing which is a contradiction. Contradictions are necessarily false and this view of the Divine Essence is contradictory. Therefore, it would seem to follow that Eastern Orthodoxy which embraces this view of the Divine Essence is necessarily false.
Nathanael, actually the E.O. (or "Cappadocian") understanding of God's 'essence' is one of the orthodox teachings of E.O. Luther and Calvin both taught that God's essence was unknowable.
ReplyDeleteBefore this idea is dismissed as a simple self-contradiction, you should seek a clearer understanding of it. It does not mean that it is unknown that God 'is' or has an essence. The idea of God's being or essence is "what God is in-and-of-Himself."
Certainly it is known that God 'is' and is "in-and-of-Himself". This we call God's aseity or self-existence. He is independent of everything other than Himself, and everything other than Himself that exists depends on Him for its existing.
Calvin says that as God reveals Himself in Scripture "He is described not as He is in Himself, but in relation to us" (Inst. I.x.2).
This revealed and knowable "relation to us" is God's nature or character, attributes/perfections (what E.O. calls "energies") in distinction from God's substance/essence.
Hello Baus,
ReplyDeleteCould not essence be known analogically in Reformed thought? This what Michael Horton and others who are Reformed think. So in other words: to escape the problem from a Reformed perspective one could say that one knows analogically that we cannot know God univocally. So this would seem to escape the problem of incoherence. If it be charged that this does not then we should probably abandon this perspective because it is hopeless incoherent (just like I reject Calvin's view that Mary was a perpetual virgin).
I do not see how anything you have said above resolves this tension that I have laid out. And also Eastern thinkers reject that notion that God being is or that it does exist. So I think you are trying to draw parallels between the East and the West that simply do not exist.
In Christ,
Nate
I think you are misunderstanding this idea of God's "essence" as unknowable. There is no contradiction or incoherence involved.
ReplyDeleteLet me get at part of it this way: Can we know something (analogically or otherwise) about God if He never reveals it?
Of course, no one can know such a thing in any way.
Now consider that when God reveals who He is, He is specifically revealing "Who-He-is-in-relation-to-His-creatures". In other words, Calvin considers claims to knowledge about God's "essence" as impious speculations, because God does not reveal "Who-He-is-in&of-Himself".
You'd have a really hard time showing from Scripture anything about God's essence (other than the fact of His aseity). He has not revealed Himself in any other way than "clothed by His Word" (including all creation) "in-relation-to-us".
I don't know of anywhere that Horton posits a contrary view. And this is exactly what R.S.Clark is getting at in his Recovering The Reformed Confession pages 138-142. He just doesn't mention that it is not only the Reformer's view, but also that of the Cappadocian Fathers (and others).
"Let me get at part of it this way: Can we know something (analogically or otherwise) about God if He never reveals it?
ReplyDeleteOf course, no one can know such a thing in any way."
My Response: If does not reveal something about himself then we should remain agnostic about it, we should not make universal statements like we can know nothing about God essence (in any sense even analogically).
You'd have a really hard time showing from Scripture anything about God's essence (other than the fact of His aseity). He has not revealed Himself in any other way than "clothed by His Word" (including all creation) "in-relation-to-us".
My Response: Romans 1:20 says we can know the divine essence, so apparently God has clearly revealed this. There is the scripture verse about God's essence that we know analogically.
I don't know of anywhere that Horton posits a contrary view. And this is exactly what R.S.Clark is getting at in his Recovering The Reformed Confession pages 138-142. He just doesn't mention that it is not only the Reformer's view, but also that of the Cappadocian Fathers (and others).
My Response: Horton and Clark are in agreement. Clark no where denies that we cannot have analogical knowledge of God's essence through his works, but what he does deny is that we can have any univocal knowledge of God in-himself.
Lastly, you have said that there is no contradiction here, but you have not demonstrated how this is not a contradiction.
Grace and Peace,
Nate
Romans 1:20 says that God reveals in relation to us (seen through what is made) that He is/has an eternal power and He is Divine. These are seen from what is made: God made all things and they depend on Him for their existence and God Himself depends on nothing. (Paul repeats this point on Mars Hill. Acts 17:24-29).
ReplyDeleteHe reveals that He has aseity, but what He is in Himself, He does not reveal, and so we cannot know because we cannot know anything unrevealed.
I've just shown that the idea is coherent.
I'm almost positive Clark agrees with me, so it's worth asking him about this exchange.
I wonder if you read those pages. I think Clark pretty much denies there is analogical knowledge of God's essence (aseity; in-Himself-ness) since it is unrevealed by Him.
Romans 1:20 says that God reveals in relation to us (seen through what is made) that He is/has an eternal power and He is Divine. These are seen from what is made: God made all things and they depend on Him for their existence and God Himself depends on nothing. (Paul repeats this point on Mars Hill. Acts 17:24-29).
ReplyDeleteMy Response: Yes, so we know that God has a divine nature which means we know something about God, namely that he has a divine nature. The eastern orthodox would deny that. So again I do not think this has anything to do with eastern theology, especially of the contemporary variety. They would say that you cannot know that God has a divine nature, at all. They would say that God does not even exist and we cannot make any known predication about God with respect to his essence.
He reveals that He has aseity, but what He is in Himself, He does not reveal, and so we cannot know because we cannot know anything unrevealed.
Response: Yeah, again this is not the eastern position I was arguing against. The East would deny what you have said above (that we know that God is a-se). I would say that we do not know God in-himself or univocally. Univocal predication would be knowing God in a sense at which God knows himself.
I've just shown that the idea is coherent.
My Response: Not the eastern orthodox position which is what this blog post is about. I would even question the way you have put your formulation, I think it may still have some problems:
If God has revealed that we cannot know anything unrevealed and he his essence is unrevealed then we would know at least one thing about his essence, namely that we cannot know anything about it. So I do not think you have done much here to get you out of this problem. In fact if this is what you think that scriptures teaches then you have made the scriptures hopeless contradictory and irrational which goes against this scripture as well 1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called "knowledge,"
I think it would more reasonable to say something like this:
I know analogically that I do not have univocal knowledge of God's essence. And then no one can say "well you at least know one thing univocally about God's essence, namely that you cannot know anything about it" My response would be: No, I know that truth about God's essence analogically. See that seems a much more reasonable and consistent expression of the Reformed doctrine of God.
I'm almost positive Clark agrees with me, so it's worth asking him about this exchange.
I wonder if you read those pages. I think Clark pretty much denies there is analogical knowledge of God's essence (aseity; in-Himself-ness) since it is unrevealed by Him.
My Response: I will make it a point to try to talk to him about it this week.
Grace and Peace,
Nate
OK. I think our primary disagreement is about what constitutes the E.O. view. I take the Cappadocian view to be E.O.; Basil and the Gregories don't deny we know that God is a-se.
ReplyDeleteI don't know of any E.O. view that is the sort of incoherent knowledge claim against possibility of knowledge claims.
Here is a link to Basil's 234th Letter where he talks about this doctrine. Calvin seems in agreement with Basil.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf208.ix.ccxxxv.html
If I may interject briefly, I think we need to carefully define what knowing God in his essence entails. Calvin specifically said that those who try to find out WHAT God is in His essence are mad. Dr. Horton has stated that he agrees but we can know WHO God is from His actions. So another question to ask is, Can we know who God is in His essence? But the question is often framed as if we can only speak of essence if we mean the WHAT of God, which by all accounts is impossible to know.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the Cappodocian = EO comment, I don't feel that we can make such a broad generalization. Though EO (much like Roman Catholicism) would claim the unadulterated, utterly pristine transmission of tradition for 2,000 years, history says otherwise. While the Cappodocian fathers certainly influenced EO, the EO we know today is far more influenced, in my opinion, by John Damascus, Pseudo Dionysius, Maximus the Confessor and Gregory of Palamus. These theologians moved well beyond the Cappodocians in many ways. Specifically, mystical theology as taught by Dionysius and mediated by Maximus came to dominate. And this is where we see the tension of knowing vs. unknowing. According to the Neoplatonic scheme, we must first 'unknow' by meditation and contemplation and thus ascend higher and return to God through theosis. Given the Dionysian schema inherited from Neoplatonism, we can and must seek to know God in His essence since we are ascending back to the ONE. But we must first unknow in order to begin this process. So, it seems like we move from equivocity right to univocity. This is not to say that this view = EO, but certainly has influenced its most prominent theologians through the centuries.
All this to say, there are different interpretations of EO and its concept of knowing God in His essence. Robert Letham, who is a world-class scholar, certainly adopts this criticism that Nate is getting at. But, then again, Horton claims that Letham misunderstands the true EO position and would have sympathies with Baus on this issue.
So, two questions that might further the conversation:
1. Can we know WHO God is in His essence as opposed to WHAT He is? Is this a legitimate distinction?
2. Are we adopting the Cappodocian model (which would correspond more with the Reformed view of the analogy of being) or the Dionysian Neoplatonic view? I think Nate is assuming the latter view and attacking that. However, Dionysius would respond that we DO increasingly know God in His essence. So, while it might be true that we initially can know nothing about God in His essence your argument assumes a static and linear non-progression whereas Neoplatonism assumes a dynamic and hierarchical progression. Since all things proceed from and revert back to the One, it would be absurd to Dionysius if we said we could not know Him in His essence.
You are right about Letham and his Critiques Gary. The reason why Horton thinks that his critiques are misplaced is because of the fact that he introduces analogy into the picture. It must be admitted that if analogy is introduced then the essence/energies distinction is perfectly legitimate. However, this is not what the Eastern Orthodox hold to because they think that analogy is illegitimate, they only hold to univocal and equivocal predication. Therefore, the essence/energies distinction as held to by contemporary eastern orthodoxy is incoherent therefore, eastern orthodoxy is hopelessly incoherent.
ReplyDeleteThree things:
ReplyDelete1) I don't think that Calvin held to an "analogical" view. His view of divine accommodation is not that of analogy. One does not need analogy for the essence&energy scheme to be legit.
2) It also doesn't appear to me that E.O. only holds to either univocal or equivocal. Isn't that the point of the post-Cappadocian mysticism? It is (for them) a non-intellectual knowing. It's a kind of knowing to which the categories of univocity and equivocity do not apply, because it's not a matter of conception or intellection. (although we would deny that there is such a knowing).
3) I think that "WHO" God is in 'a-se' essence is the same question as "what". In either case, neither can be known since neither is revealed.
In response to three things:
ReplyDelete1. If Calvin didn't hold to what we call 'analogy' then what would we call it?
2. I would disagree that the point of mysticism in the EO strain is to be non-intellectual. My point was that it is a progressive ascension from unknowing to knowing. The mystics certainly did claim to know a lot of things, but this is a process. So, using the ladder of being analogy, there does seem to be a movement from almost equivocal knowledge up to univocal.
3. Just to clarify, are you asserting that Calvin rejected analogy but that EO holds to it? That would be surprising indeed.
grhodes, do you see Calvin speaking of analogy anywhere? His view is "Divine Accommodation". That is pretty standard usage (as far as I'm aware).
ReplyDeleteBaus, if you are asking where Calvin uses the word 'analogy' I can't point to a particular place off hand. But, would that be necessary if what he says amounts to the doctrine of analogy? Perhaps I just can't discern the difference between divine accommodation and analogy. The very act of accommodation seems to imply that our knowledge is analogical of God's. Otherwise, what is being accommodated? Calvin certainly wouldn't say that our knowledge is equivocal and therefore we must be agnostic about every Scriptural truth. Nor would he say that we can know anything the way God knows it or that we can know God in His essence. So, I ask again, is there a real difference or is this hair splitting? If you want to say that Calvin's view is not fully developed to the extent of later Protestant Scholasticism then I grant that. However, this is akin to saying, as some have tried to assert, that because Calvin didn't deal with or spell out precisely Limited Atonement that he rejected it. If you can precisely define the difference between analogy and divine accommodation I might grant your point.
ReplyDeleteThe difference between metaphor and analogy might help. When Scripture speaks of God's arm, this is metaphorical language to speak of a univocal truth (viz, God's powerful working).
ReplyDeleteGod accommodates Himself to us by way of covenant, and accommodates His language in Scripture. But the accommodated revelation is a revelation of univocal truths.
This is Calvin's view.
There is no doctrine of analogy with Calvin.
I know VanTillians don't like it, but analogical views of God are seriously problematic. The Cappadocian/Calvinist view helps resolve those problems.
Hello Baus,
ReplyDeleteI spoke with Dr. Clark personally and he told me that he holds to analogical predication of the divine essence. He says that univocal predication would be predications of God in-himself. So my solution then still stands for the analogical view and it seems like my critique of Orthodoxy still stands. Therefore, if someone does not hold to either univocal or analogical knowledge of the divine essence then it seems like they fall into incoherence as demonstrated in this post. Calvin is not really a concern because after all he was wrong about the perpetual virginity of Mary.
Blessings,
Nate
oh, dear. Well, I guess I was giving Clark too much credit as I read him in RRC.
ReplyDeleteTo identify univocal predication as "predications of God in-Himself" is seriously confused.
And the idea that we can know God in His essence in some analogical way is impossible.
I hope you'll give it some more research.
(You're dismissal of Calvin wasn't serious was it?)
Baus,
ReplyDelete"To identify univocal predication as "predications of God in-Himself" is seriously confused."
Then what does the statement "God is good" mean, on your view? Is it a univocal predication? If so, of what?
Also, I'm unclear on the distinction you've drawn between analogy and metaphor. Would you mind elaborating? After all, if someone asked "What's a good analogy for God's power?", you could respond, "Well, it's like a guy with massive biceps arm-curling a mountain." Is that analogy or metaphor or both?
ReplyDeleteTo say "God is good" is to predicate goodness of God, which is to say something about God's revealed relation to us. That is, it is about God's nature or character ("energies"). It is univocal predication.
ReplyDeleteYour "it's like a guy..." is a linguistic simile, but the question of Vantillian analogical reasoning about God raises other issues. I'll look for a discussion on the topic and link it here, if I can find something helpful.
I have found this essay helpful:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.allofliferedeemed.co.uk/Clouser/divine accommodation.pdf
Baus,
ReplyDeleteCan we only predicate goodness of God's energies? Can we say that God in Himself is also good in some sense, or no? Can we predicate anything at all of God in Himself (His essence)?
David, what may be predicated of God's essence is that it is. He is in-and-of-Himself. God has aseity. This is the eternal power and divinity that known. What He is apart from relation to us, He has not revealed and thus we cannot know.
ReplyDeleteTo predicate goodness of God is not to say what He is as He is in-Himself, for He has revealed His goodness only as He has revealed Himself in relation to us.
I hope you and Nathanael and Gary will read the essay I linked and offer your feedback.
Concluding that one cannot know something has not to do with knowing the subject of wonder, but the wondering subject.
ReplyDeleteSuppose I were to be at a beach and unable to swim. If I were to say, "The depths of the ocean are unknowable," I am making a conclusion about the ocean not because of the presence of knowledge with regards to the ocean, but with regards to my 'inability' in relation to the little I do know of the ocean. I, in my sensory experience, make a conclusion about that which I cannot perceive (the deep) based upon what I can perceive (the shore). At the very least, my conclusions of the ocean can only be accused of assumption, not falsehood.
It seems that your argument is a classic philosopher's trap: manipulating an opponent's language for the purpose of self-validating a preexisting conclusion.