God's Essence and Energies

Prolegomena

In the historic theology of the Church, there is often reference to distinctions vice separations. This is part of a constant effort to enumerate differences when that is necessary, while maintaining unity. It is how the Divine Trinity is capable of being discussed, when virtually all rational understanding or definition of the Trinity is impossible. Nevertheless, we are able to discuss it if we’re careful to describe the distinctions of the Godhead, while maintaining the unity. Often the distinctions are spoken of as being “real,” as opposed to merely “theoretical.” This is to emphasize the fact that there are true and absolute realities in existence, which are real, actual, and can be known, even though they are unknowable by experimental or rational means. They may be known, however, by “experiential” knowledge through the worship and sacraments of the Church. This suggests a potential bridge between some of the Protestant/Evangelical theologians and true historical theology. Some, like Wesley, and Finney in particular placed a significant emphasis on “experience” rather than mere intellectualization or rational knowledge of God as revealed in the Scriptures. Finney in particular showed a remarkable understanding of the writings of the early Eastern Church Fathers, with a particular distain for the Augustinian/Calvinist concept of “original sin,” which, in his opinion, made God the author of sin, and resulted in an abdication of individual responsibility for one’s sins. More will be discussed about this later, from the perspective of the Eastern Fathers.

I. The Divine Oiconomia (Economy) and the distinction between Essence and Energies

The manner in which God reveals Himself in His creation is not through revealing His essence, but by making Himself known through the Divine oiconomia: i.e., His work in the creation. His work in His creation is accomplished through what the Fathers describe as His “energies.” This work and manifestation of God’s energies began through a progressive revelation of Himself first through the Prophets and the giving of the Law, and is culminated in the miraculous incarnation of Jesus Christ, and subsequent formation the Church, which is His body. “God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” (Hebrews 1:1-3)
An important aspect of this work of God is that these energies are actually God Himself, i.e., His presence and grace, but are distinct from His essence. If, however, the Divine energies are not indeed God Himself, then the energies are something separate and different from God (i.e., created) and then true communion with God cannot occur. Augustine did not make the clear differentiation between the Energies being God Himself but not His essence, and in fact was the first Christian writer to set forth the idea that grace was thus “created” for man. The problem here is that then grace becomes disconnected from God and therefore part of the “finite” creation along with all other created things. The true Apostolic Fathers of both East and West understood clearly that grace was the “uncreated” energy of God, distinct from His essence, but nevertheless God Himself. Among those who specifically articulated this was St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359), considered to be “the last Father of Church” and the greatest articulator of the doctrine of “deification,” which is the doctrine of salvation in the Eastern Church. He asked, “How shall we be deified if the grace and glory of God are finite? How do we participate in the divine Nature if grace is not somehow an extension of it?” For Augustine, however, grace is a divine but “created” force, whereby God compels the will of man from evil to do good and negates the consequences of “original sin” in those who are baptized. Original sin for Augustine meant that not only do we suffer from the effects of Adams sin, we are corporately guilty of it as well—a concept totally foreign to the Eastern Patristic consensus. To him, the grace of the Sacrament of Baptism is given to “many” while on the “few” (…those who had been predestined) is imposed irresistibly “the grace of perseverance,” which denies apostasy to the elect. For him also saving grace is compulsory, because, if freely given, the wicked nature of man would reject it. This doctrine of grace would eventually be adopted by all of the Reformers as “their own.” The resultant experience of the believer, therefore, with this type of grace becomes merely communion with a created thing. No doubt St. Gregory Palamas was referring to St. Peter who declared that we are to be “partakers of the Divine Nature,” through the worship of the Church (1 Peter 1:4). This means that through the mysteries of the Church (Grk: musterion, and Latin: sacramentum), we are brought into communion with God Himself through the “energies” wrought by the real presence of Holy Spirit. Thus we are “touched” and, therefore, changed by God’s “real and actual presence” in that process known as “theosis” or deification, which as previously stated is salvation as defined by the historic theology of the Church. In stark contrast to the scheme mentioned above posited by Augustine, St. Gregory Nazianzus (also known as “the Theologian”), states: “Grace is divine energy (theos energeias), a power by which our mortal nature is transformed; it is not compulsory. It will flee the soul that does not want salvation. Grace acts with the human will in its “struggle” for perfection. Predestination is the result of God’s foreknowledge of human effort.”
We as believers, therefore, come together for worship in an atmosphere that is filled with the glory of God (through His Divine Energies), and move daily through a growth process in which we are gradually transformed into God’s likeness in Christ—our “theosis.” This is our destiny, our goal, and reward for entering into God’s plan of salvation by faith and “holding fast the profession of [our] faith without wavering…” (Hebrews 10:23). By continuing in this process, by faith, we are shaped into Christ’s likeness, i.e., God’s likeness, and become all that God is “naturally.” St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and then later St. Athanasius all reiterated the teaching that “God become man, so that man might become god.” What they and the other Fathers meant by this was that our salvation (that is our deification), is thus: “…we become by grace, all that God is by nature.” This is oneness with God and union with Him though Christ, so that in the end the only distinction between us and God will be that we remain “the created,” while He is ever “the uncreated.”

II. God’s “uncreated” Grace and how it works

The grace of God begins its work in our lives at our baptism. Truly the Holy Spirit Himself calls men to repentance, but when man responds by his own free will, the grace of God begins its deifying work of redemption; first with regeneration, and then in a steady flow of strengthening power through the Eucharist and the other sacraments, the person moves forward in theosis toward conformity to Christ. In this great mystery (sacramentum) of Baptism, the very life of God is communicated to the individual through his becoming a part of the Church. A person does not “get saved” and then decides which church he’s going to attend; the person is saved only by coming into the Church and becoming a part of it through the waters of baptism. This may be accomplished either by the faith of one’s parents or of the individual himself. In either case it is still faith and obedience which brings the person into the saving arms of the Body of Christ. It is by this act of free will that a person comes to a place of receptiveness of God’s grace. The grace is freely given, by virtue of God’s love and mercy, and not on the basis of the righteousness of the individual. Titus 3:5 states clearly that: “…He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.”
Although grace may begin its work in our lives when we are young and even in infancy, we are under no compulsion, however, to accept this grace. Although we cannot be saved without the grace which purifies our faith and strengthens our resolve to live for God, grace is not irresistible. We are under no compulsion to do good or evil. As a child is baptized and begins to grow in the decision making process, the decision to continue to believe must be made. This then is where personal faith comes into play. Man’s free will has remained in tact despite the fall, according to Saints Jerome and Hilary of Poitiers. “The willing and the running belong to us,” St. Jerome said, “but the success of that willing and running pertains to the mercy of God; thus, as far as the willing and running are concerned, human freedom is preserved whole, while the success of the willing and the running is left to the power of God.” This view of how the grace of God works in concert and in cooperation with the human will was universal among the Fathers of the Church with the exception of Augustine of Hippo and a few other “early Christian writers,” who contributed to the literary corpus, but were not considered true Church “Fathers.” It is called “synergism” because it recognizes more than one force at work in human salvation—God’s grace and human free will. St. Gregory the Theologian said, “Salvation depends on ourselves as well as God.” “Monergism,” on the other hand suggests that the only power at work in salvation is God, who predestines those who are to be saved and those who are to be damned; calls and converts the elect through irresistible “prevenient” grace, and then provides “persevering” grace to the elect so that they “cannot” be lost. This view was introduced “seminally” by Augustine and espoused by most of the subsequent Reformers in the later Protestant movements, especially John Calvin.
This is not the view, however, of the true “Fathers” of the historic Church. They were synergistic in their understanding of salvation. Like St. Jerome above, St. Hilary of Poitiers taught that, “No person is excluded by the human condition from participating in the work of his own salvation. More precisely, the human race has inherited a ‘condition’ from Adam—that of mortality—which only the grace of God eradicates.” Note that he does not say that man inherits the sin of Adam, but the “condition” of Adam. Like St. Ambrose of Milan who said, “Each person shares in the ‘fate’ of Adam by virtue of his kinship to the first man. We are guilty of the sins we commit, because, like him and on account of him, we violate God’s will.” “In Adam I fell,” says St. Ambrose, “and in Adam I was cast out of Paradise. In Adam I died. How shall God call me back, except he find me in the second Adam—justified in Christ.” In light of this we see that human beings do not inherit the “sin” and the “guilt” of Adam (as Augustine and the Reformers mistakenly theorized). Human beings are victims of Adam’s sin, not the bearers of it. The condition we have inherited from Adam is one of death, and from that condition or “state” comes forth all manner of lifeless sinning. In effect, therefore, Adam sinned, which brought forth death. All born of Adam have inherited that death, which thus brings forth sinning. St. Cyril of Alexandria said, “Although Adam died because he sinned, we sin because we die. Human sin is the manifestation and the ratification of our mortal nature.” In other words, our sins are not proof that we are all guilty of Adam’s sin, but that we inherited “mortality” or “death” through him.
Now in addition to the deifying power of the grace given in baptism, as the Creed states, it is also for the remission of “sins.” Here’s how St. Cyprian of Carthage puts it: “…if even to the greatest sinners and those who had sinned much against God, when they subsequently believed, remission of sins is granted—and nobody is hindered from Baptism and grace—how much more then ought we to shrink from hindering an infant who, being born after the flesh according to Adam, has contracted the contagion of the ancient death, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins—that to him are remitted not only his own sins, but the sins of another.” This equating of baptism with “the forgiveness or remission of sins” is peculiar in this context on the surface, but is common in Scripture and Tradition. When we analyze Cyprian’s statement, however, we can clearly see what he means: First of all, he uses the expression “forgiveness of sins” (plural) which ordinarily refers to adult baptism. Why then would infants need to be baptized? Clearly to make them members of Christ, but Cyprian refers to the “sins” of the infant. What sins could an infant have committed? How old an infant? He does not tell us; but nevertheless, acknowledges the possibility of sins being committed, even at a very young age. Yet there is something else to which he eludes, and that is to “remit” the sins of “another.” Who is this “other?” Adam? But as we’ve already seen in the Fathers, the sins of Adam are his own; and the use of the plural (“sins”) excludes the idea of an inherited “sin” (singular). Does he mean the “sins” of the infant’s parents, then? But the letter states “of another.” Was it just one of the parents? Which one and why? We may never know, but perhaps then the term “another” is the human race itself, the substance of Adam, that is to say, the infant, necessarily affected by the sins of mankind (“another”) of which he is part, remits when he is baptized, to some degree, those “sins” through his own regeneration. This idea emphasizes the fact that we are all inexplicably linked together as human beings, and that righteous and good acts of faith and obedience impact the rest of mankind in a positive way by liberating yet another being who had formerly been in bondage. It’s like that commercial for the Morgan Stanley stock brokerage firm that says, “We measure success, one investor at a time.”
The power of this transformation through the grace (energies) of God is immeasurable. In Christ, St. Hilary says, “the mortal gains eternity.” St. Hilary, therefore, recognized the possibility of a sinless life in this world through grace. “Grace is freely given, but the soul increases grace by overcoming sin. God grants perseverant grace to him who, with grace, conquers sin. Although we cannot be saved without the grace which purifies our faith and strengthens our resolve, grace is not irresistible. We are under no compulsion to do good or evil. Thus, the sin God saw in Esau was not foreordained, anymore than the good of Isaac. The “elect” are those who, by faith and obedience, are worthy of election. No person is excluded by the human condition from participating in the work of his own salvation. More precisely, the human race has inherited a “condition” from Adam—the vitium (Latin: vicious, full of vice, corrupt way of life) of mortality—which only the grace of God eradicates.” St. Hilary clearly has a synergistic view of salvation here. God and man work together and in concert to accomplish the fullness of salvation (i.e., deification) in Christ.
The antithesis of this concept of synergism is embodied in the theology of the Reformers, and as stated previously, may be found seminally in Augustine as well. It is extreme “monergism,” which in the Reformed theological scheme is called, sola gratia (Latin for “grace alone.”) And is the cornerstone of Reformed Evangelical soteriology. The Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms; Richard A. Muller, states thus: “sola gratia: grace alone; by grace alone; viz., the teaching of the Reformers and of their scholastic successors (i.e., Augustine, Aquinas, et al.—emphasis mine) that grace alone is the ground of salvation and that individuals are justified by grace alone through faith. The term allows only grace to be the active power in justification and leaves nothing to the human will or to human works. Synergism (Grk - synergismus), cooperation between man and God, is therefore effectively ruled out of the initial work of salvation. Even faith (fides, q.v.) is a result of grace and cannot be considered as the result of human effort.” This idea is so pervasive in Western thought that to even mention a notion of “synergism” in the way it has been presented here is tantamount to espousing heresy of the worst order. Such is the distance between what the Church “has always believed and taught” (…definition of “catholic”), and what is commonly believed and understood as “orthodox Christian thought” to most Protestants of the last two centuries.

III. The Distinction Between Person and Nature

The distinction between God’s essence and energies guarantees the reality of man’s deification. Because the energies of God (i.e., His divine “uncreated” grace) are truly God’s presence, we are able to truly participate in the Divine Nature through the sacraments as the Scriptures teach us in 1 Peter 1:4. The distinction between person and nature helps us to understand how the salvation of mankind is accomplished. Man was created in the image of God. This means that each person shares a common human nature with all other men. At the same time, however, each person is unique and unrepeatable. Moreover, each and every person sums up the one human nature within himself. Like the word “catholicos” in the Greek, which means: “according to the whole,” every person is, therefore, “catholic” –a unique individual summation of the whole of human nature. Just as each local church which professes the one true faith according to the symbol of Nicea is also “catholic”—a unique individual summation of the whole of the church, which is called “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.” There is a real distinction, therefore, between a person’s nature, which is commonly human, and his person, which is unique to himself.
Here’s how this plays out with regard to our condition from which we must be saved. In the garden, the devil tempted Eve by promising that he fruit of the earth (the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) would deify her. Adam and Eve’s earthbound and matter-focused attempt to become like God (in eating the fruit)—apart from and in direct contradiction to the command of God—is the essence of the fall of man. Archimandrite George states in his book The Deification as the Purpose of Man’s Life, Mt. Athos, Greece: Holy Monastery of St. Gregorios, 1997, “We know that Adam and Eve were misled by the devil and desired to become gods, not in cooperation with God, though, not with humbleness, obedience and love, but relying on their own powers, their own will, egotistically and autonomously. That is to say, the essence of the fall is egotism. By adopting egotism and self-sufficiency, they separated themselves from God and instead of attaining deification, they attained exactly the opposite: spiritual death.”
Because human nature is one, the sin of Adam and Eve has affected all of humanity. Human nature has become corrupt, and every person born inherits a corrupt nature, enslaved to the passions and to death. This is why in historical theology from the Eastern perspective the sin of Adam and Eve is often called the Ancestral Sin (a singular disobedience, but universal in its effect). It is important to note here, that what we have inherited from Adam and Eve are the consequences of their sin—the enslavement to the passions and death—not the guilt for their sin. In other words because of the Ancestral Sin of Adam, we have all been made mortal—subject to death and the sinfulness which issues forth from that state, but not sinful in the essence of our nature. Another way to look at it is that a man does not sin because it’s natural for him to do so, but because he in his individual personhood gives in (by his own free choice) to the drives of his mortal nature, which he shares in common with all other human beings. Thus it is imperative that we maintain this distinction between person and nature in order to properly understand our condition.
To counteract this condition, the eternal Son and Word of God—the Second Person of the Trinity—became man so that human nature (…again which is common to all) might be restored and mankind attain the deification for which it was originally created. Christ assumed human nature in its entirety, taking a human body and soul with all of its natural faculties. Thus, the Word of God lived a truly human life, but in a divine way. Christ’s human will (distinctly unique to himself but not separate from the common will of our common human nature) was united inseparably but distinctly to His divine will. His human nature (distinctly unique to himself but not separate from the common human nature of all mankind) was united inseparably but distinctly to His divine nature. Two wills and two natures united, living in complete obedience to the Father as a man; Christ restored all of human nature and reversed its learned willingness toward corruption.
This is why St. Paul calls Christ the last Adam in 1 Corinthians 15:45. He further states in 1 Corinthians 15:22, “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.” This emphasizes the fact that in Christ the general resurrection of all mankind, not just believers, is assured. This also testifies to the reality of Christ’s assumption of our common human nature. Because of this reality, all will rise from the dead. All have immortal life, but not all will live in everlasting blessedness. Some will rise to experience the fullness of the blessing of God’s complete and full presence, the rest will rise into the flames of His consuming presence, and experience the “hell” that presence brings for them for all eternity.
Since Christ assumed our human nature completely and in its entirety, and the true source of life was reinstated into the creation, there was yet one thing that needed to take place. Death had to be conquered. Christ had to meet mankind where is was and assume not only human nature, but all of the consequences of the fall. Thus St. Paul insists that Christ was not only obedient to the Father, but “obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” (Philippians 2:8). Christ, the immortal Son of God, died a human death and descended into Hades, that He might destroy the power of death. After His resurrection, Christ ascended to His Father, placing the human nature that He had assumed and healed at the right hand of the throne of glory. In Christ, therefore, human nature has not only been healed but deified—united eternally with God in Heaven. (Ephesians 2:5-6). There is a clear distinction here between person and nature, therefore. Christ has restored human nature. Yet we remain free persons. Christ’s resurrection causes all mankind to rise from the dead, but Christ cannot make us love Him. Love must be the free response of the human heart. For those who love Him, the resurrection will be unto eternal blessedness. For those who hate Him, His appearing will be eternal death. Matthew 5:45 is the key to understanding this concept here. It states, “He makes His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.” According to the Scriptures as in St. John’s epistle, “God is love.” God does not change. God loves both the just and the unjust equally. God does not get angry. God does not get offended. These images from the Scriptures are anthropomorphisms. They are human characteristics that are attributed to God for a specific didactic purpose, much the same way we speak of the hand of God or the heart of God. It is inconceivable, however, that human actions should cause God to change—to be offended or to become angry. The difference between the blessed and the damned, therefore, is not in how God treats them, but in how they each experience the presence and love of God. The blessed respond to God in love and experience His love and providential care precisely as that. The unrighteous, however, do not respond to God’s love and therefore experience it as wrath and judgement. The objective reality is one and the same—God is love—but the individual subjective apprehension of that reality (i.e., one’s free choice) determines the state of one’s blessedness or damnation.

In Conclusion:

We don’t have to ask God to “grant” us the ability to be holy or to be consistent. He has already granted us the ability to live for Him by virtue of the fact that we’re created in His image. What we need is His “help,” His “strength,” His “guidance,” and His “leadership” to help us to fulfill what we ought to do and “be” for him as we walk in faith.