Comments on: 3 Reasons Evangelicals Should Accept The Essence-Energies Distinction

By: M G

M G — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 08:55:50 +0000

David–
I have responded to your post here:
http://wellofquestions.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/reasons-reformedevangelicals-shouldnt-accept-the-essence-energies-distinction-1-3/

By: David N

David N — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 05:08:40 +0000

Eastern theology believes that God as He is in His essence is “beyond being.” He is so completely other that, strictly speaking, they won't even say that the essence “exists” in the way we typically speak of existence. So for them, love and holiness are only the energies.
Now, I would agree that love and holiness are energies, but I also think that God is really telling us something about Himself (and, honestly, I can't see what the difference is between a God that has no being and a God that simply doesn't exist). So in this case I would hold to the doctrine of Analogy. When we say “God is good”, it is an analogy to what we mean when we say “Sally is good.” But we ARE saying that God, as He is in Himself, is good.
So yes, God's essence is holy. But it is also just, merciful, loving, good, etc. It is all of these things perfectly and simultaneously, because it is simple. So while we can know, by way of analogy, that God's essence is holy, we only experience His holiness via the energies.
Thanks for your comments and interest! (And just to warn you, I'm still in the process of exploring this stuff, so I may be explaining something incorrectly or getting something totally wrong! Just bear with me as I continue my studies).

By: Matthew Neal

Matthew Neal — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 00:39:13 +0000

Hmmm. I'll definitely have to do more research on this. It's good for me that I don't know much about this; keeps me humble.
Another question, according to the essence-energies distinction does John's statement “God is love” or “God is light” refer to the essence of who God is or his energies? These statements (at least in English) seem to be ontological claims.
And how about the traditional affirmation “God is holy.” Since this refers to his transcendence does it not speak to God essence? But does it not also relay information about what God is like in himself? I'm just wondering if the e-e distinction is absolute or not.
Thanks for entertaining an ignoramus.

By: afriendnamedben

afriendnamedben — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:50:00 +0000

Thanks. I'm looking forward to this. I'd also like to hear more how this may play with the mystical union.

By: David N

David N — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:28:55 +0000

Hi Matthew,
When it comes to the persons, things get a bit trickier. Because we would say that God's essence is incomprehensible to us, we don't actually know anything directly about the persons as they exist together/relate to each other in the essence. But there's another helpful distinction here, which is the person-nature distinction. A person is not a nature. So neither the Father, the Son, nor the Holy Spirit *as persons* are identical with the divine essence/nature. So we can experience the persons without actually experiencing the essence.
I would also say that God reveals Himself as three persons and explains His activities (energies) in terms of the work of the three persons, so in one sense we're only experiencing the persons through the energies anyway.

By: Matthew Neal

Matthew Neal — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 06:48:42 +0000

Thanks for this enlightening post. I've never really heard of this distinction before.
I do have one question. Obviously God exists as Trinity in his essence, but he also relates to us as a Trinity in the covenant of grace; so does this blur the distinction between his essence and energies since when we apprehend his energies in salvation they reveal the very essence of who he is?