Thanks for sharing your work. I wonder why this fundamental idea—panentheism—and God beyond an Aristotelian framework, for God as St Maximus argues in his first century on theology, God cannot fit into the frame of Aristotle—he is beyond origin, intermediate state (motion), and actuality while—through his self giving through his energies he is the state of actulization of all that comes into being. He is beyond being yet his ecstasy of himself as the logoi and energies allow for participation in God and eventual identification with God without collapsing man into God or God into man in essence or numerical identity. Essentials it’s the the only manner I think to preserve otherness and yet complete identity with. I think of it as a both / and logic.
Your orthodox panentheism arguments are based on the assumption that there is a real (i.e., ontological) distinction between God’s essence and energies. I see nothing in Palamas to substantiate this claim, nor is it coherent with orthodox theology. There can be no ontological separation between God’s essence and energies. Rather, Palamas seems to claim that there is merely a conceptual or formal distinction.
Furthermore, if we were to accept an ontological distinction between God’s essence and energies, then there is no real union with God, and we must also say that man is no more united with God than he is the sun - he simply participates in the energies of both.
No, I do not think that it does. I certainly never use the phrase "real distinction" myself and would disown it if asked. But I must admit I've never been quite certain what people mean by "real distinction" and they tend to mean different things by it. So perhaps you could say *exactly* what you mean by "real distinction," and what I say that makes you believe I am committed to it?
My apologies, Jeremiah. I went back and reread both articles and see no claim of a real distinction between God’s essence and energies. Your main claim, which follows directly from Palamas, is that: “God transcends creation – in his essence” and is “fully present within creation – in his energies.” I agree, but I don’t think this is really what panentheism is all about.
By real distinction I mean an ontological distinction - that is, a difference on the level of Being/Substance.
While you don’t claim that there is a real distinction between God’s essence and energies, you do say that “the panentheist insists upon a radical ontological difference between God and the world.” THIS is really the heart of the matter. Panentheism isn’t simply the insistence that “God transcends creation,” but the absolute insistence on a “radical ontological difference between God and the world.” With this, I disagree.
In Footnote 9 of your original article, you point out the fact that “the energies are what God does, expressions of his essence.” You also say that “God is fully present in his energeia, that being itself is an energeia.”
However, since creation is being, and “being itself is an energeia,” and “energies are…expressions of [God’s] essence,” then isn’t creation itself an energetic expression of God? That is, creation is not ontologically separate from God. God is fully present in and as creation. So how can you insist upon “a radical ontological difference between God and the world”?
This, I would argue, is the great stumbling block and error of panentheism. Ultimately, panentheism is based on the false, dualistic belief in the ontological separation of God and the world.
Alternatively, I argue for orthodox pantheism, which is coherent and doesn’t suffer from the delusion of duality but rather is based on a non-dual vision of reality. There is no ontological separation between God and the world. This view is also in agreement with Palamas’ theology.
You said in the conclusion to your original article: “Both the fact that something has being – its existence – and what sort of being it is – its essence – are had by it only as it participates in God's sustaining energeia. What a creature is and that it is consists in God's being fully present to it and in it.” I couldn’t agree more.
God is the one Substance/Being, as Spinoza says. The infinite, energetic expressions of God are the very ways and activities in which the essence of God is realized. These infinite manifestations of God we call the world. Moreover, orthodox pantheism also can maintain that God is immanent and transcendent - “fully present within creation – in his energies,” and “transcends creation – in his essence.” The difference is the absolute insistence that there is NO “radical ontological difference between God and the world.”
Thanks for sharing your work. I wonder why this fundamental idea—panentheism—and God beyond an Aristotelian framework, for God as St Maximus argues in his first century on theology, God cannot fit into the frame of Aristotle—he is beyond origin, intermediate state (motion), and actuality while—through his self giving through his energies he is the state of actulization of all that comes into being. He is beyond being yet his ecstasy of himself as the logoi and energies allow for participation in God and eventual identification with God without collapsing man into God or God into man in essence or numerical identity. Essentials it’s the the only manner I think to preserve otherness and yet complete identity with. I think of it as a both / and logic.
I meant I wonder why many today like Hart seem to be pressing so hard toward pantheism, or something indistinguishable from it.
Hi Jeremiah - congrats on all the good news! Fascinating premise on Orthodoxy and Panentheism. Look forward to taking a closer look at your paper.
Have you taken a look at Andrew Jackson's work on bridging evolutionary biology and St. Maximus' logoi? Link here - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/zygo.12885
It too posits an "incarnational panentheism" that I find compelling. Would be curious to get your thoughts when you have time to digest!
I want to read that!
Just saw your mutual musing on the matter - would be great to get your thoughts once you do!
That Sventsitskii book sounds like a great project. Their Silver Age is my idea of a Golden Age.
Congrats and looking forward to the book!
Your orthodox panentheism arguments are based on the assumption that there is a real (i.e., ontological) distinction between God’s essence and energies. I see nothing in Palamas to substantiate this claim, nor is it coherent with orthodox theology. There can be no ontological separation between God’s essence and energies. Rather, Palamas seems to claim that there is merely a conceptual or formal distinction.
Furthermore, if we were to accept an ontological distinction between God’s essence and energies, then there is no real union with God, and we must also say that man is no more united with God than he is the sun - he simply participates in the energies of both.
No, I do not think that it does. I certainly never use the phrase "real distinction" myself and would disown it if asked. But I must admit I've never been quite certain what people mean by "real distinction" and they tend to mean different things by it. So perhaps you could say *exactly* what you mean by "real distinction," and what I say that makes you believe I am committed to it?
My apologies, Jeremiah. I went back and reread both articles and see no claim of a real distinction between God’s essence and energies. Your main claim, which follows directly from Palamas, is that: “God transcends creation – in his essence” and is “fully present within creation – in his energies.” I agree, but I don’t think this is really what panentheism is all about.
By real distinction I mean an ontological distinction - that is, a difference on the level of Being/Substance.
While you don’t claim that there is a real distinction between God’s essence and energies, you do say that “the panentheist insists upon a radical ontological difference between God and the world.” THIS is really the heart of the matter. Panentheism isn’t simply the insistence that “God transcends creation,” but the absolute insistence on a “radical ontological difference between God and the world.” With this, I disagree.
In Footnote 9 of your original article, you point out the fact that “the energies are what God does, expressions of his essence.” You also say that “God is fully present in his energeia, that being itself is an energeia.”
However, since creation is being, and “being itself is an energeia,” and “energies are…expressions of [God’s] essence,” then isn’t creation itself an energetic expression of God? That is, creation is not ontologically separate from God. God is fully present in and as creation. So how can you insist upon “a radical ontological difference between God and the world”?
This, I would argue, is the great stumbling block and error of panentheism. Ultimately, panentheism is based on the false, dualistic belief in the ontological separation of God and the world.
Alternatively, I argue for orthodox pantheism, which is coherent and doesn’t suffer from the delusion of duality but rather is based on a non-dual vision of reality. There is no ontological separation between God and the world. This view is also in agreement with Palamas’ theology.
You said in the conclusion to your original article: “Both the fact that something has being – its existence – and what sort of being it is – its essence – are had by it only as it participates in God's sustaining energeia. What a creature is and that it is consists in God's being fully present to it and in it.” I couldn’t agree more.
God is the one Substance/Being, as Spinoza says. The infinite, energetic expressions of God are the very ways and activities in which the essence of God is realized. These infinite manifestations of God we call the world. Moreover, orthodox pantheism also can maintain that God is immanent and transcendent - “fully present within creation – in his energies,” and “transcends creation – in his essence.” The difference is the absolute insistence that there is NO “radical ontological difference between God and the world.”
CONGRATULATIONS
Axios! 2x Great to hear!
I mean, 3x!
Congrats buddy! Well deserved!