Commencing, then, let us consider the following two passages from Scripture as our point of departure: "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, says the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
“Because the existence and coherence of each creature depends on its logos—which logos, as a non-exhaustive expression of God’s essence, is therefore distinct from it—God transcends all things essentially, but inheres in all things energetically….”
Are you claiming that the infinite manifestation of logoi, which are “expression[s] of God’s essence,” are essentially separate from God? How can the infinite manifestation of God’s essence be essentially separate from Himself? Isn’t the manifestation of God’s essence as logoi simply the energetic actualization of God’s essence? This is why it can be said that God “inheres all things energetically.” Isn’t the entire creation simply the actualization of its essence, which you rightly admit is the very logoi of God? To claim otherwise would necessarily mean that the logoi are essentially separate from the Logos and not actually the “expression of God’s essence,” as you said.
There is distinction without essential separation. Logoi are distinct but not essentially separate from Logos. Logos is energetically manifest as the infinite logoi. This is the very definition of creation, is it not? God’s essence is not essentially separate from His energies. God’s essence is made manifest by His energies. Isn’t this what the Trinity is?
Appreciate your thoughts, friend! I’m intending to say that the logoi, as the uncreated thought-wills of God, are an energetic expression of His essence, but creatures (and so their created essences) are not identical to their corresponding logoi, but rather images/likenesses of them in a state of becoming (which culminates in the ever-moving rest of eternity). The means of union between creatures and God is participation on a trajectory from image to likeness. But, in my view, there needs to be a distinction between created essence and uncreated essence in order to maintain the genuine otherness of creatures despite their unity with and in God.
Addendum: just for the sake of clarification, my understanding is that, per St. Maximus, we “become uncreated” through participation in Christ, whose hypostasis/mode of existence is uncreated. So, in the end, we retain our createdness despite this. I admit that this is just my current understanding, and I wouldn’t consider myself an authority on these things. At any rate, this particular point seems to be one of the only things we disagree about, but since it’s pretty fundamental, it seems to crop up in many different areas!
So the claim is that there is an essential difference between the created essence of a creature and its corresponding logoi (or uncreated essence). What is a created essence then? Would it not also exist as an “uncreated thought-will of God”? If not, it couldn’t exist.
Furthermore, you claim that a created essence is in the process of becoming like something which it essentially isn’t (i.e., its corresponding logoi/uncreated essence). How does something become that which it isn’t (at least in potential)? Isn’t that which is manifest simply the actualization (to varying degrees of perfection) of that which it essentially is?
Does it help if I frame the idea the following way? Created essences exist as the images of their corresponding logoi. Because these logoi are God’s uncreated thought-wills, they are therefore inexhaustible and have infinite ontological depth, in accordance with His nature. As such, created essences, as images of that which is inexhaustible and of infinite ontological depth, have infinite potential for becoming fulfilled/expressed enhypoatatically as the likenesses of their archetypes. And this would be for creatures an eternal becoming of ever-moving rest, for likeness can always become closer to an inexhaustible, infinite target. I don’t mean to imply that fundamental essences themselves change, but rather their hypostases have infinite potential to “become what they are”.
Thank you. My understanding is that the logoi are the divine reasons or principles inherent in each created thing - their reason and purpose for being. Nature is all that something essentially is or can be. As such, the nature or essence of a thing is shaped by its logos. A hypostasis is simply the actualization of that nature/essence.
The issue I have is the idea that there are created vs. uncreated essences. This seems like a means of creating a (false) dualism between that which is divine (or uncreated) and that which is supposedly not divine (or created). Moreover, if something is uncreated by nature, then according to the definition of nature, that thing is and can only be uncreated. Can you give an example of an uncreated hypostasis? Not even Christ satisfies this constraint.
Furthermore, can we say that anything is essentially separate from God, in whom all things live and move and have their being? And if man is created in the image of God and is called to actualize his likeness with Him and even “become uncreated” as Maximus says, then how could man be essentially separate from God? That is, how could man not also be divine (or uncreated) by nature? According to the definition of hypostasis, man cannot become something that he isn’t essentially by nature. Therefore, we must conclude that man is both uncreated and created, divine and human, infinite and finite. This is precisely what the Incarnation reveals.
So for man to become ever “closer to an inexhaustible, infinite target,” that target must be inherent within his very nature or man wouldn’t become what he is, but something other. We can only become like Christ because we ourselves are truly like him by nature.
Some thoughts that occur to me: I agree that the logoi are the divine, uncreated reasons/principles inherent in creatures, but I don’t see this as necessarily incompatible with their being simultaneously the principles of the very essences of creatures. St. Maximus calls them the “ineffable and supranatural divine fire present in the essence of things as in a burning bush” and in another place he refers to “the logos of the essence, nature, form, shape, composition, and power in each thing, of what it does and what it undergoes”; Loudovikos likewise says that the logoi are “responsible for the essence” of things. So I would also agree with you that they “shape the essence”. They’re what give essences their fingerprints, but aren’t identical to essences. And, since essences don’t exist apart from their hypostases, and the hypostases are themselves created, then I don’t think they can be considered anything but created.
As far as uncreated hypostases are concerned, I do think that all three persons of the Trinity are uncreated hypostases, precisely because they enhypostatize the divine essence, though Christ also enhypostatized the human essence. In my understanding, only the Trinity can enhypostasize the divine essence, whereas deified humans are divinized energetically through participation in God’s energies and thereby come to share in His uncreated mode of existence, but without enhypostatizing the divine essence.
I agree that logoi are inextricably bound up with essences. However, it can’t be reasoned that hypostases are created, so their essences must be created. It’s the other way around. Hypostasis follows essence and is the actualization of that essence. After all, one couldn’t look at Jesus and conclude that his essence is solely created. Rather, Christ is the perfect actualization of both the human and divine natures.
As for the Trinity, God is one in essence and indivisible. Two persons of the Trinity cannot be solely uncreated while one is both uncreated and created. If Christ is both uncreated and created by nature, then God as Trinity must be as well.
Likewise, if man is to “become uncreated” and truly like God via theosis, then man must be, like Christ, both uncreated and created by nature. The very definitions of hypostasis and nature require this.
Participation in the divine energies cannot make man into something that he is not. Theosis is not like the sometimes used analogy of iron being placed in a fire whereby man simply takes on the qualities of God but doesn’t actually become God. When Christ, quoting the Psalms, says, “you are gods,” he means exactly that. He does not mean that you are like God, but only through energetic participation. If this were the case, we should also say that man is no more united to God than he is the sun - he simply participates in the energies of both.
Furthermore, one cannot participate in the divine energies of God and remain essentially separate from God. The energies are not separate from the essence, but are the activity, the manifest actuality, of God’s essence. The divine energies do not exist apart from the hypostasis of God. To be united with the energies of God is hypostatic union with God. Again, there is no real distinction between God’s essence and energies. People have seriously misunderstood Palamas regarding this.
Just a quick comment on the first part of your response: I wasn’t necessarily arguing from the createdness of hypostases to the createdness of essences; rather, I was just trying to say that they comprise a mutually inseparable ontological whole, and since creatures are created, and logoi are not identical to essences, then essences of creatures must be created. I do need to go further in my study of the essence/energy distinction/relation. Thanks for the stimulating exchange; I must admit I have run out of useful thoughts, so I’ll have to do a bit more work before we have another conversation about this!
I'll have to go dig up some passages from Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos who has good thoughts on these things. But my preliminary answer is that essences do not exist in and of themselves, but are always enhypostatic, and the difference between a created and uncreated essence is that the hypostases of created essences are created, whereas the hypostases of uncreated essence are not. The logoi are the "principles" of the created essences and are what give them their structure, dynamics, etc., but aren't identical to them in the sense that our existence is ontologically identical to God's will, but rather our existence has its foundation and sustenance from God's will and energy. The point about becoming I will have to address later.
“Because the existence and coherence of each creature depends on its logos—which logos, as a non-exhaustive expression of God’s essence, is therefore distinct from it—God transcends all things essentially, but inheres in all things energetically….”
Are you claiming that the infinite manifestation of logoi, which are “expression[s] of God’s essence,” are essentially separate from God? How can the infinite manifestation of God’s essence be essentially separate from Himself? Isn’t the manifestation of God’s essence as logoi simply the energetic actualization of God’s essence? This is why it can be said that God “inheres all things energetically.” Isn’t the entire creation simply the actualization of its essence, which you rightly admit is the very logoi of God? To claim otherwise would necessarily mean that the logoi are essentially separate from the Logos and not actually the “expression of God’s essence,” as you said.
There is distinction without essential separation. Logoi are distinct but not essentially separate from Logos. Logos is energetically manifest as the infinite logoi. This is the very definition of creation, is it not? God’s essence is not essentially separate from His energies. God’s essence is made manifest by His energies. Isn’t this what the Trinity is?
Appreciate your thoughts, friend! I’m intending to say that the logoi, as the uncreated thought-wills of God, are an energetic expression of His essence, but creatures (and so their created essences) are not identical to their corresponding logoi, but rather images/likenesses of them in a state of becoming (which culminates in the ever-moving rest of eternity). The means of union between creatures and God is participation on a trajectory from image to likeness. But, in my view, there needs to be a distinction between created essence and uncreated essence in order to maintain the genuine otherness of creatures despite their unity with and in God.
Addendum: just for the sake of clarification, my understanding is that, per St. Maximus, we “become uncreated” through participation in Christ, whose hypostasis/mode of existence is uncreated. So, in the end, we retain our createdness despite this. I admit that this is just my current understanding, and I wouldn’t consider myself an authority on these things. At any rate, this particular point seems to be one of the only things we disagree about, but since it’s pretty fundamental, it seems to crop up in many different areas!
So the claim is that there is an essential difference between the created essence of a creature and its corresponding logoi (or uncreated essence). What is a created essence then? Would it not also exist as an “uncreated thought-will of God”? If not, it couldn’t exist.
Furthermore, you claim that a created essence is in the process of becoming like something which it essentially isn’t (i.e., its corresponding logoi/uncreated essence). How does something become that which it isn’t (at least in potential)? Isn’t that which is manifest simply the actualization (to varying degrees of perfection) of that which it essentially is?
Does it help if I frame the idea the following way? Created essences exist as the images of their corresponding logoi. Because these logoi are God’s uncreated thought-wills, they are therefore inexhaustible and have infinite ontological depth, in accordance with His nature. As such, created essences, as images of that which is inexhaustible and of infinite ontological depth, have infinite potential for becoming fulfilled/expressed enhypoatatically as the likenesses of their archetypes. And this would be for creatures an eternal becoming of ever-moving rest, for likeness can always become closer to an inexhaustible, infinite target. I don’t mean to imply that fundamental essences themselves change, but rather their hypostases have infinite potential to “become what they are”.
Thank you. My understanding is that the logoi are the divine reasons or principles inherent in each created thing - their reason and purpose for being. Nature is all that something essentially is or can be. As such, the nature or essence of a thing is shaped by its logos. A hypostasis is simply the actualization of that nature/essence.
The issue I have is the idea that there are created vs. uncreated essences. This seems like a means of creating a (false) dualism between that which is divine (or uncreated) and that which is supposedly not divine (or created). Moreover, if something is uncreated by nature, then according to the definition of nature, that thing is and can only be uncreated. Can you give an example of an uncreated hypostasis? Not even Christ satisfies this constraint.
Furthermore, can we say that anything is essentially separate from God, in whom all things live and move and have their being? And if man is created in the image of God and is called to actualize his likeness with Him and even “become uncreated” as Maximus says, then how could man be essentially separate from God? That is, how could man not also be divine (or uncreated) by nature? According to the definition of hypostasis, man cannot become something that he isn’t essentially by nature. Therefore, we must conclude that man is both uncreated and created, divine and human, infinite and finite. This is precisely what the Incarnation reveals.
So for man to become ever “closer to an inexhaustible, infinite target,” that target must be inherent within his very nature or man wouldn’t become what he is, but something other. We can only become like Christ because we ourselves are truly like him by nature.
Some thoughts that occur to me: I agree that the logoi are the divine, uncreated reasons/principles inherent in creatures, but I don’t see this as necessarily incompatible with their being simultaneously the principles of the very essences of creatures. St. Maximus calls them the “ineffable and supranatural divine fire present in the essence of things as in a burning bush” and in another place he refers to “the logos of the essence, nature, form, shape, composition, and power in each thing, of what it does and what it undergoes”; Loudovikos likewise says that the logoi are “responsible for the essence” of things. So I would also agree with you that they “shape the essence”. They’re what give essences their fingerprints, but aren’t identical to essences. And, since essences don’t exist apart from their hypostases, and the hypostases are themselves created, then I don’t think they can be considered anything but created.
As far as uncreated hypostases are concerned, I do think that all three persons of the Trinity are uncreated hypostases, precisely because they enhypostatize the divine essence, though Christ also enhypostatized the human essence. In my understanding, only the Trinity can enhypostasize the divine essence, whereas deified humans are divinized energetically through participation in God’s energies and thereby come to share in His uncreated mode of existence, but without enhypostatizing the divine essence.
I agree that logoi are inextricably bound up with essences. However, it can’t be reasoned that hypostases are created, so their essences must be created. It’s the other way around. Hypostasis follows essence and is the actualization of that essence. After all, one couldn’t look at Jesus and conclude that his essence is solely created. Rather, Christ is the perfect actualization of both the human and divine natures.
As for the Trinity, God is one in essence and indivisible. Two persons of the Trinity cannot be solely uncreated while one is both uncreated and created. If Christ is both uncreated and created by nature, then God as Trinity must be as well.
Likewise, if man is to “become uncreated” and truly like God via theosis, then man must be, like Christ, both uncreated and created by nature. The very definitions of hypostasis and nature require this.
Participation in the divine energies cannot make man into something that he is not. Theosis is not like the sometimes used analogy of iron being placed in a fire whereby man simply takes on the qualities of God but doesn’t actually become God. When Christ, quoting the Psalms, says, “you are gods,” he means exactly that. He does not mean that you are like God, but only through energetic participation. If this were the case, we should also say that man is no more united to God than he is the sun - he simply participates in the energies of both.
Furthermore, one cannot participate in the divine energies of God and remain essentially separate from God. The energies are not separate from the essence, but are the activity, the manifest actuality, of God’s essence. The divine energies do not exist apart from the hypostasis of God. To be united with the energies of God is hypostatic union with God. Again, there is no real distinction between God’s essence and energies. People have seriously misunderstood Palamas regarding this.
Just a quick comment on the first part of your response: I wasn’t necessarily arguing from the createdness of hypostases to the createdness of essences; rather, I was just trying to say that they comprise a mutually inseparable ontological whole, and since creatures are created, and logoi are not identical to essences, then essences of creatures must be created. I do need to go further in my study of the essence/energy distinction/relation. Thanks for the stimulating exchange; I must admit I have run out of useful thoughts, so I’ll have to do a bit more work before we have another conversation about this!
I'll have to go dig up some passages from Fr. Nikolaos Loudovikos who has good thoughts on these things. But my preliminary answer is that essences do not exist in and of themselves, but are always enhypostatic, and the difference between a created and uncreated essence is that the hypostases of created essences are created, whereas the hypostases of uncreated essence are not. The logoi are the "principles" of the created essences and are what give them their structure, dynamics, etc., but aren't identical to them in the sense that our existence is ontologically identical to God's will, but rather our existence has its foundation and sustenance from God's will and energy. The point about becoming I will have to address later.