Follow on Facebook
Recent Comments
Geoffrey on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Robert Fortuin on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… John H on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Robert J on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Robert Fortuin on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Iainlovejoy on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Counter-Rebel on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Iainlovejoy on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Robert Fortuin on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… Counter-Rebel on Once Loved Always Loved: Chapt… -
Recent Posts
Categories
- Ainulindale
- Alexander Earl
- Apostle Paul
- Aquinas
- Athanasius
- Augustine
- Basil of Caesarea
- Bible
- Book Reviews
- Brian Moore
- Citations
- Cyril of Alexandria
- Dante
- David B. Hart
- Dionysius the Areopagite
- Dumitru Staniloae
- Eric Reitan
- George MacDonald
- Grace, Justification & Theosis
- Gregory Nazianzen
- Gregory of Nyssa
- Henri de Lubac
- Herbert McCabe & Friends
- Holy Trinity
- Hugh McCann
- Humor
- Icons
- Inklings & Company
- Interesting Theologians
- Irenaeus
- Isaac the Syrian
- Islam
- John Behr
- John Stamps
- Jordan Wood
- Julian of Norwich
- Lamentation
- Liturgy & Sermons
- Mark Chenoweth
- Maximus the Confessor
- Mythopoeia
- Nicholas Wolfterstorff
- Patristic and Byzantine theology
- Paul Griffiths
- Personal
- Philosophical Theology
- Poetry & Fiction
- Preaching
- Robert Farrar Capon
- Robert Fortuin
- Robert Jenson
- Roberto De La Noval
- Sacraments
- Sergius Bulgakov
- Spirituality
- T. F. Torrance
- T. S. Eliot
- Theology
- Theotokos
- Thomas Allin
- Thomas Talbott
- Tom Belt
- Uncategorized
- Universalism and Eschatology
- Vincent of Lérins
- Zizioulas & Yannaras
Archives
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
David B. Hart on the Analogy of Being
This entry was posted in David B. Hart. Bookmark the permalink.
I cannot think of a more pivotal concept to Christian theology than Analogia Entis.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hart’s essay may be downloaded here.
LikeLike
Note how Hart ties together the ontological difference and analogy of being, along with divine simplicity and Christology. At risk of inviting controversy, anyone detect any family resemblance between Alexandrian subordinationist Logos theologies and Palamite teaching on the energies? I mean specifically the radical apophaticism whereby an unbridgeable caesura is introduced between the essentially unknowable Father and Christic expression?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes, absolutely Brian.
The complete unknowability, radical apophaticism, of the divine essence as supposed by Palamite theology amounts to an equivocity of being. Palamite apophaticism overcomes the absolute otherness of God (read: ‘God’s essence’) by the construal of a tertium quid which exceeds the difference between God and creation – say hello to the divine energies and their real, ad-intra distinction from the divine essence. Absolute apophaticism – negation – is the first and final metaphysical operating principle around which everything else revolves and must conform. God’s unknowable essence functions as the abstract category to which Hart points (pg 3) which is in its absolutely unknowability is ‘capacious enough to contain both him and his creatures under its canopy.’ But, as Hart notes, ‘true transcendence must be beyond all negation’. Apophaticism elevated to an absolute constitutes a theo-logizing along univocal/equivocal predication, opposed to true transcendence. Analogia Entis functions as a check on radical apophaticism and eliminates the need for tertium quid constructions, as Hart puts it, ‘the being of the creature must indeed be analogous to God’s pure act of being; otherwise all talk of God would be confined within an arid dialectical theology of the “Wholly Other.”’ The apophatic ‘Wholly Other’ is the elephant in the room of Palamite theology.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Have you guys read St. Gregory Palamas? I’m not expert, but to me it’s pretty clear that he avoids radical apophaticism (though I cannot speak for his modern-day followers) and thinks apophatic theology is used to make the point that we speak of God only analogically. Here is chapter 123 of the 150 Chapters:
“Apophatic theology does not contradict nor does it deny cataphatic theology; rather, with respect to cataphatic statements about God, it shows that they are true and are made in an orthodox manner, and that God does not possess these things as we do. For example, God possesses knowledge of beings and we too possess this in some cases, but our knowledge refers to things in the present and in the past, whereas God’s does not, for he knows these no less even prior to their coming to be. Thus, the man who says that God does not know beings as such does not contradict one who says that God does know beings and knows them as such. There is a cataphatic theology which has the force of apophatic theology; as when someone says all knowledge is applied to some object, namely, the thing known, but God’s knowledge is not applied to any object, for in that very regard he says that God does not know beings as such and he does not possess knowledge of beings, that is, as we do. In this way God is referred to as non-being in a transcendent sense. But one who says this for the purpose of showing that those who say God exists are not speaking correctly is clearly not using apophatic theology in a transcendent sense but rather in the sense of deficiency to the effect that God does not exist at all. This is the acme of impiety, suffered alas by those who attempt through apophatic theology to deny that God possess both an uncreated substance and energy [i.e., Barlaam and his supporters].”
LikeLike
Georgios,
There are a couple of things to note briefly. Reference to ‘Palamite theology’ is primarily to denote modern theologies which take the Essence-Energy-Distinction to be the interpretive key to all of Orthodox theology and as the superior distinctive which sets Orthodoxy apart from other Christian traditions. Hallmarks of such a take on EED are an anachronistic projection onto primitive Christian writings (EED is found everywhere) and an absolutizing apophaticism by means of construal of a real distinction within the Godhead. Secondly, in reference to radical apophaticism – this occurs when it is asserted that God’s essence is completely unknowable – absolutely nothing can be said about God’s essence in contradistinction to God’s energies. This is a self-contradiction and I suggest a result of a faulty epistemology. Apophatic theology does not primarily function as limitation on cataphatic propositions, but rather it signifies mode of knowledge as a function of our creaturely nature; that is to say that because God transcends both negation and affirmation, the mode of our theo-logizing is participation. This mode (of our knowledge of God) is our participation in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). In this context apophaticism is tied to ontology, understood to point to knowledge by measure of participation and as a gift of grace and not ours by nature. Most importantly, in our immediate context, apophatic theology then is not construed to denote a real distinction within God (as do proponents of EED).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Robert, your last two comments have been helpful in clarifying how Hart’s construal of divine transcendence renders the Palamite essence/energies distinction moot. At least from Hart’s point-of-view (if I understand him rightly, which I probably am not), the Palamite distinction is unnecessary to speak of the ineffable transcendence of God and the wondrous gift of himself in theosis and creates all sorts of metaphysical problems. Does that sound right?
Does Hart speak of theosis directly in any of his writings?
LikeLike
That is right. A real distinction introduces a host of insurmountable problems.
I am not aware Hart has written anything directly on theosis/deification. It is often touched upon indirectly when he writes about teleology, God as the ultimate Good in who all things find their end, from ‘God, Creation, and Evil’, ‘as the transcendent Good beyond all beings, he is the transcendental end of any action of any rational nature; and then, obviously, the end toward which God acts must be his own goodness.’ The Palamite would agree with this, but with an important difference – that there always remains something more essential, more real, more divine than what is known. The essence/energy distinction signifies something essentially other beyond what is known in the energies. What this other may be, this is unknown. But what is known is that it must be distinct from, other than, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit revealed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That remains my concern, Robert. Is there another, different “God” behind the back of Jesus? I’m sure that Lossky and others would say no, but the worry persists and will continue to persist (for me) as long as modern Palamites continue to insist that the essence/energies distinction is *real*, as opposed to nominal or formal.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Balthasar voiced the same concern about Palamite theology, btw.
LikeLike
Do you remember where, Brian?
LikeLike
Well, I am getting old. I can’t seem to recollect. I need access to my library, Father. I’m sure I can find it, though, so I’ll let you know in due time.
LikeLike
I believe Theo-logic book 3 ‘Spirit of the Truth’ touches on the topic in regards to the trinitarian mode of subsistence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sounds plausible. I know there is a section where Balthasar directly touches on the issue with regards to Christology as well.
LikeLike
What is meant here by “real” distinction. There can be a real distinction between essence and energy without being a sharp separation of essence and energy. It is pretty clear in St. Gregory Palamas that there is no sharp separation. In fact he makes that statement clearly, if his translators are to be trusted. This is not to argue any point but rather something that may help clarify.
LikeLike
The real distinction is between essence and existence. Creatures participate in existence; they do not intrinsically possess existence. God is unique in that essence and existence coincide. Existential Thomism stresses that this means that existence is not a bare concept of “being there” or being real as opposed to imaginary or hypothetical. Rather, existence is the plenitude of being, a dynamic richness that exceeds the entire “positive” capacities that we encounter in the universe.
LikeLike
The terminology can actually be tricky here. Some medievals (e.g., Giles of Rome) talked about real distinctions as holding between things. Even among Thomists the answer is not always clear (see, for example, the debates between Joseph Owens and John Wippel about the real distinction in De Ente).
The real distinction is clearest when contrasted with conceptual distinctions. For instance, I might think of my dog as an animal or as a collie. Both “animal” and “collie” refer to one particular being as a whole, but they differ in their degree of abstraction. Since it is my mind that does the abstracting, the distinction between “animal” and “collie” arises from my thought, not the existent.
A real distinction is one that holds in the thing itself. Someone like Joseph Owens would want to maintain that a real distinction requires either a difference of nature (white and black are different in nature, for instance) or a potency/act distinction. Others, like John Wippel, would set the bar lower, simply saying that a real distinction is something that holds in a thing and is not produced by our thought. Thus, a power (such as reasoning) is really different than possessing a human nature, the one being an accident, the other a substantial form.
If Palamas held that the distinction between God’s essence and energies holds in God himself, then he denies the real distinction, no matter how closely essence and energies may be related.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A real distinction, in those terms then, would be a separation or difference? This is what we run into also in discussions of the Trinity often. The impact of “real” and “conceptual” in God not always being clear with respect to Person and Nature. Yes?
LikeLike
Elijah:
I would say that holding the distinctions between the persons of the Trinity is merely conceptual is simply modalism. The moderate notion of the real distinction of the sort Thomists advance doesn’t necessitate separation, only non-identity.
LikeLike
Right: the Ungenerate, Begotten, Processed …yes?…are real distinctions of real Persons.
LikeLike
Father,
Robert is correct that the most explicit discussion is a brief discursus in Theo-Logic Vol. 3, pp. 128 – 130. I regret that I cannot find the Christological comment I recollect, but the upshot was that one condemned Christ to a kind of “insincerity” if his revelation of the Father was somehow relativized so that the Father’s inner core remained permanently opaque. This is consonant with what Balthasar says here: “Trinity and the “energies” seem so closely linked that one is reminded of Eckhart: Trinity as the face of God turned toward the world, behind which the unknowable abyss of God’s unity remains hidden.”
What is missing is any notion that the perduring Mystery is itself a function of a totally unreserved revelation. Unlike modern mystery that disappears when one “solves for X,” (Tom in the ballroom with the candlestick,) wonder increases the more you know. Gregory of Nyssa’s infinite discovery does not rely on incompleteness, on ever vanishing ignorance, but precisely on a genuine resting in knowledge of God. (I pull the covers a little to one side, there, perhaps. Gregory may not see a coincidence of resting and journey, but that is the truth of it.) This all comes back to deep deficiencies in modern ontology, metaphysics, epistemology. Theologies that carry over these deficiencies are bound to get God, revelation, world, love, personhood wrong.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The concern that Eastern Orthodox have with lifting absolute apophaticism from God’s essence is that He is turned into a scrutable subject. The Christian tradition, east and west, throughout the ages is replete with explicit warnings against dead-end, and rightly so. A reserve, how it is that God remains God, has to be upheld. The problematic centers around how to conceive of this reserve. Some say this is done by means of marking off a ‘forbidden’ distinction, but this seems to me to based on a very deficient, univocal epistemology and ontology. If find knowledge as participation, the ever partial participation into the divine Triune life of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, a more helpful (and more scriptural) approach. Participation, by definition, is by degree and measure, and into something prior to itself. And here is the distinguishing mark between the Uncreate and created being – only God self-exists without participation whatsoever. The hidden reserve is not a cordoned-off ‘area’, but in the infinite reality of self-existent existence of He whom we participate in. The reserve is that He is at once truly revealed whilst always ever remaining hidden. He is inscrutable in energy as in essence, without distinction. Infinity signifies the always ever inexhaustible truth and reality of the Triune life.
LikeLike
Robert, I have to break form here just to tell you that is one of the most lovely, and I believe to be true, descriptions of the unknowability of the divine: a hidden reserve. Very nice indeed….M.
LikeLiked by 1 person
M,
The point being that the ‘hidden reserve’ of God I propose is best construed analogically. If we conceive of divine apophaticism univocally (God holding existence/being identically as creatures do) or else equivocally (God holding existence/being completely unlike creatures do), this ‘reserve’ will take on radically different meanings. Univocal construals will understand apophaticism as distinct reality within God in contradistinction to what can be known (the essence/energies distinction). Along equivocal lines apophaticism shrouds all of divinity in absolute mystery, resulting in a nihilistic mysticism. Analogical apophaticism (which I suggest adheres to scripture and tradition most faithfully) denotes the ever remaining, radical, and infinite hiddenness within God’s revelation of Himself. There is then no distinction between essence and energy, no ‘cordoned-off section of divine reality, no unknown entity behind the revealed God. God is truly revealed but remains truly hidden – in His works/energies and in His existence/essence.
LikeLike
Yes, I follow. And the truth of it rings clear, I think. In very prosaic terms I am often tempted to say to my Orthodox peers that we know God’s essence in his energies. And that really is my intent: We know a God in all the ways that he is revealed to us and he is whole and complete, hidden, as you say reserved, and known.
LikeLiked by 1 person