Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Aaron's avatar

One cannot maintain both creation ex nihilo and God’s transcendence. These are self-refuting claims. One must maintain that creation ex nihilo is actually creation ex deo. Furthermore, creation ex deo as simply “participation in God’s energies” in some “inferior mode” is an attempt at asserting a false ontological distinction between God’s essence and energies, which is a metaphysical impossibility and a common misunderstanding of Gregory’s essence/energies distinction.

Ultimately, it must be seen that creation is none other than the energetic manifestation of God - the One appearing as the Many. This, however, is far from becoming the mainstream understanding of a Christianity that seeks to maintain its false, dualistic beliefs regarding God, man, and the cosmos.

Expand full comment
Nicholas Smith's avatar

Thank you Fr. For I have actually have been meditating on this very issue for a while, especially in some posts here where I was arguing, or trying to, a very similar point. There is in Aquinas an attempt to account properly for creation but his reliance on Aristotle renders him speaking of what is essentially an eternal substrate (prime matter) without offering an explanation for its existence. Ultimately, I wonder if in part this isn’t partly just a problem inherent to a metaphysics that doesn’t start from an apophatic stance which acknowledges that God is, in himself, beyond being. This allows Maximus to call Being itself an eternal work of God and separate eternal works from temporal one’s—even if they are read as an act in two modes as Jordan Daniel Wood does—I wonder if without this framing of things, essentially one which acknowledges the essence energies distinction, if we don’t end up with the impossibility of true deification and Theosis. The more we become God the more we seem to lose our self or essence and end in pantheism.

Expand full comment
4 more comments...

No posts