Gregory Palamas, Essence and Energy: Eradicating Falsehood and Establishing Truth
This essay examines Gregory Palamas's distinction between God's essence and his energies. His position has been controversial down to the present day – some scholars supporting his distinction and others severely criticizing it. I demonstrate that the distinction between God's essence...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Electronic Article |
| Language: | English |
| Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
| Journals Online & Print: | Drawer...
|
| Fernleihe: | Fernleihe für die Fachinformationsdienste |
| Published: |
Wiley-Blackwell
2024
|
| In: |
International journal of systematic theology
Year: 2024, Volume: 26, Issue: 2, Pages: 146-175 |
| IxTheo Classification: | KAF Church history 1300-1500; late Middle Ages NBC Doctrine of God |
| Online Access: |
Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) Volltext (lizenzpflichtig) |
| Summary: | This essay examines Gregory Palamas's distinction between God's essence and his energies. His position has been controversial down to the present day – some scholars supporting his distinction and others severely criticizing it. I demonstrate that the distinction between God's essence and his energies is indeed fallacious – scripturally, philosophically, and theologically. I offer, in its place, a scriptural, philosophical, and theological position that not only adequately addresses Gregory's concerns, but also one that is true to who God is as a trinity of persons. My essay is divided into five sections. The first briefly provides the historical circumstances that prompted Gregory to defend the distinction between God's essence and his energies. Second, I present Palamas's arguments on behalf of his distinction between God's essence, the manner in which he exists in himself, and his uncreated energies, the manner in which he acts in relation to what is not God. Third, I critically examine the various interpretations offered by those who support Gregory's distinction, particularly Vladimir Lossky, John Meyendorff, Norman Russell, and A.N. Williams. Fourth, I offer my own critique of Palamas's position. Finally, I propose an alternative understanding of the issues involved, an interpretation that addresses Gregory's concerns. In so doing, I will conceive and articulate a position that is more faithful to biblical revelation, the conciliar magisterial tradition, and one that is more philosophically and theologically coherent. |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 1468-2400 |
| Contains: | Enthalten in: International journal of systematic theology
|
| Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1111/ijst.12658 |