Reason and Theology - Response to Jay Dyer on Future Debates
#21
(01-19-2020, 10:23 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Essence/ Energies doesn't in and of itself prove Orthodoxy but looking at things like Christology and Triadology with that paradigm in the background makes more sense then Absolute Divine Simplicity.  If God is an absolutely simple essence then how is the Incarnation even possible?  How can the Light of Tabor be anything other then a created phantasm?  How can ANY of the theophanies of the OT be anything more then the same created phantasms? There would be no real possibility of God coming to meet us in any way other then through some created medium since ANY division implies composition and destroys simplicity. 

We would say we do know God through His Energies, not through His Essence.  His Essence is always unknowable but His Energies are not.  In a mysterious way we actually can know God through His energies. 

So I guess what I'm not getting here is how that is any different to what I just said? Is there a multiplicity of essences in God if He is not simple in essence? I'm not disagreeing that we cannot conceive of His essence directly, but I don't see how a vague term like "energies" bridges the gap between God and creature?

Also, is stating "a mysterious way" not just the same thing as throwing our hands up and saying "it's a mystery"?

I ask this in all humility, I'm not trying to be difficult.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'And he shall be as a tree that is planted by the waters, that spreadeth out its roots towards moisture: and it shall not fear when the heat cometh.' - Jeremias 17:8

[Image: 180px-SA_160-Jeremia_op_de_puinhopen_van_Jeruzalem.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • XavierSem
Reply
#22
(01-19-2020, 06:20 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Rather than attack his character how about some trads actually systematically address his arguments? I'm convinced it's because they can't. 

When he's honest and tries to make a simple valid point as opposed to jumping all over the place and making circular arguments.  But I'll try and address one of his arguments.  Here's one, because nobody has the patience except for his sycophants to put up with his nonsensical bloviating for 30 minutes to get to the point.

[Image: EN8sjIWUUAA11ix.jpg]


So how does one go from divine simplicity to there being 3 Wills?

A) No Catholic believes or teaches that
B) I rest my case in regards to he's a sophist EO agitator who is not interested in the Truth, but simply being and having others be enamored with the sound of his own voice.


(01-19-2020, 06:20 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Say what you will about his many flaws, occasional lack of charity and his ego issues but they have nothing whatsoever to do with his arguments. 

Oh contraire, character is a pretty important quality in the reputation of one's arguments.  If you are someone who has made the switch back and forth between Protestantism, Catholicism, Agnosticism, EO, back to RC, and back to EO...how am I to take your argument seriously?

In the future, don't be indignant if I laugh in your face if he comes out with "Refutation of Palamas, why I was wrong about EO -- Jay Dyer."


(01-19-2020, 06:20 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: One reason i like him is his journey somewhat mirrors my own, and many of his own critiques of Thomism or Catholicism are things that I figured out years before I had ever heard of Jay Dyer, only he is smarter and more articulate than me so he can explain it better. 

And another reason I don't like Jay Liar Dyer.  Thomism is not Catholicism and vice versa.  This is the single most infuriating thing about anti-Thomists who wish to paint the Church with a broad brush of Thomism.  While St Thomas Aquinas is a very important Doctor of the Church, he's not the only Doctor.  There is so much to Roman Catholicism, than Thomism.  Now has Thomism been big lately, yeah it has but that's because Thomas was the only saint to write such an exhaustive philosophical tomes...something the Church was going to need going into the 19th-Century.


(01-19-2020, 06:20 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: The papacy certainly does need a convincing argument as far as I'm concerned, and in light of all the papally orchestrated destruction of the Western Tradition of the last 100 plus years it's impossible for me to just accept it.  In fact the more I've read, prayed and grown in my acceptance of Orthodoxy the more confident and comfortable I am in my decision and my views on the papacy.

Well simple biblical exegesis can show why there would be a Pope for the Church, just as there was a vicar to the king for the old Israel, there is a vicar to the King in the new Israel.
[-] The following 4 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • Augustinian, Florus, jovan66102, XavierSem
Reply
#23
(01-20-2020, 09:18 AM)austenbosten Wrote: If you are someone who has made the switch back and forth between Protestantism, Catholicism, Agnosticism, EO, back to RC, and back to EO...

EGAD! I thought my journey from protestantism through Hinduism, communism and the EO before I became a Catholic was weird, but at least I haven't flip-flopped and and gone back to something I had been convinced was wrong!
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
  “Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog also.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'


Reply
#24
>If God is an absolutely simple essence then how is the Incarnation even possible?

I think you are mixing things. The divine essence is simple, it has no parts. Then Christ, apart from partaking in that essence, that nature, also has human nature.

Now there is the term "energies", which no orthodox has been able to explain to me so far. Is that a term for actions? For power? For the things God moves? For the things God creates? Am I an energy of God? Is the Shroud of Turin an energy of God? Aquinas doesn't even talk about God's "energies", so it really feels like it is made up nonsense to cause conflict by some people who couldn't care less about what Aquinas has said.

You say that God's essence is unknownable. It is only so in its entirety, but we can perfectly understand that God is eternal and uncreated, which is one of the things that characterizes the divine essence. There goes your argument. Some of these things can be known by reason. Others by revelation.

God is simple becase God has no parts. God, the divine essence, is not a composite. I recommend you go and see what Aquinas actually writes, instead of parroting what some blog says about how God being simple means that he is some kind of floating, completely static, homogeneous ball of divinity that doesn't interact with anything
Reply
#25
(01-21-2020, 10:27 AM)Daniel-AH Wrote: Aquinas doesn't even talk about God's "energies", so it really feels like it is made up nonsense to cause conflict by some people who couldn't care less about what Aquinas has said.

Or maybe energies is a term from a different tradition that you are unfamiliar with?
"If your heart comes to feel a natural hatred for sin, it has defeated the causes of sin and freed itself from them. Keep hell’s torments in mind; but know that your Helper is at hand. Do nothing that will grieve Him, but say to Him with tears: ‘Be merciful and deliver me, O Lord, for without Thy help I cannot escape from the hands of my enemies.’ Be attentive to your heart, and He will guard you from all evil."

- St. Isaias the Solitary

"Constant action overcomes cold; being still overcomes heat. Purity
and stillness give the correct law to all under heaven."

- Tao Te Ching 45
[-] The following 1 user Likes Florus's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#26
(01-21-2020, 10:27 AM)Daniel-AH Wrote: Now there is the term "energies", which no orthodox has been able to explain to me so far. Is that a term for actions? For power? For the things God moves? For the things God creates? Am I an energy of God? Is the Shroud of Turin an energy of God? Aquinas doesn't even talk about God's "energies", so it really feels like it is made up nonsense to cause conflict by some people who couldn't care less about what Aquinas has said.

In the past couple of days I've meditated on this a bit and have realized, but may be wrong, after re-reading some of Dionysius' 'The Divine Names' that what the Orthodox seem to mean by "energies" is any such quality which we perceive from God; so the knowledge that God is simple, one, infinite, pure being, etc. would all be "energies" because we cannot look upon or comprehend the essence in itself, therefore all knowledge of God known by man are His "energies." It makes sense when you realize the perspective that God is not simply being as being, but that being is a quality of God rather than an identification of what He is. God stands above all things, including being, so therefore we cannot actually know God in His pure nature, but we can know God by these qualities derived from glimpses into His essence, therefore, energies.

I could be totally wrong, but this is what it seems that they are trying to get at. And in light of this, I again fail to see how Divine Simplicity would in any way contradict such a view, since both state that God is above all conceptions of creatures.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'And he shall be as a tree that is planted by the waters, that spreadeth out its roots towards moisture: and it shall not fear when the heat cometh.' - Jeremias 17:8

[Image: 180px-SA_160-Jeremia_op_de_puinhopen_van_Jeruzalem.jpg]
Reply
#27
(01-21-2020, 12:18 PM)Augustinian Wrote: ...

The problem there is that we still don't know what energies are, whether something with actual substance, or actions, or perceptions, or traits, or the implications of something.

I once asked an orthodox to directly quote some text of Aquinas he disagrees with, and he quoted an article where Aquinas states that in God there is no distinction between existence and essence. And that is something evident, since God's existence is not a consequence of something else, or accidental, but God exists by essence, by himself.

Quote:Or maybe energies is a term from a different tradition that you are unfamiliar with?

It doesn't even seem that the people who adhere to that different tradition know what "energies" even means or can define it. They seem to use it with some vague meaning just to pretend they can attack Aquinas and have even a tenth of his knowledge of theology.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Daniel-AH's post:
  • Augustinian
Reply
#28
(01-21-2020, 01:00 PM)Daniel-AH Wrote:
(01-21-2020, 12:18 PM)Augustinian Wrote: ...

The problem there is that we still don't know what energies are, whether something with actual substance, or actions, or perceptions, or traits, or the implications of something.

And I believe that's the issue here. A lack of definition of terms. Just saying "because energies" helps no one when they want to understand just what they're talking about.

I also recall St. John Damascene being cited as arguing for essence/energies, and while that may be true, in his book "On Heresies" in chapter 14 he speaks of the Godhead;
Quote:"Then there is the fact that the divine irradiation and operation is one, simple, and undivided; and that, while it is apparently diversely manifested in divisible things, dispensing to all of them the components of their proper nature, it remains simple. Indivisibly, it is multiplied in divisible things, and, gathering them together, it reverts them to its own simplicity.

So while St. John Damascene may argue to some proto-argument of essence/energies, it is also clear that he believed God to be simple.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'And he shall be as a tree that is planted by the waters, that spreadeth out its roots towards moisture: and it shall not fear when the heat cometh.' - Jeremias 17:8

[Image: 180px-SA_160-Jeremia_op_de_puinhopen_van_Jeruzalem.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • XavierSem
Reply
#29
(01-20-2020, 09:18 AM)austenbosten Wrote:
(01-19-2020, 06:20 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Rather than attack his character how about some trads actually systematically address his arguments? I'm convinced it's because they can't. 

When he's honest and tries to make a simple valid point as opposed to jumping all over the place and making circular arguments.  But I'll try and address one of his arguments.  Here's one, because nobody has the patience except for his sycophants to put up with his nonsensical bloviating for 30 minutes to get to the point.

[Image: EN8sjIWUUAA11ix.jpg]


So how does one go from divine simplicity to there being 3 Wills?

A) No Catholic believes or teaches that
B) I rest my case in regards to he's a sophist EO agitator who is not interested in the Truth, but simply being and having others be enamored with the sound of his own voice.


(01-19-2020, 06:20 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Say what you will about his many flaws, occasional lack of charity and his ego issues but they have nothing whatsoever to do with his arguments. 

Oh contraire, character is a pretty important quality in the reputation of one's arguments.  If you are someone who has made the switch back and forth between Protestantism, Catholicism, Agnosticism, EO, back to RC, and back to EO...how am I to take your argument seriously?

In the future, don't be indignant if I laugh in your face if he comes out with "Refutation of Palamas, why I was wrong about EO -- Jay Dyer."


(01-19-2020, 06:20 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: One reason i like him is his journey somewhat mirrors my own, and many of his own critiques of Thomism or Catholicism are things that I figured out years before I had ever heard of Jay Dyer, only he is smarter and more articulate than me so he can explain it better. 

And another reason I don't like Jay Liar Dyer.  Thomism is not Catholicism and vice versa.  This is the single most infuriating thing about anti-Thomists who wish to paint the Church with a broad brush of Thomism.  While St Thomas Aquinas is a very important Doctor of the Church, he's not the only Doctor.  There is so much to Roman Catholicism, than Thomism.  Now has Thomism been big lately, yeah it has but that's because Thomas was the only saint to write such an exhaustive philosophical tomes...something the Church was going to need going into the 19th-Century.


(01-19-2020, 06:20 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: The papacy certainly does need a convincing argument as far as I'm concerned, and in light of all the papally orchestrated destruction of the Western Tradition of the last 100 plus years it's impossible for me to just accept it.  In fact the more I've read, prayed and grown in my acceptance of Orthodoxy the more confident and comfortable I am in my decision and my views on the papacy.

Well simple biblical exegesis can show why there would be a Pope for the Church, just as there was a vicar to the king for the old Israel, there is a vicar to the King in the new Israel.

(01-21-2020, 01:27 PM)Augustinian Wrote:
(01-21-2020, 01:00 PM)Daniel-AH Wrote:
(01-21-2020, 12:18 PM)Augustinian Wrote: ...

The problem there is that we still don't know what energies are, whether something with actual substance, or actions, or perceptions, or traits, or the implications of something.

And I believe that's the issue here. A lack of definition of terms. Just saying "because energies" helps no one when they want to understand just what they're talking about.

I also recall St. John Damascene being cited as arguing for essence/energies, and while that may be true, in his book "On Heresies" in chapter 14 he speaks of the Godhead;
Quote:"Then there is the fact that the divine irradiation and operation is one, simple, and undivided; and that, while it is apparently diversely manifested in divisible things, dispensing to all of them the components of their proper nature, it remains simple. Indivisibly, it is multiplied in divisible things, and, gathering them together, it reverts them to its own simplicity.

So while St. John Damascene may argue to some proto-argument of essence/energies, it is also clear that he believed God to be simple.
Of course he believed God to be simple, but not necessarily in the way He is seen to be simple by Roman Catholics. We would have to assume that he means the same thing RC dogma means about simplicity. I don't think he did considering he teaches Essence/ Energies which are in no way compatible with ABS. Either grace is created or it's uncreated. It can't be both.  

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I think Jay's arguments against ABS are pretty clear and locktight regardless of what people may say about his often pompous and mean spirited personal jibes.
Walk before God in simplicity, and not in subtleties of the mind. Simplicity brings faith; but subtle and intricate speculations bring conceit; and conceit brings withdrawal from God. -Saint Isaac of Syria, Directions on Spiritual Training


"It is impossible in human terms to exaggerate the importance of being in a church or chapel before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. I very seldom repeat what I say. Let me repeat this sentence. It is impossible in human language to exaggerate the importance of being in a chapel or church before the Blessed Sacrament as often and for as long as our duties and state of life allow. That sentence is the talisman of the highest sanctity. "Father John Hardon
Reply
#30
(01-21-2020, 05:48 PM)formerbuddhist Wrote: Either grace is created or it's uncreated. It can't be both.  

How can't it be both? Created grace would be that grace which is bestowed on a creature at a set point in time, whereas untreated grace would be an outpouring from no point in ttime, i.e. eternity. So I don't see how it we cannot have both?

Also, what does that have to do with our questions about "energies?" Is the mode of grace what Easterns are talking about?

I don't want to agree to disagree, I want to understand this.
"The Heart of Jesus is closer to you when you suffer, than when you are full of joy." - St. Margaret Mary Alacoque

'And he shall be as a tree that is planted by the waters, that spreadeth out its roots towards moisture: and it shall not fear when the heat cometh.' - Jeremias 17:8

[Image: 180px-SA_160-Jeremia_op_de_puinhopen_van_Jeruzalem.jpg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Augustinian's post:
  • XavierSem
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)